Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Martha Coakley backs public option at health care rally!

By

Martha Coakley backed the public option at today’s health care rally.  She spoke of the suffering caused by the current failures of our health care system with real passion.  I think that shows in the photo my husband took, which I posted on facebook and linked, above.

She was not alone in backing that option.  So did Mike Capuano, who also gave a stirring speech; you can feel the energy in the photo Mike Capuano  He also really had the crowd with him.

Many came with home made signs:  Lucy Francif and LWV  Also Christine Aquilino

The energy level was huge.  To win this senatorial election, the candidates will have to address this issue, no question.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. “To win this senatorial election, the candidates will have to address this issue, no question.”

    <

    p>Yes, Lynch figured out today that he can’t maintain his posture of indecision about his support for the public option or other particular aspects of reform.  

    • is too slick by twice.

      <

      p>Maybe he used more than a “little dab“.

      <

      p>Remember, Congressman Brylcream, “a little dab will do ya.”

      • If you’re going to continue ragging on a guy you don’t like because of his hair, at least spell the insult correctly.

        <

        p>Brylcreem

        • He dressed for a funeral, not a rally. Somehow all the other speakers managed to dress appropriately.  Guess he missed the memo. đŸ˜‰

    • If what I just read on Fire Dog Lake is true about Mike Capuano then I feel betrayed and his other constituents should, too. It’s at least worth a call to his office first thing Wednesday 9/9/09 (tel# below). Pinning Coakley–and all other candidates–down on the Public Option details is imperative.

      <

      p>

      Michael Capuano & Sam Farr Are Open to Triggers, And I’m Open to Primaries For Michael Capuano & Sam Farr

      Fire Dog Lake, By Jane Hamsher, Tuesday September 8, 2009

      What part of  “we simply cannot vote for such a proposal” did they not understand when they signed their names?

      Everyone needs a hobby, right?  And if health care goes down because a couple of progressives who are cosponsors of H.R. 676 don’t think there’s a problem with health care in this country sufficient to enact immediate change, I think making sure Democrats in their districts have a choice in the next election is a good one.

      Both Sam Farr and Michael Capuano are now saying they are “open” to triggers for a public option.  Both live in strong Democratic districts.  Both are single payer supporters.  And more importantly, both  signed a pledge with 58 of their fellow Democrats saying they would hold the line on the public option. And now they’re screwing them over:

         [W]hile 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.”

      Do they think that voting for a public plan is not already a compromise off of single payer?  Do they really think that insurance companies like UnitedHealth, whose CEO has over $700 million in unexercised stock options, need one more chance to “get it right?”  

      Capuano and Farr have been shaking donors down for years campaigning about a “health care crisis.”  Did they suddenly wake up this morning and decide that a “crisis” was all in their minds?  That things aren’t so bad after all?  Are they really going to try and pull off immediately soaking middle class people for insurance they can’t afford to use in a huge transfer of wealth to the insurance industry, and safeguard the public only “if and when”?

      Everyone has to choose here.  Nobody gets a pass.  You’re either in or you’re out.  That goes for everyone — members of Congress, liberal institutions, everybody who has been calling for liberal health care reform.  You can’t be “for” something and then enable those who are trying to dismantle it.

      If you live in Rep. Capuano’s or Rep. Farr’s district, and you know an up and coming progressive leader who knows how to keep their word who would be a good primary challenger, let us know.

      If you are one of the 3,103 who donated $6,071.43 to  Capuano or the 2,870 who donated $5,691.07 to Farr based on the letter they signed to vote against any bill that does not have a robust public option, call them and tell them you want it back.

      And please join Slinkerwink over at Daily Kos today as she continues looking into the relationship between health care lobbyists and members in strong Democratic districts who WON’T take the pledge.  What is happening with Capuano and Farr underscores why her efforts are so vital — if everyone is allowed to keep their head down til it’s time to vote, and then joins together to vote en masse to sell it out, it’s too late.  They need to know the people in their districts are watching them now.

      As the administration stars to twist arms and peel progressives off like this, weakening their resolve and hammering the block down to get it below 40 — the number necessary to defeat a bill without a public option — we’re gonna have to twist back.

      Join us as we find new and entertaining ways to show Rep. Capuano and Rep. Farr that this ain’t no disco, this ain’t no foolin’ around.

      Sam Farr:  202-225-2861, 831-424-2229, 831-429-1976.  

