Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Dissecting Mike Capuano

By

There’ve been posts and comments about Martha Coakley and Stephen Lynch.  Haven’t heard much about Mike Capuano.  Since he is not in my district, I don’t know a lot about him.

Any information about him, his stance on the issues, his history, successes, controversies?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. As a Cambridge voter he’s my Congressman so I know a little bit about him. He is a tough and tenacious political fighter having ran successful dark horse candidates first for Mayor of Somerville and later for the 8th District seat he holds now. He beat a lot of other candidates that had more name recognition and money (Tom Keane, John O’Connor, Chris Gabreilli, radio host Clapwood, former Boston mayor Ray Flynn, just to name a few) with a come from behind victory in the primary.

    <

    p>As for his record in Congress he has been a tireless fighter taking on the HMOs, Big Business, and the FAA. A democrat not afraid to vote against destructive farm subsidies. A solid supporter of environmental protection, a tireless advocate for the disabled especially in education (his office was great in helping my sister get a voucher for my nephew). Also he has been a strong and early opponent of the Iraq War and one of the few Democrats to question President Obama’s surge in Afghanistan as well. A real expert on foreign affairs. He is also one of the few Congressmen in our delegation to come out in favor of gay marriage. A very strong leader on gay rights sponsoring bills to repeal DOMA, DADT, and establish federal benefits. A key inside negotiator on re-instating S-CHIP. A tireless advocate for universal healthcare.

    <

    p>Also he has always held town meetings in every city and community he represents once every year and is a very accessible congressmen in general. Great staff at his office.

    <

    p>The downsides: I disagree with his extreme pro-abortion stance. Also I like him so much as my Congressman that part of me wants to keep him where he is. That said I am definitely leaning in his direction.  

      • And social liberals are dedicated to defending the civil rights of ALL people including those that have yet to be born.

        <

        p>I think to be against a partial-birth ban, against the Hyde amendment, against freedom of conscience for healthcare workers (which Ted Kennedy fought FOR btw), against funding sonograms, against the Pregnant Women Support Act, against parental notification, in favor of funding overseas abortion, those are all extremist pro-abortion positions IMO.

        <

        p>I think someone like Reps. Richard Neal and Stephen Lynch, or Sen. Casey all had the right idea in favoring sensible restrictions and full alternatives to abortion while maintaining Roe v Wade rights for the first trimester. That is a sensible middle ground on abortion. The extremists either want to get rid of Roe v Wade which is horrible public policy IMO or have abortion on demand, leaving me and 60% of America with little choices.

        <

        p>Most Americans, like me, support some abortion rights while maintaining reasonable restrictions and protections. Rep. Capuano and AG Coakley oppose even those restrictions to appease their funders. Since those groups are going to give money to Coakley anyway because she is the lone female maybe Capuano can actually vote his conscience for a change on abortion.  

        • are another man’s WTF I suppose.

          <

          p>P.S. Your “good middle ground” on abortion is unconstitutional.  The legislature can’t simply put additional restrictions on Row v. Wade.  In fact, that would be… what’s the word… oh yeah.

          <

          p>

          <

          p>

          <

          p>

          <

          p>

          <

          p>

          <

          p>extremist.

    • We need someone who will lend an ear to the people he represents.  Not sure what you mean by “extreme pro-abortion” stance, but I will do a search and see if I can figure it out. If you mean he is pro-choice, than that is a non issue.  If you mean he is a proponent of late term abortion, in the case of life of the mother or non viability of the fetus, than that is a non issue also.

      <

      p>Since John Kerry is not big on constituency services, and since Ted Kennedy carried both his own and John Kerry’s weight to that end, excellent constituency services is a truly important quality.  We are going to need our new Senator from Massachusetts to be a person genuinely interested in the lives of the people who live on Main St. Massachusetts. So important.

      <

      p>Other great stances as well.  Gay marriage supporter, peace over war, environmental advocate, supporting people with disabilities.

      <

      p>I’ll have to research the farm subsidy issue.

      <

      p>Thanks for your input.

        • …with generic masculine.  Personally, I’ve always felt including both pronouns, especially multiple times in a sentence or paragraph, sound awkward.

          • Well, as a “Christopher” and presumably a male, I can see why you might find “nothing wrong” with it, but a large portion of the rest of the population does.  Using both is not particularly awkward in most cases, and it really does validate the other half of the population.  If that doesn’t suit you, how about a “generic feminine”?  Sometimes both are used when the he/she combo is too repetitive.  

            • Sure beats the awkward combination by a long shot.  I often use generic feminine to refer to a non-specified British monarch because the current one is a woman and has been there for so long.  I’m an unapologetic traditionalist when it comes to language and especially cringe when things like hymns are rewritten to be “politicaly correct” or inclusive.  This absolutely does not reflect my attitude on gender equality, however.  After all I supported HRC for President last year so I think my credentials for accepting women in positions of power, leadership, and responsibility are solid.  In my experience the context has always been enough to determine whether masculine words should be interpreted as inclusive or exclusive.  You used “he” thrice in your previous comment and it never crossed my mind that you didn’t think a woman could be the subject in that paragraph.

              • Ouch.  That’s like saying I’m an unapologetic sexist.  

