Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Capuano hits hard at Coakley yesterday, flips his position today

By

See link to breaking news below

Capuano flips

Yesterday he was saying her position proved she couldn’t do the job. This afternoon he announces that he shares the same position. What flipped his hand? Was it the fact that so many women’s groups have pointed out that the health care bill discriminates too much against women?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. “rondofan79 wrote:
    Wow, epic, epic fail from Capuano, on three fronts:

    <

    p>1. Completely blowing his one chance to get into the race;

    <

    p>2. Executing the technically demanding triple flip-flop (voting against, then for, then against); and

    <

    p>3. Completely undercutting his own campaign.

    <

    p>I bet that manna from heaven tastes like a turd sandwich right about now…”

    <

    p>This happens when you don’t stick to your core convictions, it gets confusing.

    • I thought Capuano said he hadn’t decided yet? He was right to vote for the first bill, if Coakley would not have then she is a bad Democrat. Democrats are united in a belief for economic justice and nothing secures that more than universal healthcare. A vote against universal healthcare is a vote against the Democratic party. Its that simple. A vote against abortion is simply a vote against a much more minor and buried portion of the party platform, the party takes a much stronger stance on healthcare than it does on abortion.

      <

      p>If the party will continue to say that it supports government neutrality, supports alternatives, supports reductions, and that retaining Roe v Wade is good enough then why is the Stupak Amendment in any way against the existing Democratic platform?

      <

      p>Even if you are pro-abortion, wouldn’t you rather health insurance for all at the expense of the few thousand affected by the Stupak amendment? Or is preserving abortion rights the only function of a legislator in your mind? We can’t have our cake and eat it two, Healthcare can’t pass without Stupak. Getting rid of Stupak gets rid of the entire reform effort. The numbers prove that. The debate is that simple. Do you want single payer healthcare or federally funded abortions? You can’t have both. What Democrats do will determine the direction of our party, and I fear the pro-choice lobby at the end of the day will sink healthcare and destroy what the party stands for in the process.  

      • It’s millions and they are all women and sadly the lowest class of all, poor women.  
        Just two examples of what newspapers are saying:
        “The New York Times editorial board:

        <

        p>The restrictions… are a sharp departure from current practice, an infringement of a woman’s right to get a legal medical procedure and an unjustified intrusion by Congress into decisions best made by patients and doctors.

        <

        p>The Baltimore Sun editorial board:

        <

        p>This is a big step backward.  Why poor women should be refused reproductive choices – particularly when the consequences for society can be so adverse – is one of the federal goverment’s more mind-boggling and misguided policies”

        <

        p>See more examples: http://www.womenforcoakley.com…

        <

        p>This is really a biggie, progressive blogs nationally are all over this and I’m not sure why the folks here seem so protective?  When Daily Kos is ranting you know this has reached a boiling point.   Guess Caps figured it out.

        • I think most people on here do get how awful the Stupak Amendment (SA) really is. But that is exactly why Capuano was right to vote “yes” on the House bill so that the SA can get killed in conference commitee.

          <

          p>Coakley’s no vote would have killed the whole bill right away. Capuano’s “yes” vote with the hopes of killing SA in committee is the only real shot at passing what you (and me, and everyone else here) wants which is Health Care without the SA. Why would you not want to get that second chance?

          <

          p>I know that Capuano’s position is not an easy to explain, but its is the right one. Which is probably why so many other pro-choice members of Congress have the identical position as Capuano.

      • Reproductive healthcare coverage is women’s healthcare.  This isn’t just about elective abortion, or even federal funding for abortion for poor women, this is about enshrining the odious Hyde amendment as permanent law and denying coverage  even for those who pay for their own policies on the Exchange or receive coverage via their small employer from the Exchange.   I don’t buy that we can’t pass a bill without the Stupak amendment.  Fix it, Congress, because women didn’t sign on to healthcare reform for this.  Shame on Capuano and Pelosi and the other so-called progressives for going along with it.

        • Shame on Capuano and Pelosi and the other so-called progressives for going along with it.

          you would be sitting there happy right now that health care reform was no longer on the table.  

          <

          p>I still think Capuano and Pelosi made the right decision at this point in time.  

            • in return for holding a vote on the Stupak amendment, which passed.  You may be right that there was another path to 218 on HR 3962 but I don’t know what it is and I presume Pelosi would have taken it before she took this deal. She’s pro-choice.    

              <

              p>The Senate will take up there own merged bill, not the houses bill.  The senate bill does not have language on abortion rights yet   It will take 60 votes to get a Stupak like amendment in the senate bill.  Pro-life democrat Casey is on the record saying he wants a status quo abortion rights policy.  That bodes well for the Seante bill.  If the Senate bill has nothing like Stupak, then the conference bill is likely to have something like the status quo not Stupak, IMO.

