I understand that some may be confused after reading recent media reports on health care reform. I want to set the record straight and there is no better way of doing that than by communicating directly with you.
In short, I voted for an imperfect House Bill on Health Care Reform to keep it alive so that we can improve it in the US Senate and in Conference Committee. Martha Coakley has said she would have voted to kill the House Bill, which would have killed our best chance for Health Care Reform in a generation.
On Saturday night, the House of Representatives passed its Health Care Reform bill. In many ways this is the beginning of the process, not even close to the end.
This bill was by no means perfect. One controversial provision, the Stupak Amendment, has caused widespread concern. If passed into law, this amendment could deny coverage for abortions to poor women. Consistent with my lifetime 100% rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), I worked against this amendment and voted against it, as did all pro-choice Members. We lost.
After that loss, those of us who take health care reform seriously were faced with a tough decision on final passage – do we vote no and kill the health care reform effort for the next ten years or do we vote yes and move the fight to the Senate.
Every leading pro-choice voice in the House had the courage to vote to keep the hope of health care reform alive. That includes Diana DeGette, Louise Slaughter, Nita Lowey, Rosa DeLauro, Nancy Pelosi, Patrick Kennedy, and all 8 pro-choice Massachusetts Members, including me. President Obama supported our efforts.
If just two more Democrats had voted no – the vote that Martha Coakley has said she would have cast- the bill would have been dead and we lose the opportunity to move health care reform forward.
I will do all I can, along with all my pro-choice colleagues in the House and Senate, to kill the Stupak Amendment as the process moves forward. I will continue working on other issues as well. I won’t vote for a final bill that includes language that will force poor women back into the alleys of America to receive health care coverage.
I made the same commitment when the Public Option was at stake – I would not support a bill without one … and I still won’t. I am sure you know that we won that in the House.
I believe that we CAN win BOTH the Public Option and reasonable pro-choice language before this bill goes to the President’s desk. If this happens, we can also pass real Health Care Reform for America.
We have never been closer in the past 60 years to achieving universal health care.
I am NOT willing to kill this hope before we have a chance to succeed and that is why I voted to move the bill forward!
The process is just beginning. Health Care Reform is important. The legislative process is serious and we cannot allow procedural maneuvers to kill this effort. If I stood alone in this opinion, I would accept the criticism from my opponents and their supporters. But when I stand with virtually every Member who is pro-choice AND pro-health care reform, I am compelled to set the record straight.
If you consider yourself both pro-choice and pro-Health Care Reform – would you have stood alone in the House and voted to kill all hope for Health Care Reform … or … would you have stood with everyone else who agrees with your positions and vote to move the bill forward to fight another day?
Thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts with you directly about issues I care so deeply about. I wish you all of the best on this Veterans Day and hope you have the opportunity to take a moment to honor all of our men and women who have served our country.
In response to folks who think there was another path to pass HR 3962 in the house without giving the Stupak Amendment a vote, can you offer some information on that topic?
<
p>Also, what information did the Speaker and pro-choice members of the caucus have about likelihood and path to removing the Stupak language from the Senate bill?
I appreciate it as I’m sure many here do.
but I have found so many links to articles that quote members who were going to vote against the bill if Stupak was removed. Here is one. The “40 member” number is thrown around a lot, meaning 40 members of the Senate against the bill if not the for the amendment.
<
p>The bill is alive and we have the President, the Vice President, and many members on our side to strip the bill of the Stupak language and pass a Health Care bill we all can be proud of.
<
p>Martha votes to kill the bill, Mike Capuano votes to move the bill where we have a chance to add 36 million American’s to the rolls of quality health care and who’s campaign failed?
(double click to open larger in new window)
As I wrote over here your vote continued the debate that is so desperately needed.
<
p>Martha’s vote would have killed our chance at health care reform for a decade IMO.
<
p>I support your position because it is the realistic position needed to achieve universal health care. It is as simple as that.
<
p>
I appreciate that you took the time to stop by and clear this up!
