DarfurScores.org gives him an A+ on the issue
In his own words:
From the Congressional website –
“I am deeply concerned about the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan and am doing everything I can to end it. The horrors in Sudan have troubled me since 2002, when the Boston Anti-Slavery Group met with me to inform me about the persistence of slavery. I will never forget meeting a fellow human being who had been, for some years, the property of another person. Since that day, I have worked to end such atrocity. On July 16, 2003, my resolution condemning slavery in Sudan passed unanimously in the House.
Sudan has been plagued with conflict throughout its history and a bloody civil war between its Northern and Southern regions remains uneasily suspended by a Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Worse conflict arose in Darfur, the western part of Sudan, home to an estimated 7 million people. The crisis in Darfur began in February 2003, when two rebel groups emerged to challenge the National Islamic Front (NIF) government on the grounds that the Government of Sudan discriminates against Muslim African ethnic groups in Darfur and has systematically targeted them for years. In 2004, the Sudanese government began a major military campaign against the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). These attacks were carried out by the Government of Sudan and its militia, the Janjaweed. The Janjaweed have terrorized citizens of Darfur by burning villages, contaminating the water supply, and murdering and raping civilians. On July 22, 2004 Congress declared that the actions of the Sudanese government constituted genocide. On September 9th, 2004 the Bush administration also declared it Genocide. Since 2003 over 400,000 civilians have died, 2.5 million have been internally displaced and 200,000 have fled to neighboring Chad. Over half of the population of Darfur has been affected by the genocide.
In October 2005, I co-founded the Congressional Caucus on Sudan, and I have since traveled to the region. I have gone to Khartoum and personally confronted President Omar al-Bashir, now under indictment by the International Criminal Court. I was in the region on a Congressional delegation trip led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi in February of 2006 and later met with United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan and US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton to urge that UN peacekeeping forces be moved quickly into Darfur. In March of 2006, I secured an additional $50 million for the African Union Mission in Sudan through a House emergency appropriations bill.
Currently, the joint UN-African Union peacekeeping force (UNAMID) is authorized to operate on the ground in Darfur, a region the size of France. Unfortunately, the deployment of this force has been plagued by a lack of international resources and stymied by the Government of Sudan, leaving it largely unable to bring security or stability. Last Congress, I introduced a resolution calling on the President to encourage the international community to donate much-needed resources to UNAMID, including essential helicopter assets. But the peacekeepers remain hampered by their lack of numbers and logistical capacity, and unspeakable civilian suffering continues.
I do believe that President Obama is committed to ending the genocide and I am very encouraged that one of his first acts as President was to appoint a Special Envoy to Sudan. I continue to closely monitor the situation and I sincerely hope that this increased focus will speed the end of the horrors.” (Statement from the Congressional website).
not very startling news, Kate. perhaps they are just thinning the herd before the 2010 Census in hopes that one less on the range will prevent two of them from going head-to-head as we lose a Rep…. Tierney would get crushed by Tsongas, especially since his record on supporting women is a one way street (all going his way, he asks women to support him, but he doesn’t reciprocate.)
<
p>With all due respect to Congressman Capuano, yesterday at the Andover forum his basic pitch was: you need to elect me because only a congressman has the ability to figure out the way around DC and represent Massachusetts in the Senate. Alan Khazei correctly pointed out that the majority of people feel that Congress IS the problem! (Maybe that is exactly what the poll numbers are reflecting) The Dems have the votes on their side and still cannot get anything done. Congressman Capuano says he voted against the Patriot Act (no hard vote there, he represents Cambridge!)…but now that the Dems have the votes and the power, why isn’t he getting it repealed?
<
p>With all due respect to Congressman Capuano, how did the Wall Street boys and the K St lobbyists that represent them get by his committee which supposedly exists to watch out for tax payers interests…all the “I’m shocked!” rhetoric after the fact does not make up for a committee that dropped the ball while playing ball with Wall Street.
<
p>One thing for sure…Martha Coakley will not be “just one of the boys” from the beltway. I think that is her strength.
If that’s true, it’s the first bad thing I’ve heard about Khazei. Polls about the approval of Congress mean next to nothing, considering a big chunk of those people think Congress is, say, failing to end the war in Afghanistan, while another big chunk thinks that everyone in Congress is secretly Hitler. Doesn’t say much.