                <

                p>

                I’m an unapologetic traditionalist when it comes to language and especially cringe when things like hymns are rewritten to be “politicaly correct” or inclusive.

                <

                p>Gender-neutral language is “politically correct” only to those who are insensitive to the disenfranchisement of female voices over the years.  While you may appreciate your religious music talking only to and about men, that doesn’t make your preference any less sexist.    

                <

                p>

                This absolutely does not reflect my attitude on gender equality, however.  After all I supported HRC for President last year so I think my credentials for accepting women in positions of power, leadership, and responsibility are solid.  

                <

                p>It most certainly does reflect your attitude on gender equality.  You can’t have it both ways.  Your convenience is not the issue.  Either you support gender equality in a meaningful form or you don’t.  If you support gender equality, then you have to, by definition, support the protestations of women who have felt marginalized by a language that is dominated by masculinity.  You don’t get to disregard our desire to have language parity.  Indeed, such disregard is the essence of sexism.

                <

                p>

                In my experience the context has always been enough to determine whether masculine words should be interpreted as inclusive or exclusive.

                <

                p>This is complete and utter baloney.  Masculine words are, by nature, masculine words.  The lack of an alternative merely points out the second-class nature of female voices historically.  Interpreted as inclusive?  Are you for real?  We interpret them to mean both genders because of a speaker’s or writer’s laziness–nothing more.  More than 50% of the population is female, you know.  Women should not have to settle for a he/him/his because of your comfort.  Sorry.  And as an English teacher, I make students who try to create an equivalency where non exists rewrite.  I tell them to be respectful, please.  English has the largest vocabulary of any spoken language on the planet.  There are plenty of alternative constructions. Nothing less will do.

                <

                p>

                You used “he” thrice in your previous comment and it never crossed my mind that you didn’t think a woman could be the subject in that paragraph.  

                <

                p>I did?  Thrice?  In my previous comment?  I used “he” three times in this paragraph to include females?  Where–show me:

                <

                p>

                Well, as a “Christopher” and presumably a male, I can see why you might find “nothing wrong” with it, but a large portion of the rest of the population does.  Using both is not particularly awkward in most cases, and it really does validate the other half of the population.  If that doesn’t suit you, how about a “generic feminine”?  Sometimes both are used when the he/she combo is too repetitive.

                 

                • Like you did, I’m going to try to respond point by point:

                  <

                  p>”While you may appreciate your religious music talking only to and about men, that doesn’t make your preference any less sexist.”

                  <

                  p>Thing is, I don’t appreciate music talking to and about men exclusively; I just don’t take it quite so literally.  When a hymn says, “Peace on the earth, goodwill to men,” I interpret “men” as “all”, but I grew up learning it as “men” and don’t want to change the actual words.  As another example that doesn’t have a gender issue, I cringe just as much if a hymn written with “thou, thy, thee, thine” gets changed to “you, your, you, yours”.  There was a time when I thought Shakespeare should be rewritten for easier comprehension in modern language, but now I would consider it “blasphemy”.  I also would never rewrite the line from the Declaration “that all men are created equal” although I certainly do not object to Declaration of Sentiments from Seneca Falls saying “all men and women” since that was after all precisely the point.  I should add too that if someone were to write a brand new hymn and use inclusive language that’s fine; I just don’t like changing the words of hymns that have already been written.

                  <

                  p>”Either you support gender equality in a meaningful form or you don’t.”

                  <

                  p>I do support it in its truly meaningful form.  I’d be the first to cry foul if a woman were discriminated against in the workplace, or if laws made them second-class.  It upsets me greatly when some people use their religion as an excuse to put women down, to insist wives “gracefully submit” to their husbands.  Believe me the views of the Southern Baptist Convention on this make me cringe a lot more than language issues, but I do see language as primarily symbolic rather than meaningful.  I’m sorry if you don’t trust my ability to separate the two attitudes, but that is exactly what I do.

                  <

                  p>As for the last part about using “he” thrice, that just requires clarification.  I was refering to the comment that started the exchange regarding what you were looking for in a Senator, which you corrected just one instance of, not the immediately preceding comment.  BTW, you’d probably throw a fit if you spoke a language where EVERY noun is assigned masculine, feminine, or neuter gender:)

                • is unresponsive.  This is not about you, per se, it’s about the other half of the population. It’s about the future, not the past.

                  <

                  p>Nowhere in my comments did I suggest we rewrite historical texts.  That’s simply silly.  I teach Shakespeare, you forget, and I teach English Literature; I’m fully cognizant of the contextual politics of language.  That was then, however, and this is now.  We learn from the past in order to improve the future.  What people are saying now is we have alternative constructions that allow for gender neutrality.  That’s a good thing.

                  <

                  p>As for other languages, that’s also irrelevant.  I’m fairly proficient in French, and the limitations of French make it difficult to implement a gender neutral policy.  That’s French, however, and a problem for the French to solve should they choose to do so.  We’re talking about English, and English gives you every opportunity to put into action the gender equality you claim to support.  Poo-pooing the desires of both men and women to move towards gender-neutral language is something to be supported, not mocked or minimized.

