Congerssman Capuano did not reverse his position on his YES vote in the house last Saturday to pass HR 3962, nor did he reverse his NO vote on the Stupak Amendment. Coakley is clear, she would have voted no on the house bill even if it meant the bill would not pass out of the house.
This is a difference worth noting.
Also, in September on Hardball Coakley announced her position that the Hyde Amendment should be repealed and that Federal money should be used to pay for abortions. What is not clear is whether she would chose the current health care reform debate as a battleground for her tilt at this issue.
Congressman Capuano did not reverse his position on how he would vote on the bill if it came back to the house out of conference with Stupak attached. He was asked Monday and he answered Tuesday:
“If the bill comes back the same way as it left the House, I would vote against it,” Capuano said in an interview. “I am a prochoice person, and I do believe this is [necessary] to provide health care for everyone.”
The only evidence the Coakley campaign offers that “Congressman Capuano has reversed his position” is the apparent contradiction of his YES vote last Saturday on HR3962 with Stupak attached (to move the legislation forward) and his prospective NO vote on a final conference bill if Stupak was still attached.
The Coakley campaign is comparing the two votes – house vote and prospective conference vote – as equivalent when in fact the two votes are not equivalent and serve different purposes.
The YES vote last Saturday does not preclude a NO vote on a conference bill if the Stupak problem is not addressed in the Senate. Questions about whether the house had another path to YES on HR3962 last Saturday and whether they had a reasonable belief that the Senate could dispose of the Stupak measure are relevant but unexplored in the press. Pelosi is decidedly pro-choice. I conclude she knew what she was doing and had both angles worked out.
Recall that the Coakley campaign said this was a reversal in response to Capuano’s assertion that Coakley did not understand the legislative process.
Capuano took a YES vote last Saturday to move the health care reform legislation forward and will have another vote when the bill comes out of conference. The only way he can be reasonably accused of changing his position is if;
– he had no reasonable expectation that the bill would be fixed in the Senate and conference,
– he originally planned to vote for it out of conference even with Stupak attached.
Is there any evidence Capuano planned to vote for the conference bill with Stupak attached? If so, I haven’t seen it nor has the Coakley campaign presented it and neither has the Globe or the others papers that have called Capuano’s position a “reversal”.
Perhaps as an attempt for greater accuracy, today’s Globe called Capuano’s position a “shift” not a “reversal” as it claimed yesterday. It’s not lost on me that yesterday the Globe used the same word the Coakley campaign used, “reversal,” right from their press release. Powerful things these press releases are becuase you can just copy it down it and print it after making two calls for comment.
The Coakley campaign’s impulse to cast Capuano’s vote Saturday as unreliably pro-choice, and her campaign’s impulse to cast his prospective “NO” vote on a conference bill with Stupak as a “reversal” are at once understandable and duplicitous. Coakley’s campaign has not made the case that these two votes represent a reversal. Their claim is unsubstantiated, not that it matters to so-called journalists covering the race and citizens following it.
The ability to make the “reversal” claim and have it sound reasoned rests on a logical fallacy that legislative process has no significant role in a voting decisions, and also on the broad meaning of the word “reversal”. It’s as much a linguistic issue as it is a lack of precision in applying the word.
The press’ impulse to report the apparent reversal as an “actual reversal” (how Capuano’s vote on the house bill last Saturday could be different than his vote on a bill out of conference) is equally unfounded as is the portrayal of these two votes as illustrative of a reversal in Capuano’s core beliefs.
I understand your point about the nuance & purpose of the different votes, but the fact is he voted yes for a bill that he now says he would vote no on. There may be great reason’s for doing that, but it is perfectly fair to call it a reversal. Also, statements like this “If she’s not going to vote for any bill that’s not perfect, she wouldn’t vote for any bill in history. She would have voted against Medicare, the Civil Rights bill,” though not explicit, did give impression that he would vote yes on the final bill. Your logic here almost threatens to deconstruct the very idea that it’s possible to have a reversal- the situation at two different points in time (much less in the legislative process) will never be exactly the same.
<
p>A bigger issue for the campaign is the sudden reversal of Capuano’s overall posture about this whole thing, it looks like he flailing.
<
p>The problem for him is not the yes vote, then the potential no vote. As you said, their are good strategic reasons for doing it like that, I think people can understand this. The problem is he came out super-hot on this issue and then suddenly cooled off. This also disappointed the press, who thought they were finally going to get a good fight, and then had it taken away.
You would at least agree that his so called “reversal” was not a change in principal or in supporting the health reform bill or in opposing Stupak, right?
<
p>If so, then his “reversal” was in keeping health reform alive (in spite of Stupak) and advancing it to the Senate where they will fix the Stupak problem, and if they don’t then he will reverse his vote, from YES to NO, otherwise if they do fix the Stupak problem, he will not reverse his vote thereby vote YES. Do you agree with that?
<
p>He hasn’t reversed his vote yet nor will he if Stupak is fixed. He would not vote for a final bill with Stupak consistent with his NO vote on the Stupak amendment. Do you agree with that?
<
p>Thus his announcement that he would not vote for Stupak in the final bill is not a reversal, it is a clarification of how important Stupak weighs in the FINAL ANALYSIS versus an intermediate step. And his declaration is no more than an “apparent reversal.” A real reversal would be to change his vote to NO last Saturday on HR 3962 or to a YES last Saturday on Stupak.
I agree that there certainly is not any major reversal of principal here, I don’t think anyone thinks that. I will also say absolutely that sometimes reversing is the right thing to do and there are many many difference degree’s of reversal. But, yes to no is still a reversal, you say that yourself when you say “if they don’t then he will reverse his vote, from YES to NO, otherwise if they do fix the Stupak problem, he will not reverse his vote thereby vote YES.” Arguably it’s a meaningless reversal, or a correct reversal, but no amount of arguing is going to stop no from being the opposite of yes.
<
p>Are you going to address what he said about the Civil Rights bill and medicare? It was far from unreasonable to infer that he was comparing his health care vote to those things and thus thought the bill he voted for should become law, like those things are, flawed as it was.
…that he regrets the vote he took on Saturday, right? This is a classic case of “I actually did vote for the $87 billion for Iraq before I voted against it.” So easy to peg someone as a flip-flopper without appreciating the context.
They just don’t care.
<
p>The Coakley campaign is out-and-out lying at this point, pure and simple.
You wrote, “Coakley is clear, she would have voted no on the house bill even if it meant the bill would not pass out of the house.” Can you provide a link to a direct Martha quote?