And an audience of about 200 Democratic activists applauded their agreement with him. If you don’t think the public (Democrats, Independents and Republicans) is fed up with what the pervasive power of money has done to the election process, you are not paying attention. They are on to the fact that special interests are “buying” both sides of the aisle at the same time…then they need not worry or care who wins…they always win…check out the top ten givers to Obama and McCain from the Financial Industry…same players in both…Goldman Sachs was Obama’s top giver but they made McCain’s top 10 as well.
<
p>I’m sure you’ve got some examples to back that up?
He had a 95% record with the Human Rights Campaign in the 110th, and 100% for the 109th and 108th.
<
p>NOW: http://now.org/issues/election…
HRC (you’ll have to search for Tierney): http://www.hrc.org/laws_and_el…
Not easy to vote for NOW bills…or Human Rights bills…he wouldn’t get elected in his district if he couldn’t score on those…but when it comes to supporting women candidates, Congressman Tierney is not there (unless of course it is a fellow Congressman that he wants to bring in to help him raise money for his own campaign)
on this failure to support women candidates? You’re making the assertion, so please back it up with something.
…Tierney is not supporting your candidate in this particular race, who happens to be a woman, which negates all of his legislative efforts and votes over the last 12 years and means his support for women is a one-way street. Gotcha.
feel the need to dump on Mike Capuano’s good news?
<
p>She’s got a 20 point lead and still any thread on which good news about Capuano’s campiagn is posted, Coakley’s supporters come out and take shots at him. Four US congressmen endorsed Mika Capuano for US Senate – Tierney, Lynch, Frank and McGovern – but it’s “Not very startling news” says the little annie Coakley supporter. Do you take the endorsements for granted? I don’t. Just wait till Coakley gets Olver’s endorsement, then it’ll be a big deal.
By Capuano supporters on this blog.
<
p>What goes around comes around.
I don’t think her supporters are so small minded.
(Atrios’ coinage, I think)
<
p>Primary season on liberal blogs seems to do that. The 2006 Governor’s race and the 2008 Senate campaign brought forth something similar on BMG. It got pretty overheated on Daily Kos during the 2008 Presidential Primaries.
Just in time for the holidays — your favorite idle speculation meant to drag down the front-runner…
<
p>”Has Coakley been consistent, timely and accountable in her decisions to prosecute without fear or favor as the Attorney General of the Commonwealth?”
<
p>”If some of the work was financed with funds from her state election campaign then she broke the law”
<
p>”There is some concern about her positions on Constitutional rights”
<
p>This from the guy who wants all major elected officials in Massachusetts “aggressively investigated”, who Neil imagines are “like the Sopranos“. Keep up your style, Neil, and you’re on the path to mainstream media punditry!
Sabutai, I claim the Soprano reference as my own. I’m not sure Neil had anything to do with it.
<
p>What I actually said was:
<
p>Do you disagree?
<
p>Here’s what I wrote about the connection to Martha Coakley:
<
p>Are you arguing that Mike Capuano is more tightly wired to the Beacon Hill and City Hall machine than Martha Coakley?
<
p>Do you dispute the existence of a Beacon Hill or City Hall machine?
<
p>I take it from your comment — “This from the guy who wants all major elected officials in Massachusetts “aggressively investigated” — that you feel no investigation is warranted.
<
p>Well, at least we know where you’re coming from.
I misread that particular comment, and I apologize to anyone who was wronged by that mis-attribution.
<
p>I do not dispute the existence of a machine. However, think about what’s being proposed, and the consequences of such an investigation. It would have real consequences for the idea of separation of powers. Granted, as in the case of Blagojevich, such targeting of the leadership by a law enforcement official is warranted. Even that was more narrowly focused than what some folks here want — on a couple of people close to the governor. Instead, I’ve seen commentators who, when pushed, suddenly want a very public investigation of the entire leadership of a co-equal branch of government, on the strength of their personal suspicion of illegal activity.
<
p>As much as some people would like, having a “machine” isn’t illegal. It’s good politics. Just because the machine beats whomever you like, doesn’t make it illegal. And it doesn’t warrant a public braying investigation.
<
p>Granted, I understand for many folks around here, this “corruption” is just an issue handy for bating Martha Coakley, and their silence on it until she declared her candidacy for Senate indicates how little they truly care.
I don’t believe I said or implied anything about pursuing an investigation based on a “personal suspicion of illegal activity.”
<
p>Instead, I described:
<
p>I don’t care whether the investigation is public or private — I do care that the sitting Attorney General so publicly and so prematurely ruled it out.
<
p>The destruction of public records was, in fact, illegal. The nearly immediate and, in my view, utterly inappropriate and contemptuous dismissal of concern about this destruction was Martha Coakley’s action, not mine. In my view, it is a clear statement of her lack of appetite for even investigating, never mind prosecuting, this apparent corruption.
