Today’s Globe op-ed page features short op-eds by each of the Democratic candidates for Senate. Capuano focuses entirely on his positions on Afghanistan, Iraq, and the PATRIOT Act — an interesting choice, given his strategy up until now of emphasizing his insider DC experience and ability to bring home the pork bacon. Strategic shift? Or back to our regularly-scheduled program tomorrow?
Coakley’s piece is all about how health care will be “a top priority” for her in the Senate. Another interesting choice, as her position on Stupak-Pitts (or “Stupitts” for short) is the one most likely to have prevented much of what she says she wants in the rest of the piece, including of course a public option.
Khazei talks about “big citizenship” as the key to his campaign. He tones down the language about City Year “jobs” that we’ve found problematic, focusing instead on “service” and “the proposition that each person can make a difference.” Oh, and also Afghanistan, casinos, jobs, med-mal reform, and no special interests. Yvonne Abraham liked what she heard from Khazei in Thursday’s debate, and asks rhetorically, “Why is Khazei running dead last?”
Pagliuca is all jobs, all the time. Regulatory reform = jobs. Health care cost control = jobs. Tax reform = jobs. PAC money and lobbyists kill jobs. Also, Dad’s a vet, Mom’s a teacher, and Pags has four kids.
People of Shutesbury, we hear your cry.
<
p>Good reason for Capuano to tell them about opposing Iraq War and the Patriot Act, voting to pass Health Care reform and for being the candidate who polled most like Ted Kennedy as a successor.
<
p>Hurray for the educated people of Shutesbury
2. good experience
<
p>Not that I agree with Susan about gender being a criteria or qualification for US Senate and but even I give Susan credit for being right about that, she’s still only 1 for 2 because Coakley’s experience is quite thin. She has less than 3 years in statewide office and no experience as a legislator.
<
p>You can’t argue that a Rep will make a better Senator based upon experience whilst simultaneously arguing that an attorney/litigator couldn’t possibly have the experience to be a legislator. Capuano is an attorney as well. Ted Kennedy himself had a dearth of experience when he took the job. The present POTUS had a thinner resume than Coakley.. Experience in government is a tricksy thing, and people don’t seem to be all that bothered by it, nor that much of a critical analysis for it: Nixon had a great deal of experience and he STILL felt the need to cheat… We just got finished with a Mayoral run where the prevailing sentiment was that maybe Menino had too much experience and therefore ought to be relieved of the burden of it…
<
p>… So, it’s unclear exactly what kind of experience works out best in a legislator, some have toiled for years in state government to move up slowly while others rode a meteor to the top. Insofar as performance matters, there’s no metrics on how good a job they are, or aren’t doing.
<
p>but, whatever… Just don’t think you’re making the case for Capuano by trying to tear down Coakley, ’cause you’re not. That may work in Texas, but not in Massachusetts.
Susan Millinger:
<
p>me:
<
p>He’s introducing himself to a statewide audience with his Sunday op-ed, and emphasizing the strengths of his recent positions and judgments on national security issues, which by the way, the race leader cannot.
Has been used at so many sales kickoffs that they now make jokes about the joke.
<
p>Khazei writes like he speaks. I found myself dozing off while reading, even though what he has to say is pretty reasonable.
<
p>I liked what capuano and coakley had to say most. Nice and forceful on subjects I care deeply about.
…support that Martha Coakley does not support health care reform without federal funding for women’s health. I refuse to marginalize the issue of women’s reproductive health or women’s health in general by dismissing “abortion” as a tangential issue. Pregnancy termination is merely the tip of the iceberg for the short shrift that the American medical industrial complex pays to women. Women’s health is literally decades behing men’s in terms of research and development on almost every front. Coakley’s stance is not prohibitive of progress because if our medical progress is still going to pay too little attention to 51% of the population it is not progress. I want Ted Kennedy’s replacement to be a person who sues the Federal governement for not treating gay married couples equally and someone who insists that women be treated equally, even if such insistence is neither expedient nor popular. At the end of the day I want someone who is willing to draw a line in the sand when it really matters. I think this issue is too important to ignore. Women’s reproductive health is too important to push to the side. Either we all move ahead or we dig our heels in and fight. In my eyes, this is worth the fight and I want someone who is willing to admit as much during the primary to carry the message with them to Washington.