      • is that because you disagree, becuase jconway’s comment has logic fallacies, becuase jconway has failed to include relevant facts in the analysis, or because you think jconway is a man?

        • If so, I missed the memo from the proprietors.  I may have to add another tenet to my personal rating philosophy: automatic low rating for comments complaining about ratings.  Really boring.  

        • A) How is my gender relevant to this discussion?

          <

          p>I think it is the most insulting form of bigotry to argue that men are unqualified to have the abortion discussion. They are one half of the parent equation, half of all abortions destroy future men, I see no reason why abortion should solely be decided by women. Even if one was pro-choice, it doesn’t help your cause to alienate the other half of the population with sexist rhetoric. More to the point, how is calling me an ignorant man ever going to convince me that you are right?

          <

          p>B) What logical fallacies?

          <

          p>To me all the fallacies seem to be emanating from critics of Stupak. I will take this in four different directions. The first, the evidence is plainly clear that Healthcare reform, something which we all agree is vital, could not have passed without the votes for Stupaks amendment. Second, it was incredibly stupid for Martha Coakley to say she would have voted against this, had health care reform died in the House that would have set the entire progressive cause-which in my view and I would hope the view of most people on this site-is not entirely devoted to abortion back at least a decade. It would have taken Ted Kennedy’s life work and killed it over a supplemental amendment. Three, it is highly likely that Stupak will be watered down in the Senate so the more extreme portions of the bill-the stuff that goes beyond the Hyde amendment-will likely not make it to pass. Stupak and the bishops did not want healthcare to be an end run around the Hyde Amendment-by proposing a more far reaching bill now they ensure that when it is watered down it still has teeth. Fourth, killing health care reform does not help the women in question. The status quo is that those women are not covered by the government, Stupak isn’t proposing any change, it prevented the change that some people were advocating, it simply prevents the changes in health care from affecting existing federal prohibitions on abortion. All these poor women you and bean keep lamenting will lack healthcare coverage under HRC with Stupak AND if HRC is voted down. So if you have to choose between helping 36 million people and not funding abortion or helping no one and not funding abortion which option is the lesser of two evils? It is you who is dealing in fallacies not I.  

          • A) How is my gender relevant to this discussion?

            <

            p>It isn’t.  I was asking Bean if she thinks is.

            <

            p>B) What logical fallacies?

            <

            p>I didn’t see any. My inquiry was about Bean’s rationale for giving you a low score.  I saw no reasons for it and asked her to explain.  

            • Sorry I thought you were implying fallacies in my argument. It seems we are on the same page on this one. But if you feel vindictive that I thought you were out to get me feel free to 3 me its what everyone else does 😉

  2. and then engages in debate with her opponents (say once a week until December 8) then we could all judge her and her opponents on the merit.  

      • be to complicated to argue in headlines, but the way I see it is Congressman Capuano voted to move the bill to the Senate. Hopefully the Senate knocks the amendment out, if not maybe in House and Senate negotiations.

        <

        p>The question sounded to me like a hypothetical question that IF the bill moves as is, and this is the bill that would be signed into law, how would you vote for it as a Senator?

        <

        p>I am not sure why what the Congressman has said or done is anything less than I would want my member of congress to do.

        <

        p>Why is this so complicated for so many thoughtful people and the press to understand. Move the legislation along, hopefully through the legislative process we get the most perfect bill we can.

        <

        p>Considering this country has not had a debate on Health Care since 1994 and we might not have this chance for another 10-20 years, why the hell not advance it and use the tools a legislator has to get the bill where we all want it.

        <

        p>I am not sure why this is confusing to you all.  

        <

        p>  

        • http://www.salon.com/mwt/broad…

          <

          p>” How could I say it is, especially when I am all too aware that if pro-choice Democrats were to revolt over this issue, they would be vilified and further alienated from a party that already allows the erosion of reproductive rights? We choose to play nice, our party trades on our freedoms. We choose to object, our party resents and blames us for failure. It’s not exactly a bright set of options for anyone who has gotten into this quandary simply because they fervently believe that the rights of half the population to control its own reproduction are fundamental to full and equal participation in our democracy.”  quote from Rebecca Traister

          <

          p>That’s what happened to Martha Coakley, she was being accused of wanting failure because she took a strong stand.    

      • who signed on to vote against stupak in the final bill, but voted for the bill to be moved along? Are they selling “out for party brass?” You do realize that had Coakley been Capuano, she’d have been alone with Dennis Kucinich…

        <

        p>These elections are making me feel sick inside. The stuff people sling!  