                • This doesn’t rise any higher than “pet peeve” level for me anyway, but I also reject the “sexist” label based simply on my pronoun preference.  If the language comes up with a set of singular pronouns appropriate to refer to people, great.  It occurs to me that we’ve hijacked the thread a bit with this tangent so I think on anything else that separates us we’ll just agree to disagree.

                • What’s wrong with simply understanding the context?

                  <

                  p>Mankind doesn’t mean half the world’s population.  It mean’s all of the world’s population.  Always has.  The problem stems from the fact that we’ve got three pronouns for four four classes of beings in the singular.

                  <

                  p>Singular Pronouns:
                  He
                  She
                  It

                  <

                  p>Singular Classes:
                  Male
                  Female
                  Currently unknown
                  Non-gender

                  <

                  p>So, what we’re really missing is a fourth pronoun.  Absent that, the two choices are to use the he or she method, or to simply understand that, when the gender of the actual subject is currently unknown within the context, that he is used and that it has a different meaning within that context.

                  <

                  p>It’s not hard.  It’s not elegant.  It’s just language, and we’ve got 500 years of using it in that form without misunderstanding its meaning.

                • As a woman, you know, I get it when masculine pronouns are used.  I really do.  I suspect all other women understand the meaning, too.  That’s not the point.  It’s not about the past, it’s about the future.  It’s about being thoughtful regarding construction.  It’s about equity.   It’s not about changing words like “mankind.”  That sort of thinking is silly and trivial and entirely unnecessary.

                  <

                  p>I can tell you that well over 90% of the time a student uses a gender-biased construction, that student can rewrite to correct the bias.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with using “he or she” occasionally, and stylistically there is nothing wrong with introducing more specificity into one’s writing.  Pronouns all stand for something else, remember.

                  <

                  p>Employment contracts are rewritten every day in this nation into gender-neutral language.  Our teaching contract was rewritten last year.  

                  <

                  p>So with that, your dismissive male-centric “it’s just language” aside,  we don’t need another pronoun; we just need people to be sensitive and thoughtful when they speak and write.    

                • lightiris is going to be pissed again.

                  <

                  p>because gender specific nouns and verbs in spanish always take the masculine form when they refer to a mixed feminine/masculine subect.

                  <

                  p>thus;
                  jose is my amigo.
                  maria is my amiga.
                  and jose and maria are my amigos.

                  <

                  p>¡es sexismo!  ¡otra vez!

          • We need someone who will lend an ear to the people he represents.

            L&LL’s correction was right, because by stating “he,” sex was explicit, but the original sentence would have been improved by using “they”.

            <

            p>”We need someone who will lend and ear to the people they represent.”  

            <

            p>Including both pronouns is awkward, but there is something very wrong with a “generic masculine” – it excludes over 50% of the population!  I regularly use “they” in place of “one” or “it” or the dreaded “he, she” and my meaning is hardly ever misunderstood.  

            • The “someone” is singular.  “They” is plural.

              <

              p>Therefore, “They represent” suggests a group of people, like a city council or an entire Congress, not a single congresscritter.

              <

              p>This is one of my frustrations with the backflips some do to avoid using the pronoun “he” — its result is an incorrect usage of the language.

              • Then it’s not “wrong” it’s just not “grammatically correct”.  Is my sentence clear?  Then it is fine grammatically.  

                <

                p>There are plenty of examples of “incorrect grammar” that are a poetic improvement of language – codification has benefits, but it has limitations as well.  

                <

                p>My pet peeve is people who believe we should be slaves to language that no longer serves our purpose.  

                <

                p>In my example, “We need someone who will lend an ear to the people they represent” it is clear, given the context of the paragraph, that the “they” in this sentence is in reference to the ‘someone’ not the ‘people’.  

                <

                p>Just as words like gay, joint, dyke, red and liberal change meaning, so too can they.  

                • …isn’t it just as clear that “he” can mean “he or she”?  I certainly think so, and the unapologetic traditionalism with regard to language I refered to above includes grammatical purity, so “they” is definitely out when the singular is intended (unless you also pluralize the antecedent for the sake of agreement in number).

                • Who gets an advantage from this sentence?  

                  <

                  p>We need a Senator with bold leadership, someone who will lend an ear to the people he represents, someone for whom the people of Massachusetts will always be his top priority.  

                  <

                  p>a) Mike Capuano
                  b) Scott Brown
                  c) Martha Coakley

                  <

                  p>Further down, I dealt with the fact that the singular they is grammatically correct, but earlier someone referenced the Declaration of Independence and noted that all the men it claimed were created equal, in spirit, included women, except it didn’t – women were denied many property rights and the vote all by dint of their creation!

                  <

                  p>The suffragettes and abolitionists would have been ages ahead in their fight for equality had the declaration said “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all people are created equal…” and it likely wouldn’t have been ratified by the Congress for exactly that reason.  To assume that language does not have the power to take away is disingenuous.  

                  <

                  p>

                • …I would interpret the sample sentence to apply equally to all three – really!  If it turns out that Martha Coakley is the person who provides “bold leadership”, “will lend an ear to the people (s)he represents”, and “for whom the people of Massachusetts will always be (her) top priority” in the opinion of the voters, then more power to her.