<
p>I wholeheartedly agree with your decision. We can’t afford to let Health Care Reform die at such an early stage-too many American’s without access to adequate health care are depending on its passage. I’m also glad to hear you’re committed to fighting to remove the Stupak Amendment before the bill is finalized. Seeing Congress pass comprehensive HCR legislation is my first priority, but if that can be done without limiting government subsidized coverage for reproductive health, all the better.
<
p>I’ve been very impressed with your record in Congress so far, and am equally supportive of your vote to move HCR forward. You have my vote in December!
<
p>Thank you for the pragmatic and productive approach. To spike everything that has been done so far is irresponsible and shortsighted.
<
p>While I don’t personally like an incremental approach or having the compromise on issues I hold dear, the big picture here is of tantamount importance. Pragmatism over purity any day. Well done.
re:
<
p>
<
p>If you had made that clear from the get-go, rather than refusing to answer inquiries for about 24 hours from BMG, the Globe, and probably many others about your position on a final bill, I think it’s safe to say that this dust-up wouldn’t have gotten nearly as dusty as it did.
<
p>Why the delay?
From his press conference of March 24, 2009, answering Ed Henry regarding AIG:
<
p>It seems to me that Mike Capuano’s decision to wait awhile was a whole lot smarter than his earlier “Manna” comment.
Statement on the subject this week:
<
p>
<
p>That’s why they pay him the big bucks, I guess.
but I don’t know. That’s why I asked.
I do trust that you will make the “best” decisions. Thank you so much for supporting the “public option”. I would want you to vote “no” on a final health care bill that did not contain a robust public option. I believe that you will do your best to protect women’s right as the final version of the health care bill is written.
<
p>Thank you, and I hope so much that you win. : )
<
p>
It is most helpful, and appreciated.
<
p>Is it fair to say, however, that when you write “I won’t vote for a final bill that includes language that will force poor women back into the alleys of America to receive health care coverage” you mean that you also, to this extent (to use the phrasing of your press release yesterday “Coakley Wrong on Health Care …”), “oppose bringing health care to 36 million more Americans, don’t want to prevent insurance companies from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions, and don’t support the bill that created a strong public option.”
<
p>Just asking.
is not relevant until a final bill is being passed around for a vote. Until that day, your question is irrelevant and fox newsish.
<
p>We elect Senators to be ambassadors on our behalf, on our state’s behalf and for the country as a whole. But all of a sudden the time for negotiation and horse trading is over and you wants answers for hypothetical questions. Why? Let’s let our President, our Congress and the good Democratic senators on our side do their job and see what they come up with.
<
p>Remember, Martha said she would have voted No on the HOUSE bill and Capuano DID vote yes on the house bill. This should tell you most of what you need to know.
It’s not even my question, but the statement Representative Capuano’s campaign imputed, in their press release, to the Attorney General.
<
p>If you have a complaint about relevancy and Fox Newsishness (which I agree have some merit) you should address them to the Capuano campaign, not to me, with due respect.
One question: As I’ve followed this debate, one thing I keep telling myself is that an imperfect bill can be fixed next year (or at least 2013). Is that true, and if not, why not?
I was going to turn this comment into a separate post:
<
p>http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…
<
p>… but you just saved me the trouble 🙂
<
p>How do you foresee this turning out, Congressman? Will the pro-Stupak forces give in? Is a compromise possible?
…that would require not only defeating the Stupak Amendment but somehow overturning the Hyde Amendment, which has prohibited federal funding for abortion since 1976. Are you really asking if he thinks this current Senate will be able to insert the repeal of this three-decade-old policy in with the rest of the groundbreaking HCR bill? Or is your question really “Is it likely that health care reform will pass the Senate without language that takes away coverage that women have right now?” Those are really different questions.
This bill also contains a provision that will harm standalone dental benefits providers, by only allowing medical insurers to offer children’s dental coverage on the Exchange.
<
p>The 4th largest dental benefits provider in the country is based in Massachusetts and provides dental benefits to many small companies that will eventually migrate to the Exchange to buy policies.