      Michael Capuano:  (202) 225-5111 , 617-621-6208, 617-621-6208
      ———

      COMMENTS include these:

      I just got off the phone with Capuano’s office and he’s weaseling as best he can. I made it very clear that I will not support his candidacy for Senate (should he choose to run) if he caves and he appears to be in full-cave mode. It is really interesting that after two months of trying to pin down Markey on making the pledge that his staffer did so this morning without hesitation. Meanwhile Capuano who had signed the pledge is now going soft. I suspect Markey really does want Teddy’s seat and is willing to say what it takes to get it.
      —-

      Hm… well, this makes my decision easier. I was going to support Capuano in the special election over Martha Coakley. Guess I’ll have to keep my options open now, but I shan’t be voting for ANYONE who doesn’t draw a line in the sand on the public option.

      read full post and comments at http://campaignsilo.firedoglak…

      • Then the House leadership of Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer and Clyburn while you are at it.

        <

        p>It would be good to flesh out Coakley’s position.

        <

        p>I like Capuano, we’ll see where this goes.

      • not just Capuano but McGovern backtracked on the pledge they signed in July with that said No Public Option ‘No’ Vote.

        <

        p>it’s been reported that Capuano’s office was surprised the word got out. I guess they don’t read TPMdc.  Subsequent callers were told that Capuano remains on board with his pledge.  I would say,make the calls and ask him is he is standing by his pledge.  

        <

        p>If you’re in McGovern’s district, call and ask where he stands on his pledge for a strong Public option.  Let us know.  

  2. All the analysis I have heard concerning his speech has been that Obama will be definitive on the aspects of the reform bill that he “requires” but will vote “present” on the public option. He cannot say I need the PO or I’ll veto it but he also can’t say the PO is not needed. My guess is the statements thus far by Axlerod, Gibbs and Steny Hoyer from just a few minutes ago is we will get reform but NO PO.

    <

    p>

    By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer – 18 mins ago
    WASHINGTON – House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is expressing confidence that the House will pass a health care bill this year, while indicating that the final version may not include the public option pushed by many Democrats.
    Hoyer, speaking to reporters Tuesday as Congress returned from an August recess dominated by the health care debate, says he personally backs giving people a government option competing with private health insurers.
    But he makes clear that the public option is not a condition for passing a bill and “I believe a bill that accomplishes very substantially the objectives the president has put forward and we have put forward can pass the House.”

    <

    p>Axlerod on “Meet the Press”.

    <

    p>

    …and he expects to be in the plan, and that’s our position,” Axelrod told The Associated Press.

    Asked if that means a public plan has to be in the bill for Obama to sign it, Axelrod responded: “I’m not going to deal in hypotheticals. … He believes it’s important.”

    The president “believes the public option is a good tool,” said Axelrod. “It shouldn’t define the whole health care debate, however.”

    <

    p>Gibbs on “This Week”…

    <

    p>

    STEPHANOPOULOS: … that. He wants a public option, but…

    GIBBS: And he still does.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: But — he wants it, but will he sign a bill that doesn’t include it? Because it can’t get through the Senate.

    GIBBS: Well, we’re not going to prejudge what the process will be when we sign a bill, which the president expects to do this year. The president strongly believes that we have to have an option like this to provide choice and competition, to provide a check on insurance companies, because without it, again, we’re going to have markets as big as a whole state of Alabama, almost 90 percent of which is dominated by one insurance company.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: But is it essential? I mean, that’s the key question. We’ve known for months that the president is for it. Is it essential to health care reform?

    GIBBS: The president believes it is a valuable tool. And I think you’ll hear him talk about it on Wednesday.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: But not essential?

    GIBBS: It’s a valuable tool and provides choice and competition, something that you’ll hear him talk about extensively on Wednesday.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: So he — let me just try to sum this up, then. The president, from what I can hear, is going to make the case for the public health insurance option — for a form of the public insurance option on Wednesday.

    But he is not going to say, if you don’t bring me one, I veto the bill.

    GIBBS: Well, I doubt we’re going to get into heavy veto threats on Wednesday. We’re going to talk about what we can do because we’re so close to getting it done. He will talk about the public option and why he believes and continues to believe that it is a valuable component of providing choice and competition, it helps individuals and small businesses, at the same time provides a check on insurance companies so they don’t dominate the market

  3. (6th district), who received loud cheers and applause at the rally when he stated that his first choice is a single-payer system, though he strongly supports the public option in the present debate over health insurance.

  4. Seriously, this wanna be politician and her staff of 432 State employees ( wonder what that’s costing the taxpayers?) has pretty much indicted and prosecuted NOBODY here in what could easily be the most corrupt State in the Union.
    Her biggest achievement thus far has been putting some little glue Company that made the epoxy for the tunnel fasteners  in upstate NY out of business. Meanwhile every fat cat and crook associated with the big dig scam “walked” with the State getting pocket change in damages.  NOBODY went to jail….NOBODY….. There were many , many of these dirtbags that belong in Walpole…what did Martha do….Nada (other than maybe accept a juicy campaign contribution here and there )

    <

    p>Have you noticed that any “big” indictments and prosecutions that happen here are made by the FED?…with Martha no where to be found?
    Seriously folks, this women is a joke.