                  <

                  p>As for the Declaration, it probably did more literally mean men at the time (Then again, it’s principal author and many Signers were slaveholders, so we know that line needed some work in practice anyway.), but it’s words are still powerful and certainly interpretable in a loose constructionist fashion to accomodate modern sensibilities.  For the same reason most reasonable people don’t take scripture too literally these days.

                  <

                  p>I will not concede the point that “they” as singular is grammatically correct.  I’ve taken and taught plenty of language courses and know of no grammar text or any teacher I have had or worked with that will back you up on that.

                • that point, since dhammer already said “…it’s not ‘wrong,’ it’s just not ‘grammatically correct.'”

                  <

                  p>Being prescriptive with an evolving language is a losing game. I’ve seen “they” used the way dhammer used it all my long life, and do not recall being confused by it more than a couple of times, if ever. I’ve always liked it more than “he or she” and much more than the ugly “he/she.” I think the example with the three candidates does illustrate what’s wrong with saying “he” as an indefinite pronoun.

                • It’s clear that there is no definitive answer (tricky thing language) but for completeness sake, I’m going to quote from my Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition.  

                  <

                  p>

                  …b: Often used with an indefinite thrid person singular antecedent (everyone knew where ~ stood — E.L. Doctorow) (Nobody has to go to school if ~ don’t want to — N.Y. Times)…  

                  usage: They, their, them, themselves: English lacks a common-gender third person singular pronoun that can be used to refer to indefinite pronouns (as everyone, anyone, someone).  Writers and speakers have supplied this lack by using the plural pronouns (and every on to rest themselves betake — Shak.)(I would have everybody marry if they can do it properly — Jane Austen) (it is too hideous for anyone in their senses to buy — W.H. Auden).  The plural pronouns have also been put to use as pronouns of indefinite number to refer to singular nouns that stand for many persons…  The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts.  This gives you the option of using the singular pronouns (as he, she, he or she, and their inflected forms) where you think they sound best.  

                  <

                  p>So, I don’t need you to back me up, the dictionary does, they can be used as third person singular.  

                • It is a useful exercise for any man to spend some time reading texts — especially historical texts — with the masculine pronouns and allegedly generic or neutral (yet still masculine) forms replaced by their feminine equivalents. Even more dramatic, if you can find a suitably-skilled group (it’s surprisingly difficult to do!), is to try a two to three hour task-oriented exercise where the group does this transformation, live and on the fly. For even more impact, arrange the groups so that they are mostly female, with a female facilitator or leader. Most of the men I’ve done this exercise with have reported that they were very surprised by how disturbing it felt, even though they knew what was happening.

                  <

                  p>Some of us, in the Episcopal Church, had a fairly intense immersion in all this decades ago while we were grappling with the then-contentious issue of women’s ordination — in my case while studying religious texts that had been transformed in this way. It really is an eye-opener.

                  <

                  p>There is a large and growing body of research to show that our gender experience — men’s experience of being men, women’s of being women — exerts far more influence on our attitudes, our worldview, and our fundamental life experiences than we commonly acknowledge. These allegedly nit-picky language issues are, in fact, the tip of a very large iceberg.

                  <

                  p>Meanwhile, try this variant on dhammer’s comment:

                  <

                  p>

                  We need a Senator with bold leadership, someone who will lend an ear to the people she represents, someone for whom the people of Massachusetts will always be her top priority.  

                  a) Mike Capuano
                  b) Scott Brown
                  c) Martha Coakley

                  <

                  p>Still want to argue that the pronouns don’t matter?

                • Your rewritten example does sound a bit odd at first seeing as how Senator has historically (and for the most part currently) a man’s position, but it still sounds a lot better than the awkward dualism I was complaining about.  I would not go as far as to call it disturbing.  To me any “oddness” comes I don’t think from identifying with my own gender so much as what has traditionally been used.  In other words, if the feminine form had traditionally been used as the default generic then I would be just as happy to continue that practice as well.  

                  <

                  p>Maybe I’m just of the generation where women’s leadership is assumed acceptable that language just seems to be a detail.  So many of my supervisors, religious leaders, and elected officials have been women that I don’t give it a second thought.  A while back we (ie BMG, not specifically you and I) had a discussion about race and I said that I prided myself on being colorblind, so much so that on occasion the race of a person I encountered earlier in the day didn’t even register in my memory.  Of course I’m sure I noticed at the time as I am not literally blind, but the point is how little it mattered.  I think the same can be said when I hear or read pronouns.  Unless you’re refering to a Catholic priest, a specific previously-named man, or some other context that really has to be male, if I hear or read “he/his/him” my brain automatically adds “or she/her” without any conscious thought or acknowledgement of that interpretation.

                  <

                  p>Your comment is a perfect example of a “5” rating from me in that I don’t completely agree, but it is something to think about.

                • We believe in one God,
                    the Mother, the Almighty,
                    maker of heaven and earth,
                    of all that is, seen and unseen.

                  We believe in one Lady, Jesa Christa,
                    the only Daughter of God,
                    eternally begotten of the Mother,
                    God from God, Light from Light,
                    true God from true God,
                    begotten, not made,
                    of one Being with the Mother.
                    Through her all things were made.
                    For us and for our salvation
                      she came down from heaven:
                    by the power of the Holy Spirit
                     she became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
                    and was made woman.
                    For our sake she was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
                    she suffered death and was buried.
                    On the third day she rose again
                      in accordance with the Scriptures;
                    she ascended into heaven
                      and is seated at the right hand of the Mother.
                    She will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
                    and her queendom will have no end.