<
p>Why would a provision like this, that will cost us jobs here in Massachusetts, have been put in this bill? It is a give-away to large medical insurers. 40-50 million people currently get their dental benefits from standalone providers. Many will likely have their coverage disrupted and need to change it if their employer purchases Insurance through the Exchange in the future.
<
p>My understanding is that the Senate bill allows standalone dental providers to compete on the Exchange. Will you support the Senate’s language on dental instead, and remove the anti-competitive poison pill for standalone dental providers?
Why are you asserting that it was THIS 1018 page bill, with THESE provisions or no bill at all?
<
p>Why was there not a reasoned debate, at a reasonable hour?
<
p>How long before being the vote were you given the bill to read [it is after all 1018 pages].
<
p>Do you normally READ legislation before voting in favor or against that legislation?
<
p>What is your opinion of the extreme limitation on OB/GYN and dental coverage in this legislation?
<
p>What other options were filed or under discussion, or were you told “vote for this or else?” and required to play to “go along to get along game” on Capitol Hill just like it is played on Beacon Hill?
<
p>That all being said, thank you for setting up your account on November 11, 2009.
Link
<
p>Oh wait, you’re a Democrat, directing questions to a member of our delegation who has served progressive causes honorably for 11 years? Sorry, I forgot.
<
p>Or maybe you did.
<
p>
And just why is it Verboten to question?
<
p>Gee.
<
p>Maybe there is a reason that Massachusetts has the fewest contested races of any state.
<
p>Once someone is elected they become sacred sacred and anyone who dares to ask questions gets an Ad Hominem attack – or worse.
<
p>Jim – my ability to read and analyze is as good as Mike Capuano’s, yours, or anyone else’s.
<
p>Just because someone holds office does not render asking questions and disagreements about policy some form of punishable disloyalty. THAT attitude [no questions or disagreements allowed] would be the death knell for democracy.
Asking questions is certainly not Verboten. But I think every candidate deserves respectful questions. It’s not a question of “punishable disloyalty,” it’s a question of politeness. Mike Capuano deserves better than what you offered above, and YOU KNOW IT.
<
p>Disclosure: I remain uncommitted, but I am leaning toward Capuano.
<
p>
I didn’t delete your comment because AmberPaw defends herself very well, but you should be able to make whatever argument you want to make without descending to personal invective.
<
p>The discussions here should not be personal, but substantive. Otherwise, they will quickly devolve into trivia and the whole experience will become very unpleasant.
As you write below 🙂
Even the diary premise is an exercise in unpleasantness. I should have known better than to participate, let alone let JohnD and Edgar get under my skin.
<
p>My takeaway is to stop engaging them, entirely. Life is too short to get riled up over downratings and personal attacks.
<
p>I’ll apologize even if Jim and Amber won’t. 😉
<
p>- Huh (aka the “pathetic little creature”)
I apologize.
<
p>For the record, I didn’t think of it as personal invective. It was a deliberate exaggeration to make a point.
You are not the only one who has read this bill. In fact there are many strong consumer advocates who have been reading developing versions of this bill and proposing amendments to this Congressman and hundreds of other Congresspersons for months.
THAT is what this inquiring mind now wants to know.
<
p>The “go along to get along” log rolling/horse trading “vote how I am told to vote” attitude has been very destructive on Beacon Hill, as you if anyone well know.
<
p>I hope I am wrong but that is how this whole Bill is coming to look to me – basically not read in full before the vote, and not provided enough in advance for reasonable analysis.
<
p>I know I am only one pair of eyes and one of many inquiring minds – but as some of the comments show, my daring to even ask these questions is leading to attacks on me.
in part to put together and pay a staff of experts — like our own John McDonough to read every version as it is developed and brief their boss so they can respond to unpaid citizens like you.
<
p>Non profit and for profit corporations pay experts to read every version and brief their grassroots network activists about the versions of the bill, and on and on.
<
p>There is no virtue at all in being un paid and unexpert in reading this stuff.
<
p>I would yield to you on family law for instance.
<
p>More deep breaths.
And probably the “search and skim” I did before will have to hold me for a while.
