That’s from Joan Vennochi’s column this morning, in which she is generally trying to be nice to Kerry Healey in light of her widely-reported refusal to answer questionnaires from NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood regarding her commitment to abortion rights.
Vennochi is quite right to criticize the groups, who have refused to make public the content of their questionnaires while simultaneously taking to task any politician who refuses to answer them. What could possibly be so secret? By refusing to make these things public, the groups greatly undercut their ability to question Healey’s sincerity for not answering. We need to know whether the questions are of the “when did you stop beating your wife” variety.
At the same time, though, what is Healey afraid of? If she’s as pro-choice as she says she is, just answer the damn questionnaires and be done with it. (I love the obviously fake excuse given by the campaign – “Healey’s campaign said it is flooded by hundreds of questionnaire requests and cannot answer every one” – as though Kerry Healey herself would have to put pen to paper to answer these things. Doesn’t she have a staff? And she managed to find time to answer the one from the Mass. Women’s Political Caucus, which only endorses pro-choice women, and therefore – SURPRISE! – endorsed her over Grace Ross, their only other choice in the Gov’s race.) By refusing, all she does is make everything think that she’s preparing to pull a Romney: run as a socially liberal Weld-style Republican, and then govern with an “evolved” position that more closely resembles that of Pat Robertson. Either that, or – as Vennochi wonders aloud – she’s got no political spine (which of course undercuts her claim to be the stalwart guardian of the public fisc against the depredations of the legislature). If voters buy into either of those, she’ll never win.
Personally, I’m all for her refusing to answer, because I want her to lose. But it strikes me as a monumentally stupid move on her part.
http://www.capecodon…
NARAL has endorsed Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) against a democrat this year (a position that I take issue with)
apparently sticking with Joementum despite the primary results. Losers.
i’m throwing all questioners in the waste basket. What makes these groups so special? It only counts if my positions are stated directly to you.
<
p>
Do you know how many of these questionnaires from self important groups are sent out. Screw them all. Only the kool aid drinkers for their respective causes vote based on a questionnaire.
<
p>
P.S. David, for Christ sake, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Joan Vennochi.
She happens to be the one writing the most interesting stuff these days, whether I agree with it all or not – except for Brian Mooney’s article in today’s Globe, which I also posted on.
if your primary concern is abortion rights, you vote dem.
<
p>
if you’re voting for Healey, it’s not because of her stance on choice.
<
p>
this will chance less than a dozen votes statewide.
oops.
Where the Dems kept contraception illegal? Where the Dems kept EC from women for years?
<
p>
Just like Mass. GOP isn’t very much like the national party neither is the rank and file Mass. Dem party. Choice is really not a partisan issue here.
<
p>
And it COULD become important, if in October the Supremes decide to take the Dakota case.
you’re arguing that voters are going to pin their hopes on Kerry Healey to protect abortion rights?
<
p>
how many people do you think were going to vote for Healey but now won’t because she isn’t going to get the NARAL endorsement?
<
p>
how many people who use the PPLM endorsements as their voting guide are are just praying for Healey to fill out the forms so they can vote for her with a clean conscience?
<
p>
and what are the odds that Healey, even if she did fill out the forms, would get any of these groups’ endorsements?
<
p>
it’s a non-issue.
If their minds are made up – why fill out the forms?
<
p>
I was questioning where you got the idea that Mass Dems are pro-choice.
I didn’t mean to suggest that all dems are pro-choice. I meant to say is that nearly everyone for whom choice is the #1 priority will vote dem, even if given the option of a pro-choice republican.
<
p>
And I don’t fauly Kerry Healey in the least for not filling out the forms. She gains nothing by filling them out and loses nothing by not.
<
p>
The only point I was trying to make is that this is a non-issue for 99.9% of voters out there.
There aren’t that many voters for whom choice is the “#1 issue,” and those who feel that way won’t vote GOP, that’s probably true. But how is Healey supposed to win if she can’t pull in the soccer moms who voted for Romney because they were reassured by his “moderate” social stands? After Romney did what he did – remember, his alleged bona fides on choice dated back at least to 1994 when he assured everyone in the Kennedy race that he had believed in choice since the 1970s – Romney’s 2nd in command cannot just say “trust me,” however longstanding her alleged commitment to choice may be. I mean, come on – she’s never actually had an opportunity to do anything with regard to choice, she’s just talked the talk. She can’t win without those voters, and if they get spooked, she’s done.
And what about the pro-life republicans who are willing to overlook her position on choice so long as she doesn’t rub it in their faces? She loses votes from them if she goes out of her way to appeal to the demographic you describe.
<
p>
She’s already out as pro-choice, which is as much as anyone is going to get from her. Filling out a form doesn’t prevent her from pulling a Romney any more than her past statements on the issue. Actively courting the groups that many right wingers see as fringe lefties hellbent on abortions for all will hurt her on the right.
<
p>
She’s walking the line that pisses people off the least, and I still say that she loses negligible votes because of it.
it is a monumentally stupid move on her part. There are a fair number of unenrolled women who sit in the middle. They have a fairly serious pro-choice leaning, but may be a little more conservative on other social and political matters. The choice issue here could be a tipping point for many of these women. If Healey were to demonstrate strong pro-choice credentials, she might gain the conservative-centrist female who wants to cast a vote for a woman. As if I really want to give her advice, but she should be looking for ways to lock the vote of women looking for a reason to vote for a woman–and there are a lot of them.
<
p>
But, that said, she should keep doing what she’s doing. lol. She was in my town last Sunday (as noted in the Globe article today) trying to appear homespun by eating hotdogs at a barbecue thrown at a “sprawling home.” Sheesh. Tone deaf much?
I noted the location of the BBQ and wondered if lightiris could sense a disturbance in the force. g
<
p>
The Globe article went on to mention that there was 20 or so folks in attendance. Sorta light attendance for a sitting LG, huh?
<
p>
We’re having a BBQ for Deval Patrick in Pepperell on August 27. We’ve gotten RSVPs for many more than 20. We’re planning for 100, but we have extra room, if need be. Should be a great time. If you haven’t had a chance to invest in this campaign, this would be a great opportunity to do so. Everybody is welcome. (and I’m on the host committee, so the more the merrier!)
LOL….very good. I was surprised, too, at the low turn-out. I don’t really know why the Republicans aren’t turning out for her. God knows there’s enough money in this town. She didn’t show up at a planned visibility event here the day before, either, because the turnout was predicted to be low. Too embarrassing, I guess. It really does appear she’s having trouble getting the Republicans to turn out in town. I really don’t know what to make of that.
Did the two barbecues with BIG crowds (Orleans and Barnstable) not happen because the Globular Ones aren’t able to cross the canal without going straight to Truro?