                  We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lady, the giver of life,
                    who proceeds from the Mother and the Daughter.
                    With the Mother and the Daughter she is worshiped and glorified.
                    She has spoken through the Prophetesses.
                    We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
                    We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
                    We look for the resurrection of the dead,
                      and the life of the world to come. Amen.

                • I actually had to look up the better-known wording of this since the Nicene Creed is not generally something I recite.  I do picture God as male, but there is no right answer to this, so to each his (or her-you,re welcome!) own, although I will point out that if you believe God to be a literal parent of Jesus (I don’t.) then He would have to be Father since Mary is the mother.  Otherwise it doesn’t matter, but if our tradition had used a female God-head all along that would have been fine too.  I use the masculine pronouns as I find no compelling reason to change, and saying “God” all the time as some do to avoid pronouns altogether sounds just as choppy as if we were to do that for any mortal.  I must insist and emphasize, however, that just because the picture I conjure in my head happens to match Michaelangelo’s very masculine God from the Sistine Chapel ceiling, that IN NO WAY informs my attitudes toward the capacity of women to fill roles of leadership, responsibility, or power in this world.

                  <

                  p>I had never thought of the Holy Spirit as having gender and usually do use the “it” family of pronouns when needed in that regard.

                  <

                  p>Jesus is the one part of the Trinity I will insist on keeping masculine.  He was a historically-existing figure who absolutely was a man.  Even the vast-majority of non-Christians agree on this much.  A woman would have had a harder time than even He did, though I am among those who believe that women played a larger role in the early church than we are led to believe.  For what it’s worth I also happen to be among those who believe the proponderence of the evidence strongly suggests He was married to Mary Magdalene and that she had at least a great a role in His mission as any of the Twelve.  As a historical figure, however, denying that Jesus was male would be just as silly as denying George Washington was male.

              • Call it hubris for harping, but getting called out as wrong when I knew I wasn’t bugged me…

                <

                p>The Chicago Manual of Style recognizes that neither the use of “he” nor “they” will be acceptable to all readers, but there are numerous examples in literature where “they” is used in third person singular and even evidence that they as singular is older than he.

                <

                p>On the language blogs, the issue is hotly debated, but it’s clear that the notion that it’s “wrong” is simply wrong.  

                <

                p>Some accuse those who use “they” as third person singular of being lesser writers, I respond with Jane Austen:

                <

                p>

                “Oh yes! I am not at all ashamed of it. I would have everybody marry if they can do it properly: I do not like to have people throw themselves away; but everybody should marry as soon as they can do it to advantage.”

                 – The last line of chapter 4 of Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park.

                • …what Austen forgot was that “everybody” is technically a singular pronoun in the grammatical sense even though it refers to several people.  Between that and literary license we can definitely cut her some slack.

        • “back and forth” about this issue.  The reason why I made the correction is because I do think it is important to keep the playing field level for all candidates. I do believe that it could have a negative impact on female candidates if the open seat is always referred to as being filled by a “him”, or always speaking of the constituency as “his”.

          <

          p>With that said, I’m sure I will continue to make the same mistake.  Maybe if we call each other out on it enough, we will figure out how to be creative with our language to ensure a level playing field for all candidates running for office.

          • I’m not as bad about this as I used to be. The practice that really helped me was to intentionally write using “she” instead of “he”, “her” instead of “Him, “woman” instead of “man”, and so on, on all my first drafts.

            <

            p>Writing — all writing, poetry especially — is about constraining speech with rules that derive from written media. A choice to avoid gender-specific language is nothing more or less than an additional constraint. It’s hard when we you start, gets easier as you practice, and ultimately fades into the background.

            <

            p>Here’s the real message:

            <

            p>It changes the way you think about gender.

            <

            p>It really does.

      • I am sure his position is going to be well-received by most people on this blog and within the MA Democratic primary electorate, but I wanted to be honest and say its the sole position he has that I disagree with.  

      • I guess “doing fine” means agrees with lightiris 100% of the time. I am a Democrat because I believe in social justice for all people. For me that includes civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, gays, minorities, women, the disabled, the elderly, and the unborn. That is an article of my faith and there was a time when our party did stand up for ALL the people. It is now divided over this issue. I understand the ethical and philosophical reasons for choice, I used to support them myself. But in argument after argument I could no longer defend that position in good conscience since it so contradicted my own personal moral and political beliefs. How can we say we are a nation that supports life and liberty and yet not extend those rights to our most vulnerable people?

        <

        p>That is the question that defines the Democratic party and separates us from the Republicans. They are the party of ‘i don’t care every man for himself’-at our best ours is the party of ‘we’re all in this together’ and I don’t see why that can’t define our social as well as our economic platform. What is wrong with providing full funding and information to women so they can make the best choices? Capuano opposed the Pregnant Women Support Act, he opposes mandating that abortion clinics include important information about the dangers of abortion and the alternatives that are available, he opposes sensible late term abortion restrictions, he opposes including parents in this choice for a minor. If we force parents to sign on to their child’s car insurance and give them information about their health care in other circumstances, why not include them in this incredibly important and vital decision?