        • If she couldn’t hold the caucus together for an acceptable bill.  I think they could have worked out a better deal given a few days of focus.  Instead, they’ve divided their own caucus. Republicans were split and on the ropes, so what do the Democrats do?  Start a war between ourselves.  

          • they could have brokered a better deal? The vote was very close. And I always think there is a few vote margin of error with anything as controversial as this.

            <

            p>I ask honestly, because my opinion on this whole healthcare issue is based on the assumption that this is the best they could get for right now, and that by passing this, they bought time to remove the Stupak Amendment in either the Senate bill or in conference committee.

          • killed the bill.

            <

            p>We’ll kill Stupak in the Senate. This isn’t a war, it’s a skirmish. Eventually, the Blue Dogs will learn their place. They’re so used to being the Democratic King Makers, they’re just not used to the new electoral realities.

            <

            p>In the meantime, though, we need to be savvy. Killing the bill before it’s necessary is a terrible thing to do, because it may not be necessary at all. Be persistent, of course, but try to be patient — we’re down a few points in the first quarter and the home team already seems to be panicking.

            • The most ambitious health care reform bill in decades passed the House, and it includes a vigorous public option.

              <

              p>The odious Stupak amendment will be removed. Nearly everyone knows that.

              <

              p>This little skirmish is old-fashioned gut-bucket Boston politics, replete with gratuitous name-calling, attacks, and pandering. Martha Coakley will almost certainly win. Mike Capuano has certainly set back his ambitions for higher office. Nobody outside Massachusetts knows or cares.

              <

              p>A Democratic majority in the House and Senate is about to significantly extend health care to thirty six million Americans who do not currently have it.

              <

              p>We are winning this battle. Let’s not lose sight of that, please.

    • having the candidates debate in public or would you support having the candidate you support engage in debate with the competition?  

      <

      p>LynPB
      Striker57
      Bean in the ‘Burbs

      • Neil – if you are asking about my “3” on your debate post, I am happy to respond.

        <

        p>First – I find the “debate for Ted” comment offensive. Presuming that Senator Kennedy would have had a position on the number of debates in this race is grasping at straws to try and sell a campaign strategy. The number of people hijacking Senator Kennedy’s name for their own political agendas is offensive.

        <

        p>Second, there are and still continue to be a number of debates and candidate forums. The week of the debate at the JFK Library featured a second debate hosted by the Mass AFL-CIO and a candidate forum north of Boston. 3 debates/forums in five days attended by all 4 candidates.

        <

        p>Candidates (and their supporters) trailing in polls want more debates in the hopes of a misstep by the leading candidate. But continued posts about debates when debates and forum are scheduled already is just political posturing. And invoking Senator Kennedy’s name to that end is plain bad taste. So yes – it’s a 3.  

        • No I mean this one

          <

          p>

          First – I find the “debate for Ted” comment offensive.

          <

          p>I think I said debate for Ted Kennedy’s seat.  It was Ted Kennedy’s seat.  If you take offense to that I’m not sure what I can do about it.  

          • “offensive” to “hijack” his name.

            <

            p>As soon as the pope declares that it was never Ted Kennedy’s seat, I’ll retract what I said.  Between now and then, I’ll mock those who take offense to my request for debates between the candidates running for Ted Jennedy’s seat.  

            <

            p>It is Martha Coakley who will not consent to a series of debates. She is not even an incumbent Senator. She is an Attorney General with less than three years experience in state wide office.  

  4. we need to go back and look at all of the statements from both Coakley and Capuano, as to whether they relate to the House vote, the Senate vote, the final bill or bills leading up to the final bill.

    <

    p>He could be saying something entirely different than what is being considered here.

    <

    p>

    • but the problem for Capuano is that finally he had an issue dropped in his lap to help differentiate himself from a frankly ridiculous position that Coakley took.

      <

      p>He should have gone straight ahead with his original criticisms of Coakley’s position, which would be a lot clearer than trying to parse which vote (House, Senate, conference, etc.) he’s talking about.

  5. he hit coakley hard about wanting to kill HCR before it was shipped to the Senate; he came out today saying he’d vote against a final bill that included anything Stupak-like.

    <

    p>Those things are hardly the same, or even inconsistent. If you’re going to post, be intellectually honest.

    • because you don’t agree with most of the good people on this thread who disagree with you.  

        • i do agree with you.  i’ve just gotten caught up in the ratings war and I thought you wouldn’t mind too much.  Actually your post is spot on. I’ll fix my rating.    