<
p>But what everyone WAS missing in all the noise is that Health Insurance is NOT health care, not dollar for dollar, not at all.
How about prefacing your questions with something like a “hi” or “nice to see you” or a civil “thank you for your years of public service” before hammering away? And your last line is just gratuitously nasty. Does Capuano really deserve such shabby treatment?
She seems a little unlike her normal self.
Unless someone is posting under her sign-on, I assume the comments are hers and that she intended to write them. That said, everybody has bad days now and again, true enough, but we’re all still responsible for what we write.
she just seems a little manic, which I;ve never seen before from her, and I thought Judy was doing a nice job trying to help her relax a bit. No offense intended lightiris, Amber. Peace.
about them working on this all day on Saturday and voting on it the same day. I thought it was great that they did it this way because people who work during the week were able to tune in and watch it while it was happening. I wish they would televise everything.
I fail to see how this new comment clarifies much. First, if this whole shakeup was about how Coakley was going to vote in the House, I don’t see how it is relevant. Coakley is running for Senate, not the House. So the important difference is how you and Coakley would vote in the Senate. And it appears that you both have the same position here.
<
p>But wait! It’s not entirely clear. On the one hand, you say:
<
p>
<
p>Sounds great…you will not stand in the way of meaningful health care reform for millions of Americans. But you also say:
<
p>
<
p>Putting both together sounds like trying to have it both ways. Which is it? Will you “vote to kill all hope for Health Care Reform” if it contains Stupak in the Senate? Both of these statements above seriously conflict.
No, it is called the legislative process. I am sure you have heard of it. Now the bill goes to the Senate where hopefully, Stupak will be removed. He was pretty clear. He said his vote in the House was to progress the legislation and hopefully through what means Congress, the President and the Senate have at their disposal, they will remove the shitty amendment.
<
p>Did you read:
<
p>
<
p>This is the pragmatic approach to a process that takes patience and compromise. I would rather be where we are today with something than with nothing.
You don’t have to convince me of legislative pragmatism, since one thing I seem to be always doing to debating fellow progressives about the importance of compromise and not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
<
p>But since we’re on the subject, you say:
<
p>
<
p>OK, but what if it is not removed? Will Capuano “kill all hope for Health Care Reform” if Stupak is in the final bill? It sure sounds like he would (as would Coakley). This is my whole point — NEITHER Capuano not Coakley are being pragmatic here. They are both steadfast against health care reform if Stupak is needed to enact the final bill.
but I want to suggest that you gear the rest of your advertisements toward the struggles of the middle class. Your middle class tax cut proposal would be a great way to
connect with Main St Massachusetts. Directing your attention to the current struggles of the middle class is what will drive people out to the voting booth on a cold December day. It is all about the economy.
the struggling middle class is a much bigger target constituency than front runner’s XX target constituency.
…and a deliberate distraction from the economy. And the accelerating concentration of wealth in a self-perpetuating elite.
I think it’s the top issue for the middle class. Voters, especially “30 second ad” voters are waiting to hear who gets it, and who wants to take steps to turn the economy around to work for all American’s, not just the top 2%.
…”If just two more Democrats had voted no – the vote that Martha Coakley has said she would have cast- the bill would have been dead and we lose the opportunity to move health care reform forward.”
<
p>I’ve been searching for this quote from Martha Coakley and I have not found it. Could you or someone from your staff supply that quote regarding how she would have voted if she were in the House?
<
p>Thank you for coming to BMG.
Someone from Capuano’s staff can correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure this interview is what the Congressman is referring to.
<
p>In the interview with 96.9, Coakley confirmed she would have voted against HCR in the recent House vote.
<
p>Jim: “Let’s be clear, you would have voted against it.”
Martha: “I believe that.”
<
p>Jim then says “well Nancy Pelosi, who’s a pretty big pro choice kind of gal, would say it was necessary because they couldn’t get thirty votes to get the thing out of the house.” He clarifies that “a vast majority of democratic colleagues” are also pro-choice and oppose the amendment, and presents the argument that “your no vote in going to kill this thing.”
