Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

A Flip Flop or Not, That is the Question

By

The statements were made at a forum in 2005 around the same time as Congress debated the re-authorization of the Patriot Act.

She was on stage with Bush lackey and now Aschroft law buddy Michael Sullivan. Good Company.

The Capuano campaign also notes:

“In a white paper released November 4, 2009, during the heat of her current run for US Senate, Martha Coakley apparently had a change of heart, stating that the PATRIOT Act “sacrificed some of our most treasured civil liberties.” Here, she acknowledged that the PATRIOT Act went too far and changes are desperately needed in order to protect constitutional rights.  Martha Coakley has not explained her switch of position on this crucial issue, instead choosing to quietly flip flop so that her stated position now reflects the will of the majority of Democratic voters in the state of Massachusetts.”

Are her statements enough to constitute a flip flop?

Is this the first of many punches going to be thrown in all directions over the final week?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • Despite the exchange between Capuano and Coakley, I don’t understand her answer. How can you make it so the patriot act does not violate civil liberties?

      <

      p>Did anyone catch what she meant or how she could adjust the patriot act so it doesn’t take away from civil liberties?

      <

      p>I think this is a big difference between the two front runners. Hope tomorrow nights debate draws it out.

      • as one still waiting to be inspired by all the hope and puffy heart stickers. I am pleased he is our President and I feel as though he has done a nice and steady job, but I was hoping for more.  

  2. I’m not normally opposed to what a lot of people call political “flip flopping”. Evolving thought is a symptom of experience, and reflects the complexity of policy-making. Many of these issues are multi-faceted, and oftentimes, what people label as flip-flopping is really a result of new information, changing circumstances, or politically necessary compromise. I appreciate politicians who have the personal strength to admit when they’re wrong, who are eager to learn from others. I like to see someone who can come to the table with both an open mind and the political savvy and intelligence to put it to good use.

    <

    p>That said, I don’t think that’s what’s going on with Martha. This wasn’t a position that evolved and changed with experience.  Nor can she (or, at least, should she) claim she didn’t fully understand the issue. She made it clear she did, basically calling opposition to the Patriot Act ignorant (“when people don’t understand how things work…”). She spoke with authority, from a law-enforcement position, claiming to thoroughly understand the issue. She supported the act when it actually mattered– during the debate on its renewal. Now, it’s campaign season, so Martha’s saying what she thinks will help her keep her lead.

    <

    p>I get that, after 9/11, it took a lot of courage to stand up and vote against something called “The Patriot Act”. I also get that now, in a Senate campaign in liberal Massachusetts, it’s political suicide to side with Bush’s invasive abuses of privacy. I don’t think it’s about flip-flopping, I think it’s about dishonesty. I think it’s about Martha’s “winning” strategy of avoiding honest and open discourse out of fear of losing ground. I don’t want a Senator who shies away from controversy. I don’t want a Senator who says “The Patriot Act sacrificed our civil liberties” because she knows that’s what I think. I want a Senator who actually believes that, believed it when it mattered, and wasn’t afraid to say so.

    <

    p>What bothers me is this: Coakley never explains why her position has suddenly changed come election season (look back at the death penalty shenanigans, her refusal to answer questions about HCR, etc.) When electing a legislative representative, I want as much information as possible. I want to know how my Senator thinks, how he operates, how he feels about the important issues. I want him to be open about his stances, how he came to form them, and why he believes in them. (And lord please don’t let my use of “he” start another gender debate….I promise I have a uterus and am not secretly ashamed of it. It’s just grammar.) I don’t feel that with Coakley. I can’t shake the feeling she’s just saying what she thinks we want to hear. And that’s not what we need. We’re trying to fill Ted Kennedy’s shoes–we need someone who will tell us what we DON’T want to hear. We need someone with the balls to stand up and say “No I won’t vote for the Iraq War, I don’t care what the majority thinks.” It’s great to see someone agree with you at every turn, but I haven’t made a career out of law-making and I don’t know everything there is to know. I will undoubtedly be wrong on many occasions, and I want someone smarter and more knowledgeable than me to stand up and say, “no, you’re wrong, and here’s why“.  Martha never says “here’s why” to anything.

  3. To paraphrase his comments, he said nobody had to tell Ted Kennedy where to be on issues that matter, because he was already there. He said that Mike Capuano has that same quality.