…to figure out how to articulate the problem I’m having engaging in discussions with people who are defending Coakley’s “no Stupak no matter what” position. And I really do mean discussions – despite some vociferous claims to the contrary, I have honestly wanted answers to the questions I have about this position. Believe me, it remains bizarre to me that circumstances have aligned to put ME on the side of the people NOT taking that hard-line stance – and that’s exactly why I have been hoping for days now that someone can explain to me what, if anything, I’m missing here.
<
p>I’m obviously not aiming this solely at you, Anthony; your comment just brought all of this up for me again. We are not having the same conversation. Instead of responses to my questions, I am told I am a misogynist for even asking them. I mean, if I ask you about the reasoning behind potentially denying health care coverage to 18 million women unless it covers a procedure that right now is only paid for by insurance 13% of the time, and you reply that I’m ignoring the rights of 51% of the population, that just makes me think you’re a dingbat.
<
p>I have gotten no clarity on this issue from Coakley’s campaign or supporters at all, although I know they are on this blog and others where people are posing questions similar to mine; I have only been told that my concerns indicate that I care nothing about poor women – which would be funny if it weren’t so sad, given that my major reservations around Coakley’s position are specifically BECAUSE of how many currently uninsured, working-class women might not live long enough for us to figure out how to get the rest of the country to adopt your principled stance.
Initially, he’s quite compelling. Intitially.
The more I listen to Pags, the more I think he’s running for Governor, not Senator. When he loses this race, I’m betting he’s going to start looking to the State House for his next job.
They seem to stand more for status quo than progress.
<
p>Question: Is healthcare even a factor in this race? With the election over two months away and a bill already through the House, will the Senate wait for a no seniority junior senator from Massachusetts to bless a bill? Is this another non-issue?
<
p>Maybe they should be making other promises they won’t keep…
but I think the closure vote is still important. Don’t know where it stands now but last week there were non committals for closure if “Stupitts” was included.
Whether we have a healthcare bill or not is entirely beyond what a Massachusetts senator elected on January 19, 2010 can influence?
That’s the first question, if we are talking solely about the health care reform bill being debated in the Senate now. If you are expanding this to health care in general, yes, a Senator will have an enormous of influence on legislation.
I can’t see 1% of the Senate, without any seniority, coming to the table when the bill is either passed or soon to be passed, having any real impact on that bill. There will be 99 other prima donnas that will probably be more impressed with themselves than any newcomer.
<
p>I would like to hear some discussion about the economy that has 10% of the population on food stamps.
<
p>Or a congress that considers itself wholly owned employees of their largest PAC or corporate sponsors.
<
p>Or a government that feels a need to house its troops throughout the world. (I bet you could save enough by bringing them home to pay for the healthcare bill!)
<
p>Or, (Oh!, this makes me feel so PollyAnna…) discussion on how to promote freedom. Get away from the Free Speech Zones, stop warrantless searches, stop treating citizens in an adversarial manner.
Interesting.
<
p>I think immigration is the only proven third-rail issue which flips lots of blue-collar Dems. Didn’t play in presidential b/c McCain and Obama had same position essentially. But remember 2006 Congressional?
<
p>NY Times today says Senate will take up immigration soon.
<
p>It would immediately put any of the challengers in second place: “Coakley will vote for legalization, and I won’t…not until we lower the unemployment rate and have more jobs.”
<
p>I can’t imagine Cap or Khazei going there, but Pags could.
<
p>I bet Scott Brown will go there — best way to peel off some D base.
<
p>
say they were for a “path to citizenship,” more or less along the lines of Kennedy-McCain? I think it was in the TV debate a couple weeks back.
Do they not recognize the principle of “one man, one vote” out there? Does Secretary of State Galvin know about this?
<
p>Wake me up for the general election, please.
can have more influence on others than one who opts to sleep it out until the general election.
Not that there are any here, of course.
…a symptom of insignificance complex.
<
p>Have you driven through Suhtesbury? Take RT 2 forever, south on 63, right at sign for Shutesbury town center, when you go by the church and general store you’ve driven through the center, continue on to drive down the Shutesbury S’s on your way to North Amherst.