<
p>He again asks if Martha would still have voted no. She basically responds that she wouldn’t be the only roadblock, pointing to Republican claims that the bill would be dead on arrival regardless.
<
p>
it’s actually kind of unclear, because of the way Eagan originally set up the question. Go back and listen starting at about 20:00 in.
<
p>As I said elsewhere, I’ve asked the Coakley campaign for further clarification. We’ll see if I get it.
I agree that it’s a little confusing (owing in large part to Martha’s patented avoid-a-direct-answer strategy), but I took “J: You would have voted against it? C: I believe that” as a clear response. Jim later gives her the chance to clarify that answer, noting that it would have killed any chance for the bill to move forward, and she sticks to her guns.
<
p>But I agree. I’m definitely interested to hear her response to you, and hopefully get a little more detail on why she would have voted no at this stage in the game.
…as cross talk and Coakley may have been responding to what Egan said and not Braude. Again, its hardly enough to use as the basis of the attack that Martha would have killed health care reform last weekend.
Coakley’s response is crystal clear in this NECN interview.
<
p>She says she would have voted against HCR as it stood in the recent House vote.
<
p>Asked specifically “isn’t it true if you’d gotten your way, that would be the end of healthcare reform”, she replied “then let someone say that this was the strategy, the only way to move forward.” Has she not been paying attention? This is what everyone has been saying. Capuano made it clear that was his intention, as did Pelosi, the Co-chairs of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, and every other pro-choice democrat who voted to move the bill along. Her inability to grasp that crucial fact makes it clear that she is unprepared for the realities of lawmaking. Maybe she needs to rewatch I’m Just a Bill?
<
p>More alarming is the fact that now she’s refusing to answer how she would vote in the Senate! So she’d let the Stupak amendment kill HCR before it had a chance to go through committee, but she doesn’t know what she’d do in the final vote? Huh?
and also that Coakley is oddly vague in some of her answers.
<embed pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer" src="http://www.necn.com/avp32.swf?
oH#:u('L?P.<mQiO2KKwC6~s@}j{b-ZqGlA(W?#n}I?g J]|W0t?e5<j!cDQ?n!'JKa5(/Q:T)[0{'LLa,j{K,;C&5k0J;U (DQ>pC#m]EMDI9#~rP*WEX/bX80KvONdWUZ[;IxONMj^M(B w}NC9qO>5dV.FLt;]n j43y1&sO(Z>Z?]isuaeHwfij_cFhS’ju?yS[kdxhn?&h&,lv<:<Y:fdM{>y6D|Oy?>DO5yo?k-vnTzkUn#wr2)rLxrKtbV{!T|pVK^bq8r;`vleEXJ3;7Qwm<E(:,xE:n<ikbxckICq!@XD” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowfullscreen=”true” wmode=”transparent” allowscriptaccess=”always” width=”320″ height=”240″>it’s yet another data point on a subject that has consumed us for the last 72 hours or so. Many might want a break.
If people listen to the entire one or two minute exchange (as David pointed out, at about 20 minutes in), it is clear from the beginning that the context is “if you were Senator”. The 12 word exchange you cite is actually part of cross talk among the 3 of them.
<
p>At best it is unclear as to whether Martha Coakley was referring to a “what if” Senate or House vote. But it seems disingenuous to make a statement that Martha Coakley says she would have killed the health care bill last weekend, without a clear statement from her. It seems that Capuano folks should stop digging.
I think it’s more important to determine what question Martha was answering, not what question she was originally asked. I don’t think she was confused by how the question was originally framed. The conversation evolved, and she was asked what she would have done. I think, based on her assertion that HCR would be DOA when it got to the Senate anyway and Jim’s hypothetical (Pelosi asking her not to harpoon the whole bill because of the amendment), that it’s pretty clear she’s referring to what she would have done in Congress.
<
p>Hopefully she will give us some more insight soon.
First, I do not consider my questions or tone hostile or shabby or somehow, out of line. I realize that others may see what I have to say differently. You are entitled to interpret what I post however you wish to interpret me.