        <

        p>The extreme right supports a draconian policy of banning all abortions and cutting funding to social services that would naturally reduce them. But I find the extreme lefts position in supporting abortion on demand and insisting on abortion as the primary policy prescription to the problem of unwanted pregnancy equally draconian. There is a middle ground and our part would gain more votes and more credibility if it explored it instead of dogmatically standing in line and voting for NARAL and Planned Parenthoods line 100% of the time. You wouldn’t have a working majority in the House or Senate without pro-life Dems so quit demonizing us. We can disagree without being disagreeable in the words of our President.

        • You may think we were all born yesterday, but we weren’t.  Acting and writing as if we were all born yesterday, is just silly and unproductive.  

          <

          p>

          What is wrong with providing full funding and information to women so they can make the best choices?

          <

          p>Women already receive information in order to make informed choices.  They don’t need to be hammered with YOUR selection of biased material in order to make a decision.  Terminating a pregnancy is a clinical decision.  OB/GYN’s who provide abortions provide relevant clinical information to all women seeking these services already.  Thanks but no thanks on the trojan horse.  Capuano is right on this issue and in the mainstream.

          <

          p>

          Capuano opposed the Pregnant Women Support Act,

          <

          p>As do the vast majority of pro-choice supporters because they see this mess for what it is.  There is nothing new included in this so-called “support” act that doesn’t already exist.  It, too, is a trojan horse designed to limit, ultimately, a woman’s right to choose.

          <

          p>

          he opposes mandating that abortion clinics include important information about the dangers of abortion and the alternatives that are available,

          <

          p>No, he opposed the mandatory introduction of biased, emotionally-driven, and inaccurate information into the private clinical dialogue between a clinician and a patient.  Abortions are safer than pregnancy, statistically, so your entire premise is ridiculous but consistent with your own extremist positions.

          <

          p>

          he opposes sensible late term abortion restrictions,

          <

          p>This is utter bullshit.  The law already restricts late-term abortions.

          <

          p>

          he opposes including parents in this choice for a minor.

          <

          p>Mandatory parental inform laws are injurious to children.  The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes these efforts because they harm children who are pregnant.  Judicial bypass laws, as well, are injurious.  Anyone who cares about children opposes, in real life, mandatory inform and judicial bypass laws.  Capuano clearly cares more about the lives of real children than inflammatory emotional rhetoric.

          <

          p>

          If we force parents to sign on to their child’s car insurance and give them information about their health care in other circumstances, why not include them in this incredibly important and vital decision?

          <

          p>Your ignorance on the law is showing again.  I think I’ve probably explained this to you a few times already, but I’ll give it another go.  In most states in this nation, a pregnant minor is an emancipated minor.  That means that a 13-year-old gets to make ALL the decisions about her pregnancy vis a vis prenatal, perinatal, and postnatal care.  Her parents have no legal standing in this matter.  SHE will decide what tests to have, SHE will decide whether or not she will take medications, SHE will decide what type of delivery she will have.  SHE is also the individual legally entitled to make decisions regarding the needs of the delivered child, not her parents.  The introduction of parents into the termination of a pregnancy is merely another angle anti-choice folks utilize to control a female’s private reproductive decisions.  

        • Capuano opposed the Pregnant Women Support Act, he opposes mandating that abortion clinics include important information about the dangers of abortion and the alternatives that are available

          <

          p>Would you think it appropriate that the government pass laws to require doctors to hand out government-provided pamphlets on other important health-related issues? Is that really appropriate? Why do we trust doctors’ judgments on all other health issues but feel it necessary to pass laws to micromanage how they work in this case? Healthcare professionals already have an ethical and legal responsibility to warn their patients of the risks involved in any procedures they perform or treatments they prescribe.

          • I remember getting a piece of mail from him when he was being challenged in a primary.  Nothing before or since, though.

            <

            p>And the two times I’ve sought help from the government, his office has had better things to do than return my call.  Thanks goodness we had Kennedy.

            • will be listening to his/her constituency.  And you are so right about John Kerry.  It is absolutely infuriating the way he has lost touch with this state, and the daily lives of it’s citizens.

              • That’s more the job of a Representative, isn’t it?  That’s why they are proportional to the number of constituents.  Senators are elected by the people of the state to go to Washington and then deal with national and international issues, not state issues, and certainly not constituent issues.  They really represent the federal government to the people of their state, not the other way around.

                • why don’t we just elect Senators from where-ever?
                  I think they need to have an understanding of the culture, needs, concerns of the people of their state (the entire state, not just the most populated regions)in order to provide the appropriate representation in the Senate. Massachusetts needs are far different from Texas, California, or Montana.  

                  <

                  p>Since all of those things change over time, it is extremely important that Senators stay connected to the people of the state they represent.

                • They come from each state because each state wants an equal role in the big issues affecting the nation.  The state chooses someone to represent them, and then they’re off to Washington, and we will replace them in six years if we don’t like the decisions they made about the fate of the nation.  They only have to live here for nine years, there aren’t any birther movements about where Kerry was born.