    • Name calling does not strengthen your post…if you ask the defense bar, and Attorney Coakley’s former boss, you will find that she is viewed as a thorough, tough opponent to face, and, in fact, “hard ass”.

      <

      p>I don’t agree with all of her positions – for example the position she took on the right of confrontation in Melendez-Diaz recently before the USSCT – but that too followed from being a prosecutor.

      <

      p>As to expecting Attorney General Coakley to single-handedly change the entrenched political culture of this state – where encumbants wear halos and crowns and play golf with lobbyists in Florida – no other Attorney General has succeeded in doing THAT – not even Scott Harshbarger or Tom Reilly – and I note that the majority of the Big Dig occurred long before Martha Coakley became attorney general.

      <

      p>What is your agenda, really?

      • What has Martha accomplished (please include her most significant indictments and prosecutions) and more importantly , What qualifies her to be a Senator?

          1.  About Martha Coakley

          <

          p>2.  more

          <

          p>3.  Still more

          <

          p>4.  Yet still more

          <

          p>What qualifies her to be a senator?  In my opinion, some of what qualifies her to be a senator is:

          <

          p>1.  Her passion for public service.

          <

          p>2.  Her willingness to fight for the health of her employees despite the opposition of Chief Justice for Administration and Management Mulligan when she and the Middlesex DAs office were stuck in 40 Thorndike [I am very very familiar with her courage and compassion in that situation].

          <

          p>3.  Her courage and grit.

          <

          p>4.  Her ability to analyze and study out a situation, and determination to master new areas of knowledge.

          <

          p>5.  The fact that she does NOT come from a political dynasty and worked to get where she is.

          <

          p>6.  The reality that she engages in dialog, and shows respect for those with whom she disagrees.

          <

          p>7.  Her staff answers letters and returns phone calls [something that certain other staffs don’t do].

          <

          p>I can go on.  Want more?

          • Actually, I do want more.

            <

            p>What evidence do we have that she’d make a good legislator? I’m guessing that’s a very different talent from being a good executive.

            • There is  “character evidence” that leads me to conclude Martha Coakley would be a good legislator.  I gave some of that above – but as to “experience” in that role of a nature that would be admissible in court – no.

              <

              p>But then Ted Kennedy became a superb senator with no evidence of aptitude and no experience as a legislator that I am aware of.  He none the less grew into the role at the level of senator – superbly.

              <

              p>The ability to consider all sides, evaluate information, and then come up with an understanding leading to a course of action IS relevant to the role of legislator and that, in my opinion, Martha Coakley has demonstrated.

              <

              p>So is the ability to choose a competent staff, delegate to and monitor that staff, and master a large body of knowledge.  She has demonstrated this as well, to my satisfaction.

              <

              p>Unlike some, also, I don’t require that a candidate take positions that I agree with 100% [or even 75%] in order to garner my support.  But then, that is another discussion entirely.

              <

              p>Suffice it to say I do not use litmus tests to choose who I support, nor have all my candidates always turned out in a manner that pleases me [think John Edwards!].

              <

              p>I will say, however, that the track record and integrity and compassion that I have seen from Martha Coakley deserve consideration and that I choose to support her – I know Martha Coakley and have seen her in action out of the limelight and choose to support her.

              <

              p>I am sure you support whomever you support for good reasons as well – so, kbush, on this one we will just agree to disagree and then support the Democratic nominee whomever that will be once the primary is over.

                • What I have already run into is folk “questioning” coakley’s qualifications but really doing so because they were already supporting someone else, you know?  Anyway, I hope you will do your due diligence, decide whom to support, and that you will choose to support Martha Coakley.  That may be a tall order, as there will be several excellent candidates, and the field isn’t even fully developed as yet.  Thanks for listening; I choose early and barring unpleasant surprises expect to stay the course, as it were, since that is my preferred mode of operation.  

  5. AG Coakley has been an aggressive and successful advocate for all workers on wage and labor law enforcement.

    <

    p>Just stop by the AG’s website and count the number of wage and labor law cases AG Coakley has closed on behalf of workers in all sectors against employers who violate the laws.

    <

    p>That is a Ted Kennedy legacy I support.

    • Tooks aquick look at Jack12’s postings and own admissions. RMG guy crossing over to post.

      <

      p>Seems the RMG and GOP are more afriad of a Coakley candidacy then any other. Attacks are already starting (can Ed O’R be far behind?!)

      • I’d say he’s RMG’s billxi, but billxi posts as much there as here (and equally incoherently).  He hates gays, Democrats, puppies, KBusch, “socialism”, etc. etc.

        <

        p>EaBo Clipper is a better example of a Mass. GOP mouthpiece. He speaks only in party approved talking points.  

Archives