This morning when I was listening to NPR, I heard the headline that Capuano “switched” his position on the Stupak Amendment to be the same as Coakley’s. When you listen to Capuano explain the legislative process–and what Cap did makes sense–it becomes clear that NPR & the media in general are forcing this event into a pre-packaged narrative they keep on the shelf for when they write about Democrats. Butwhen Bob adopted this same oversimplistic analysis as NPR and the Globe, I was really disappointed. Just look at this sentence:
Capuano could have argued either way on the merits — an excellent debate — but to lambaste one’s opponent for a position on a central issue that one then adopts oneself within 24 hours smacks of…
Capuano did argue for his vote on the merits, in terms even someone less educated than Bob could understand. But that sentence shows a political commenter’s desire to rush past the realities of Congress to repeat the conventional wisdom (an old narrative that will drive the headlines regardless of details). Like when Campbell Brown of CNN says “even if something’s not true, we all talk about and then it becomes true.”
The main value of political blogs has been that they take the time to work out issues that even NPR never does. When BMG starts parroting what the rest of the MSM spits out, that’s just disappointing.
First, I think you’re being unfair to BMG. Many dozens of esteemed commenters on my post and others have explained in excruciating detail why Representative Capuano is right on this issue and how simplistic, unfair and inaccurate my analysis is. Indeed, your own post indicts your point about “BMG” parroting the MSM.
<
p>Second, my post wasn’t about the substance of Capuano’s position so much as the unfortunate politics of slamming Coakley for opposing a health care reform bill with the Stupak amendment and then stating that, well, he too would vote against such a bill in the final analysis. If he had, for example, applauded Coakley’s wise opposition to Stupak and explained that he feels similarly to her, but only voted for the bill as a tactical matter (which I believe is the essence of his current argument) I don’t think there would have been much to criticize. Indeed, if he had done that he might well have turned the headline into Coakley’s inexperience exactly as Cos argues in his comment “Capuano is Right.”
Coakley said she wouldn’t have voted it out of the house, thus framing the as principled on pro-choice; Capuano called her position short-sighted on legislative process.
<
p>Yeah, he took out a big hammer and thanked her for the campaign fodder, then had to explain his own pro-choice values would stand firm in a final vote on a bill that included Stupak (if Stupak isn’t fixed in the Senate.) This second vote being different from the first I think we can all agree.
<
p>The Coakley campaign casting Capuano’s position as a reversal, and you buying into it, is where the rhetoric departs from reality.
<
p>I give Coakley an A+ for playing it and I think she’ll win supporters, especially ones who think she’ll stand up for choice more firmly that Capunao but I don’t think what was revealed by this dustup amounts to much for an informed voter.
And that is what Cap and his supporters are doing, giving fine–and accurate–distinctions that clarify nuance. That’s OK if your writing a text book, but this is a political campaign, were only broader themes penetrate the conscious of the average voter. In the 200 plus years of US campaigns that I’ve read up on (or experienced) that how it works and you can’t blame the media or other campaigns for this realty.
<
p>All the posts and comments here mean nothing to he debate, compared to the 5 second summary of “Capuano first criticized Coakley before agreeing with her”. Yes, once dissected it is an inaccurate statement, but that was the instant perception everyone had–even you, I suspect–when they first read Capuano’s comments yesterday. And once you have to start explaining why the perception is wrong…you lose. The debate is shifted and you’re on the “defensive”, letting your opponent advance their agenda. Nope, not fair, but much of it is Capuano’s making…manna.
Not that I’m suggesting a different form of government, but its good to remind ourselves from time to time that campaigning and governing are two very different propositions and skill sets.
Capuano’s recent post here is clear, reasonable, and correct — and almost impossible to get under 20 seconds.
Cap’s post and many of his defenders contend that Martha said she would have voted no in the House, thereby stopping the process. I’ve found no evidence that she said that–only a hypothetical Senate vote, and I await someone to supply that direct quote. If that quote can’t be found, it undermines the fig leaf Cap and others have built to dig him out of the apparent hole he dug for himself.
as well as replies to three other similar comments yuo made where you cast doubt on this factually true assertion, that Martha said she wouldn not have voted for the bill in the house Saturday becuase of the Stupak amendment.
This is the type of hair-splitting that belongs in a discussion of theological apologetics. If you’re saying that Coakley believes that the same bill at the same stage is unacceptable in the Senate, but acceptable in the House, it certainly isn’t helping your candidate.
The Byzantine theologians had nothing on this discussion!