                • And they have to be an inhabitant of the state at the time of election, with no time requirement.  All they have to do is get elected, they can do that by representing greater interests than their state’s.

                • It’s the Senator’s job if his/her constituents believe it should be. Perhaps you don’t care if your Senator’s staff answers the phone, but many others do. Those who do care have learned to call Kennedy rather than Kerry, and given it is Kennedy’s spot that is being filled, I think constituent services will definitely be on many voters’ minds.

                • People who call their senator are much more likely to vote than the average person. The people who stay home are the lazy and the cynical.

                • Because I’m pretty sure a big justification big John would give for his big staff budget is constituent service. Just sayin.

                  <

                  p>Of course, he’d probably claim his office does it well, despite years of constituent claims to the contrary.

            • Kerry’s office is one of the worst constituent services I have had to deal with. I can say from personal experience that even Roland Burris has a better office than Kerry’s (and one that fields a pretty mean softball squad). Dick Durbin is a 1000 times more busy than Kerry as Majority Whip but his office promptly returns my calls. Kennedy sent personal letters to my grandmother every year around Christmas to thank her for her many decades of support and to ask her if she needed anything from the office. Sure they were autosigned signatures, but at least Ted had staff people that kept up with people like that. A great office for helping my sister with a few issues she’s had. Kerry never returns phone calls, never even writes a form letter back like Sen. Kennedy did when I mailed him in middle school. Capuano from my experience would be just as dedicated to constituent services as Ted Kennedy was.

              <

              p>John Kerry might vote with progressives on the issues but the fact of the matter is he does not give a sh-t about his state or the people that live there.  

              • You’ve fallen for the old personal letter trick, the old full time campaign staff routine…they treated everyone like they were perpetually in middle school, or perpetually grandmothers.  What do people ever need from a Senator’s office, anyway?  It’s a way of gaining loyalty at the expense of local government, which Kennedy turns into the bad guy, which spreads ill will and elitism and snobbery.  Kerry on the other hand spread comraderie among the public and respect for the local government, by telling people to deal with it themselves, like grownups.

                • had a problem getting a visa to the US. That’s the State Department, and they are not accountable to any grownups except the Sec. of State and his boss, and some Senators.

                  <

                  p>I called both Senators when I had such a problem. Kennedy’s staff tried to help; Kerry’s brushed me off. That despite my having worked for Kerry’s first political campaign, sharing his arrest record, etc. He’s kind of an ingrate.

                • You actually think that because you worked for Kerry’s campaign, he would intervene on your behalf with the state department and get you special treatment?  Sure, Kennedy was happy to send his bloated staff on your behalf and throw his weight around to show how important he is, but, again, is that his job?  No.  It’s a full-time taxpayer funded re-election campaign that doesn’t improve anything at the State Department, it only entrenches the status quo, because Kennedy doesn’t benefit by improving the system, he benefits by exploiting its faults one voter at a time.

                • I actually think if Kerry would deliver constituent services to anyone who wasn’t a special interest, he’d deliver services to those who’d helped him in the past. He didn’t. It’s just a marker of how bad his office is at delivering constituent services. This changes dramatically, if superficially,  every six years, of course.

                  <

                  p>It is the job of a Senator to intervene when the Federal bureaucracy ignores the needs of his constituents. The State Department is famous for doing that, and anyone who’s had to deal with them knows it. You don’t, ergo…  That particular part of the system cannot be changed without a Constitutional amendment. Some Senators have much influence at State. No Representatives do, so far as I know.

  3. when I google him with public option, I’m seeing that he is against it.  Yet I’m hearing he was a strong supporter of single payer or universal healthcare.

    <

    p>I was at the rally on Labor day, but I could not hear what the speakers were saying.  Did he say he is in support of the public option?  Is he one that will oppose any reform without a public option?

    • I didn’t even catch this post

      <

      p>

      Thanks to the members of the Massachusetts Progressive Congressional caucus who have pledged to vote against any health care bill that does not have a public plan.  
      You represent 76% of Americans who want a public plan, and coming from heavily Democratic-leaning districts as you do, an even greater percentage of your own constituents:

      Mike Capuano D+32 MA-08
      Jim McGovern D+9 MA-03
      Bill Delahunt D+9 MA-10
      Barney Frank D+14 MA-04
      John Tierney D+7 MA-06
      John Olver D+14 MA-01

      I wish there was a link to verify.  

      <

      p>This is OK as long as they don’t mean it and are just trying to throw weight around, which is a good thing.

  5. Well, I’ve been searching around and found a few things regarding Mike Capuano and the public option.

    <

    p>there is this, coming straight from the horses mouth…

    <

    p><embed pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer&quot; src="http://necn.com/avp31.swf?or9mv1)csQ,E;H0K*.(!ZAps6&==$Ie bdI:-W/bsoHD|;N;(:bZz_fhQ!,pcfz]Mt)s){r$K^Nm)&gt;8Y{~RC3hDdclVcA$@FY.RmATgE.L4b4ty_7aXbUw?))7Vj5_~<(,ebw/u5t_&:[s}#; |/|:NC5ro*E5pb-IVfFe30}?;C<3Hh*oyNin!9CH~dCeF/s),@?2 ” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowfullscreen=”true” wmode=”transparent” allowscriptaccess=”always” width=”320″ height=”240″>

    <

    p>And there is this, an article quote from RollCall.com…

    <

    p>

    Key Liberals Willing to Bargain Sept. 8, 2009
    But while Progressive leaders have staked their caucus’s reputation on getting a strong public insurance option, vowing again and again that they will not cave, the rank and file aren’t necessarily holding the line.