            • we want him wide awake and alert. You too. Here I am stuck in an airport literally laughing out loud enthralled in the ratings wars handing out 6s to folks like you and Neil and Sabatai. (I don’t do three’s — the negative energy is bad for me –)

              • hysterically, especially since Bean in the ‘Burbs continues to give him 3’s even for one sentence inconsequential statements. Absolutely hilarious. : D

          • I actually think it was funny… it’s just that the internet is 2d, so I wasn’t sure what exactly you were talking about. There can be so many ways to take things online 😉

  6. If someone personally attacks me, says I cant hold a rational argument on abortion because I am a man, or otherwise misrepresents me as a conservative even though the only major issue I disagree with progressives on is abortion (and even then my position would be considered moderate anywhere but MA), then I 3 them. If someone is clearly a troll or posts a troll like comment I ask for it to be deleted. I give 4s to posts that are not personal but I still disagree with. I give 5s and 6s to posts I agree with depending on the quality and the extent of the agreement.

    <

    p>I have been 3ing Bean and Menemsha because I feel they are acting irrationally in this debate and are personally attacking me because I am a man (which they presumed by the way though it coincidentally is true).

    <

    p>To take my own feelings about abortion out of it the debate to me is quite simple

    <

    p>Do you want to give 36 million Americans healthcare coverage and not fund abortions or do you want to give no Americans healthcare coverage and not fund abortions?

    <

    p>To me, and most rational progressives, one of those outcomes is better than the other. To Martha Coakley and some others, those two choices are indistinguishable. That’s whats disturbing.

    <

    p>Until someone shows me how you could give 36 million Americans healthcare coverage AND fund abortions without resorting to magic or electing more progressives as the solution then let me know. I want to know how THIS Congress could fund HRC and abortions. I think this past vote showed they could not. With all the flack Pelosi and the President are getting do you think they choose this option? It was a last resort option to get a freakin bill passed. This has been stalled since June and the sooner it passes the sooner the President can move on to other items in his agenda and the sooner we can disarm GOP talking points that we are ineffective. Not only is it bad politics to wait until after 2010 to hammer out HRC with abortion funding, it is immoral to deny healthcare coverage to those 36 million people just to get the abortion funding through. One could say, pass HRC now and then amend out the Stupak amendment later. In fact I think thats what Mike Capuano and Nancy Pelosi are trying to do as we speak. So let’s simmer down and see what happens. To say Capuano sold out women this early in the game is irrational and simply unfair to the man who has fought for progressive causes his whole career in Congress while Coakely was an ADA who didn’t know how to convict a nanny.  

    • I have talked to many in the health care community-many who work in family medicine and truly care about universal coverage.  These are the experts and they have no idea what this bill means and are furious about this amendment that doesn’t just stop federal funding of abortion -it goes far beyond.
      Amber Paw has actually read the thing and says:
      “THIS bill is not healthcare reform, not the parts I have read.  It is a sham and an illusion, more of a Potemkin Village.  Whether it is failing to cover decent gynecological care [NOT just ‘choice” aka abortion] or truncating care and coverage for pregnancy and delivery – THIS bill is one step forward, five steps back.  Better to wrestle it down, and do it right.”
      She has a post up now that also links to the bill.  She’s right- before you criticize, read it, read it all, that’s more than the members of congress did before they voted on it.  Just get anything out. The idea that anything is better than no healthcare bill is a myth.  

      • Do you not remember 1994? Clinton came out with a centrist, state based, mandate, insurance exchange, kind of plan and it got shafted by the right who turned independents against it with the Harry and Louise ads which targeted middle class voters and told them they would pay high taxes to fund other people, and from the left by Mitchell, Kennedy, Monyihan and others that were holding out for single-payer. The end result is the Democratic majority in the House and Senate failed to pass health care reform, the bill died, the ‘do nothing’ Congress lost in a radical turnover that lead to 12 years of Republican mis-rule. I do not want that repeated again. Lets pass what we can while we still have the opportunity to do so. This bill will lower costs, it will insure over 36 million more Americans, it will allow some Americans to opt out of their private care and into a portable public system, it gets rid of pre-existing conditions restrictions, it allows insurance across state lines, it starts loosening the restrictions to employer based insurance. Is it perfect? No. I wish some form of Wyden-Bennet came in so this could have passed earlier and with more substantial reforms that got rid of the employer based insurance scheme and radically reformed HMO organization. But this public option is the best plan we can get, and considering the public option was dead in August, this is most fortunate. I say carpe diem.  

      • …that the bill should be better, especially from those of us who support single-payer.  THIS was the question before the House, however, so we have to ask ourselves is it an improvement over the status quo.  I think it very much is.

Archives