<
p>If you want to argue that the activities of Richard Vitale, Joseph Lally, and Richard McDonough and the seemingly countless legion of their peers aren’t illegal, then take it up with the federal prosecutors who are pursuing the case. We have seen years of published reports like this suggesting a similar network of doctors, lawyers and consultants who keep the disability and pension mill running.
<
p>I suggest that such activities are, in fact, illegal, and I further suggest that such corrupt behavior lies well within the legal and constitutional boundaries of the office of Attorney General. I am disappointed that you (and apparently Ms. Coakley) seem to disagree.
good politics.
<
p>I love such operations, and I frequently criticize our local government when it fails to live up to that standard (such as in the never-ending MBTA fiasco).
<
p>Destroying public records that are the focus of a corruption investigation, the activities for which Mr. Vitale, Mr. Lally, and Mr. McDonough were indicted, and activities for which a “flurry of subpoenas” were issued in 2008 are, in my view, what makes the Beacon Hill and City Hall operations look more like “The Sopranos” and less like “West Wing”.
<
p>These aren’t “good politics”, these are examples of plain old-fashioned graft and corruption. Public or private, in my view they certainly do warrant an investigation — braying or otherwise.
<
p>I oppose such corruption regardless of who it helps or hurts. I reject the cynical implication — or even outright claim — that my opposition to this corruption is motivated by my personal choice of candidates, instead of vice-versa.
You would like everyone to think these are “Neil’s greatest hits” “favorite idle speculation meant to drag down the front-runner” becuase then it would be about me and not about Martha. But it’s not about me. So how about looking into it rather than blaming the person raising the issues?
<
p>
Hardly idle speculation. Do you know why Coakley had no involvement in the DiMasi prosecution? She has been strictly hands-off. Is it her responsibility to investigate and prosecute or not? There is a reasonable answer tot the question. Was is it?
<
p>
If some of the work was financed with funds from her state election campaign then she broke the law. This is quite simply true. This is also currently under investigation so your charge of “idle speculation” fails again. If it is true, and it was an intentional trade-off, what does that say about Martha’s ethics when it come to how she operates her campaign? Check this out from kennedyseat.com on the day Coakley announced, She “Needs to start raising cash – unlike Congressmen, she can’t use her state money for race” Oh snap. Even the blogger knew that.
<
p>
Keenedyseat.com used that exact description – Constitutional rights – to describe issues raised about Coakley’s record here on BMG.
<
p>
Coakley gets it either way. If she’s not “hands off” she’d me “meddling on behalf of a political ally”.
<
p>By the way a phrase that starts with “if”, as in “if some of the work was financed with funds from her state election campaign then she broke the law.” is the very definition of speculation and the antithesis of “simply true”. You use “if” the way that a good journalist uses “some say”.
<
p>I am leaning more toward Capuano than Coakley because of their stands on issues. There are good reasons to boost Capuano, but “if/then” attacks on Coakley are weak.
<
p>If Capuano abused his position to take numerous junkets meant for lobbying and not fact-finding, and takes pride in working with John Murtha, then shouldn’t he be investigated? Why is Eric Holder not doing his job?
<
p>See how easy — and pointless – that was?
<
p>I’ve never made this argument. The best I can say is that you’ve constructed a straw man to account for her failure to act in the DiMasi case and other government corruption cases. Moreover, I don’t think Coakley would have you play her as victim.
<
p>Coakley’s campaign is under investigation for using state campaign funds for a federal race. It’s not rank speculation to discuss to the investigation or to state that a guilty finding means she broke the law, and conversely, a not guilty finding means she did not break the law. Either way, you imply that discussion of this issue is prejudicial and unfair. I disagree. I’ll reserve judgment until they make a judgment but it doesn’t look good on her resume – to be investigated for campaign law violations in her first federal campaign.
<
p>I know Capuano traveled to Iran and Afganstian but I don’t know what alleged ethics violation you are referring to. Trips to war zones aren’t exactly the same as golf junkets to Scotland. Any sources you have would be appreciated. Usually, ethics violations are taken up by the house ethics committee and alleged criminal violation are taken up by the FBI until they find probably cause. Then the US attorney gets involved.
From Ch. 5’s On The Record Sunday 10’18/09 10:00 AM.
Endorsements are great if they’re for you. Meaningless if they’re for the other candidate
I would have posted the link, but it didn’t work for me, it was part 3.
An endorsement from someone I don’t know well has never worked for me.