    “We’re the caucus that least marches to a unified drummer – that’s not what we do,” Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Mass.) said. “I’m serious about increasing access and quality, but that doesn’t mean it has to be a grand slam home run. I’ll take a ground-rule double if that’s what it takes. I’m happy to compromise if that’s what it takes. But compromise is compromise – it’s not rolling over.”

    Perhaps this is him thinking he will compromise as a last resort while speaking also to the idea that he is going to draw the line in the sand to see if it creates some motivation to include the public option.  I think drawing a line in the sand works for lawmakers while they battle out the details, as long as they will vote for whatever is eventually put on the table (with caution).  

    <

    p>It would be nice if we didn’t have conflicting quotes in the media simultaneously.

    <

    p>

    • IS rolling over. Especially when you compromise before even beginning to negotiate, which is what happened to single-payer. And funding for the Iraq War. And impeachment. Please stop doing that, Democrats. I don’t care if you think you don’t have enough votes. I want you to try to do the right thing. It’s the honorable approach, and it will be rewarded in the long run. Giving up to avoid confrontation isn’t working even in the short walk.

    • Michael Rezendes (he’s back!!)in the Globe today focuses on all the candidates’position on federal health care reform.

      <

      p>

      Capuano, a Somerville Democrat expected to announce his candidacy shortly, has expressed unreserved support not just for a government health insurance option, but a significant one.

      “I am a very strong proponent of a robust public plan, not just any public plan,” he said in an interview.

      “I don’t know any better way to limit the cost of health care, and keeping costs reasonable is what it’s all about.”

    • Fortunately, we should know for sure before the primary. If he gives up on the public option I definitely won’t be voting for him.

      <

      p>I am on his email list and I have agreed with how he has voted on most things that have come up. The main exception is that he voted for the Wall Street giveaway last fall. He did vote against the FISA bill giving immunity to the telecoms that broke the law and he voted against the Iraq war. He has archives going back to the beginning of the year if you want to see his thinking on recent issues: http://www.house.gov/capuano/e…

      • and I’ve done some other research too.  I am happy with his positions on most things. Looks to me like he’s the guy who’s going to serve us best in the Senate.  He’s a fighter too, we need that. He’ll have some kick even though he’ll be the lowest man on the totem pole.

  6. Capuano was not the choice of the left when he first ran for Congress — he was “conservative,” but only in the context of Somerville. He’s been a very pleasant surprise since he got there. He voted against normalizing trade with China — it may have been World Trade Organization membership, my memory fails — because of China’s human rights record. That was a brave vote, because he bucked President Clinton.

    <

    p>I’m not supporting him in this race, but I wouldn’t mind if he won. I’m not working against him, either; I think I’ll wait for the Democratic nominee.

    <

    p>Incidentally, in 1986 — Joe Kennedy was not the choice of the left. He was a pleasant surprise too.

    • Has served on Banking and Transportation and takes care of the home front very well, which we will need in our junior senator.  Strong staff here and in DC, door has always been open in terms of good ideas and support for good causes.

    • And the stands against farm subsidies and his current caution regarding President Obama’s escalation in Afghanistan. Some can fault Mike for not being as visible on the Sunday shows and in the House leadership like Markey is and Meehan was, but I would rather see some consistent political courage from my Senator and he has certainly displayed that as my Congressman.

      <

      p>I have repeatedly said that unlike our Governor’s race we are truly blessed with great candidates to choose from for Senate. I would honestly be happy with any of the choices for my nominee and look forward to hearing them debate the issues before I make my decision. I am definitely leaning towards Mike at the moment though.  

  7. Is Mike Capuano an enthusiastic and feisty speaker on the house floor, similar to Ted Kennedy.  Does he speak with conviction, force, confidence, and persistence?
    Does he fight as if he is fighting for something that it is truly important to him, or does he speak his message as if it’s his duty to do so, without much conviction or enthusiasm?

    <

    p>I am going to see if I can find some examples on Youtube.

    • once when i was visiting the homefolks in texas, we were watching cnn, and they showed a clip of congressman uber-townie from massachusetts bellowing and lecturing during some hearing. and pronouncing all his r’s like ah’s, and i was like, ‘see that! . . . that’s what people in somerville are like! . . really!’

      <

      p>they were taken aback.

  10. on the eve of the rubberstamp vote of bush’s invasion of iraq, capuano stood outside of the porter square T stop for hours (maybe other places as well) while staffers held big signs that encouraged passersby to come and tell their congressman how they thought he should vote.

    <

    p>by contrast, john kerry met with bob shrum over wine and cheese to see how he thought he should vote.

    <

    p>(for the record; capuano followed the overwhelming will of his constitiuents, whereas the other guy followed the advice of his handlers.)

    • I think it is great when a representative really listens to their constituency.  That is what they are there for, to represent.

Archives