<
p>Further, I have never seen Mike Capuano unable to take the rough and tumble of public debate; I somehow doubt that my posts, which accurately reflect my opinions as to this particular issue are as offensive to Mike [albeit I could be wrong] as they are to some of you.
<
p>Additionally, the hostile tone and direct attacks on Martha Coakley have been far more aggressive then my questioning.
<
p>It is also true that Congressman Capuano established his account today; certainly I was entitled to note that.
<
p>Also, I am paid, as a part of my work as an appellate attorney, to dig deeply into areas of law in which I had not previously practiced, areas of fact that are new to me, and to read and ponder everything on that topic and evaluate experts – my doing so has led to 17 reported decisions, the kind that go into law books. This same type of in depth study and willingness to tackle any idea, legislation, or area of law has led to my filing 128 briefs and led to 80 reported decisions. I am accustomed to being my own expert, and really found the condescension annoying by Judy and others surprising and unwarranted.
<
p>It is true that I have made law on my own through appellate case law several times. See, for example, Care and Protection of Vivian, Adoption of Iris, Delk v. Gonzalez, and most recently, Adoption of Linus.
<
p>And while the “what is the matter with AmberPaw” comments may have been intended as kind, they did come across as condescending. For good or ill, this thread and this topic is NOT the only time I have posted with passion and fire.
<
p>So, disagree but you can keep your pats on the head to yourself.
<
p>My experience has been that when I delve into a subject deeply, and fully research it, I am as capable as anyone of in depth understanding, analysis, and opinion and do not defer merely because someone else is a “stakeholder” or degree holder. I have found the so-called stakeholders as capable of being dead wrong as the taxi drivers, court officers, and any other citizen with an opinion.
<
p>Further, the practice of family law requires considerable knowledge of psychology, medicine, education and school structure law and function, ethnic norms, and a whole lot more. Like I said above, do not condescend.
<
p>Our founding fathers believed that democracy requires an educated citizenry. A citizenry that gives a blank check, and unthinking deference to a caste of experts would be dangerous.
<
p>I realize that some in this thread think “who is she to dare criticize or evaluate the actions of an 11 term congressman” and my answer is a proud one:
<
p>I am an educated a educated American citizen.
<
p>As such, I have the right to question any legislator, any member of the government no matter how high, and any legislation or act by anyone in the government as long as I do so lawfully.
<
p>Frankly, I wish more citizens educated themselves, paid attention and spoke up. Don’t you?
Submitted, I hope, with all due respect.
<
p>Read your original comment back to yourself on the day after the primary, and see if you feel the same way about it.
<
p>Peace, fellow warrior!
<
p>
Of course you’re “entitled” to note when he created his account. But why does it matter in the first place? What value does that add to the discussion?
<
p>I’m afraid I don’t understand why you’re so hung up on this. The fact of the matter is, he registered on BMG, made the effort to reach out to our community, and directly responded to our questions about his position.
<
p>I for one am impressed that he made the effort in the first place, and couldn’t care less when he created his account.
<
p>I’m a Capuano supporter, but I’d be grateful, not hostile, if Martha ever decided to create an account and join us here on BMG. If and when she decides to start engaging the voters, I will certainly do my best to be respectful.
I think the BMGs also need to know why you have not been publicly supporting President Obama and Chairman Waxman in their efforts to prevent biologic monopolies and promote innovation by biotechnology companies investing in what will be the first generation of generic biologics.
<
p>Brand Biologics will be the most expensive products and will cost $71B more over the next 10 years than if generic competition from safe and affordable biogenerics is allowed to move forward. Congresswoman Eshoo has succeeded in promoting legislatio in the House bill that adds 12 years exclusivity on to brand life, in addition to patent protection, and does so independent of innovation involved. This essentially makes it impossible to raise investment capital to invest in the technology needed to developed biogenerics. At the same time, it will raise serious problems for many biotech companies in Cambridge who will lose funding as larger companies focus on incremental innovation rather then investing in innovative new cures.