    <

    p>The Globe published an updated version of Matt Visor’s piece this morning. Here’s how that piece opens (emphasis mine):

    US Representative Michael Capuano, trying to open a new line of attack against Senate race rival Martha Coakley in the final week of the primary campaign, accused her yesterday of defending the controversial USA Patriot Act as Middlesex district attorney four years ago.

    Capuano’s campaign circulated comments Coakley made in June 2005, as Congress was reauthorizing the act, at a panel discussion at Middlesex Community College. According to a Lowell Sun article headlined “Patriot Act criticized unfairly, law-enforcement officials say,” Coakley appeared to suggest that the threat to civil liberties was being overstated, and that those in opposition to the act were ill informed.

    “Your insurance company knows more about you than the federal government does,” Coakley was quoted as saying. “When people don’t understand how things work, they’re willing to say ’can’t do it, won’t do it,’ and they tie the government’s hands.“

    The law, enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, gave government sweeping new surveillance and regulatory powers. Capuano voted against it.

    <

    p>This 2005 exchange has that all-too-familiar Martha Coakley sound to it. Her opponents are ignorant. She knows best. Concerns are “overstated”. It’s precisely the same tone she took with Email-gate — arrogant, condescending, and most of all wrong.

    <

    p>Let’s do an instant replay of the most important aspect of this: Capuano voted against it.

    <

    p>Taken out of context? I don’t think so. At the end of the piece, Matt Visor uses a quote from Middlesex DA Gerard Leone (a Martha Coakley supporter and endorser) to set the 2005 context (emphasis mine):

    “Our primary focus was a discussion of the entirety of the act, and the benefits pro and con,” Leone said in an interview. “The positive comments were more about the strengthening of the laws against terrorism and things like money-laundering. That’s where we were positive and affirmative, because from a law enforcement perspective that was positive.”

    “It wasn’t like Martha stood up and said she was on one side or the other,” he added. “It was more of a discussion of the whole issue.”

    <

    p>A terrible, knee-jerk, right-wing assault on the basic freedom and constitutional rights of every American was up for renewal. The horrifying extent of its abuses were widely published and widely documented. Jose Padilla had been held without charges for three years. His access to an attorney had been denied for two years. When he was, belatedly, indicted in January of 2006, the charges did not mention the grounds under which he had been held for four years. All this is the “context” of Martha Coakley’s “positive comments” about the “strengthening of the laws against terrorism.”

    <

    p>And, as is her style, she failed to take a stand — “It wasn’t like Martha stood up and said she was on one side or the other”. I ask any of you honestly — can you imagine Ted Kennedy or Mike Capuano having this “discussion of the whole issue” and not taking a stand?

    <

    p>It isn’t about “flip flop” — it’s about genuine moral integrity, courage and leadership.

    <

    p>The genuine moral integrity, courage, and leadership we see demonstrated by Mike Capuano.

  4. In her view, your civil and Constitutional rights take a back seat to law enforcement authority unless you have Martha’a favored group status – child, elderly or lgbt – then you can expect her to stand up for your rights.

    <

    p>If you are not an indivdual in one of her favored groups and your rights are bumping up against a competing interest you can count on the fact the opposing interest will rule the day.  

    <

    p>- In Melendez-Diaz v MA she argued the states interests – money and logisitics – were more important than the individuals 6th amendment right of confronttion. It was she who argued this case in front of the Supreme Court, no one else. The state was under no obligation to appeal this case as it lost appeal after appeal in lower courts but Martha pursued it becuase she wanted to do what was “right”.

    <

    p>”Let someone tell me, let someone say” is the excuse you’ll hear from Martha when her Senate votes are on the on the wrong side of history on things like Patriot Act, FISA reauthorization, telecomm retroactive immunity.  

    <

    p>No experiecne since her eleven years in Catholic School has changed her faith in the poewr of authority.

  5. I’m just amused that it took this long for Capuano to address the issue.  …and no, I didn’t expect the Globe to do so on its own, since that paper has the institutional memory of a flea.

    <

    p>Coakley arrogant, unprincipled, and opportunistic?  I’m shocked; shocked!!!

    <

    p>It’s not a flip-flop technically: it’s Coakley being politically (if not linguistically consistent).

Archives