<
p>The experience of Hatch Waxman shows that generic competition has held overall drug costs in check by allowing prices to fall after a product matures and its patent rights expire. This forces brand companies to invest in real innovation and new cures (a good thing) so they get patents and earn a profit. This added cost is offset by generic entry of the older products. The House bill will prevent that from happening by assuming that biogenerics are not possible (i.e., legislating that innovation is not possible or in other words, that the earth in flat).
<
p>Perhaps you can provide an explanation of why you have not opposed the large company sponsored lobbiests, and supported the Waxman and Obama position.
<
p>Since when does voting the party line take “courage”? Speaker Pelosi made a deal with devil here, and Rep. Capuano fell right in line. That’s not the kind of leadership I’m looking for in a Senator.
<
p>Perhaps Rep. Capuano didn’t realize the extent to which this amendment would impact a woman’s right to choose; perhaps the house leadership didn’t, either. But Martha Coakley did, and she decided to take a stand.
<
p>And then Rep. Capuano decided to follow the leader again and adopt the AG’s position within 24 hours of bashing her for it. Now he’s trying to rewrite history with this blog post.
<
p>I’m a proud liberal Democrat. I want a Senator who will think for him or herself and who’s going to stand up for the core beliefs of the Democratic party. I want a leader, not a follower. So far, only one candidate in this race has demonstrated that courage and leadership. With all due respect to the Representative, it has not been him.
<
p>This whole episode has made clear who the leader in this race is, not just the leader in the polls. Martha Coakley proved that she’s a real leader by standing up for a woman’s right to choose, By coming around to her position, Rep. Capuano proved that he’s very adept at following the leader.
Rather, based on the NECN interview I posted above, it looks like Coakley and Capuano have taken exact opposite stances in this debate.
<
p>House Vote:
-Capuano voted for the passage of the bill, allowing the process to move forward, in hopes that the Stupak language would be removed before the final vote.
-Coakley stated she would have voted against the bill, understanding it could kill the process in its early stages and significantly set back HCR.
<
p>Senate Vote:
Capuano, decidedly prochoice, emphasized he hoped the amendment could be removed in committee, and would not vote for a final bill that included language restricting reproductive health care for women.-Coakley is now refusing to answer questions about what she would do as a Senator. Why? Why kill the bill before it even has a chance to get out of the gate, but waffle on the final vote?
Martha’s playing games here. And it’s disingenuous of Coakle supporters to claim that Capuano is “playing follow the leader.” Her decided waffling regarding the final vote is leading her straight into a quagmire…which the rest of us can see that she is all alone in. Capuano has made it very clear how he would vote on the final bill.
<
p>This “game” helped me make my decision between the two candidates.
health care reform out of the house even with the Stupak Amendment attached. He and the rest of the pro-choice caucus are committed to getting Stupak out of the bill in conference. If they don’t we have every right to be mad. If they do, this is just more unhinged chicken little sky is falling rhetoric from the Coakley XX caucus. Capuano has committed to voting “no” on the final bill if the Stupak Amendment is still attached. He will vote as you and I would have him vote. So what are you complaining about?
<
p>Meanwhile, Bart Stupak (D-MI) or is that (Catholic-C Street) is in the news, telling Democrats there will be hell to pay if he is “double-crossed” by which he means if Democrats remove the Stupak Amendment. He’s making threats because he wants to pressure the Democrats to keep it in. He is threatening to withdrawal pro-life caucus yes votes from passing the HCR bill.
<
p>Martha on the other hand, said she would have voted NO to pass health reform in the house because of Stupak. Then, after she learned there was a strategy, she blamed someone else for not explaining that to her before she opened her mouth to “take her stand.”
<
p>
<
p>Going forward, Martha will not say how she would vote in the Senate or on a conference bill/final passage of health care reform with the Stupak Amendment attached. Capunao is clear on this. He would vote no.
<
p>Martha is non-committal on standing by her abortion access position in the Senate and on final passage. Cuapuano is firm.
<
p>If abortion access is an issue for you, Capuano is more committed to that position than Coakley.
Given my somewhat acerbic comments on Capuano’s field operations, I doubt it makes much of a difference.