Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Mike Capuano reaffirms his Afghanistan policy

By

Congressmen Mike Capuano joined NECN’s Good Morning Live as a guest the day after Thanksgiving.

On the race:

He said that being the underdog all his life has prepared him for this final stretch over which he plans to make up the ground evident in the polls.

On Afghanistan:

President Barack Obama is expected to announce a troop surge in Afghanistan in the coming week. Rep. Capuano said that he disagrees with such a maneuver.

“Very simply: We’ve accomplished our mission in Afghanistan. We went there to get al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan and I believe that if we switch the mission now we will be doing nothing but beginning to get ourselves in the morass that we’ve tried to avoid since Vietnam,” Rep. Capuano said. “We should come home.”

One health care:

As for the health care debate, Rep. Capuano wanted to make clear his vote on the original House bill, which then went on to the Senate.

“If we had voted ‘no’ in the House, the bill would’ve been dead,” Rep. Capuano said of his ‘yes’ vote on the bill that included abortion restrictions. “I’m very proud of the fact that we advanced health care to the Senate so that we can fix it. And, by the way, that provision has been fixed in the Senate, as we predicted it would be.”

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. <embed pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer&quot; src="http://www.necn.com/avp32.swf?o)ylCGB; ,=d'hC|MG^!Z.{H3A{S0|T|LYx)EM|op1@Vr@8U2pkR#/9&gt;fEaV~=4M^KNh{/XFW?5O kDHj?DD|-$rI*O]_vtO9v2Xg fw-duZdB(n5drWE;Fu@Zi.-G|rZ8~Kj,ZoVlt;WAWmtKNYHmZE~64#T,.9{/oGC4 dPnndz32&lt;X|c#^Bk~koj&!&WG56V6zRr~6q0cz#cg;P,*}UMwHnZX!wtrX&gt;_*da}9L}m;xR3q?K)__^YFN[g)V=,PM,51@7<$wh#xKRk0p~9=)HJ-L2!c{&,~CAD&tE” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowfullscreen=”true” wmode=”transparent” allowscriptaccess=”always” width=”320″ height=”240″>

    • Pagluica and Obama regard the pubic option as one small piece of health care reform (dispensable) but what other mechanism exists in the bill for market-driven cost containment?  Not one, is the correct answer.  

      <

      p>Capuano said he would reject this health care bill if it does not have a public option.  

      <

      p>Why should taxpayers who will be financing health care premiums for up to 10s of million of Americans be on the hook for insurance company profit and overhead when the public option allows more of the dollars paid in premiums to reimburse for actual health services?  Think of it this way, would you rather .97 of you tax dollar finance health services or .70 to .85 of you tax dollar knowing the difference pays for overhead and profit?  

  2. And, by the way, that provision has been fixed in the Senate, as we predicted it would be.

    <

    p>Uh, Mike?  The bill (a) is subject to amendment on the Senate floor, and (b) has to go through a conference committee.  There are several opportunities for Stupitts or something like it to end up back in the bill.  Does Mike understand that?

    <

    p>Now, before you Cappies get your knickers all in a twist: yes, I am being the teensiest bit provocative in order to get the maximum rise out of you.  đŸ˜‰  But in truth, Capuano is overstating the case that this problem has been “fixed,” and it is quite possible that restrictions on abortion funding will become more severe as the bill progresses.  His optimistic take could well come back to bite him.

    • has a Stupak like amendment.  Then you’ll have a winning  argument.

      <

      p>Capuano said, “It’s fixed” and that’s true. It is also true that it could be amended on the floor of the Senate and may not remain fixed but in our favor is good news: Pro-life Senate Democrats like Bob Casey support status quo on Hyde Amendment not a further roll-back of abortion access like house Democrat Stupak. Republicans need 11 Democrats to pass a Stupak like abortion access amendment in the Senate. Maybe Capuano did his homework on this hot button issue (got the whip count) and so can be definitive without the risk of having to explain later. Pelosi has called him one of the best strategists.

      <

      p>With regard to the conference committee, Pelosi and Reid choose the personnel and I rest assured we don’t have to worry about the final bill’s abortion access provisions as long as the Senate bill has provisions we approve.  

      <

      p>Remember when the narrative was that Coakley stood up for abortion access and Capuano flip-flopped on the issue?  

      <

      p>Now the narrative is Coakley voted to kill health care reform on the floor of the house and Capuano voted to move the health care reform legislation forward and fix abortion access in the Senate.  If it holds, he wins the battle.

      <

      p>Yet, there are still some old posts on the BMG front page caterwauling about Capuano the flip-flopper but no one is buying that malarkey now.  

      <

      p>(But seriously you make a good point and we know at least one reason Capuano is declaring victory is becuase time is short in this short campaign. Yet you’d have to agree Capuano is  more than half right and Coakley is more than half wrong.)  

    • Your headline and argument gratuitously distort the facts, the process, and Mike Capuano’s statement. Here’s what he said:

      “If we had voted ‘no’ in the House, the bill would’ve been dead,” Rep. Capuano said of his ‘yes’ vote on the bill that included abortion restrictions. “I’m very proud of the fact that we advanced health care to the Senate so that we can fix it. And, by the way, that provision has been fixed in the Senate, as we predicted it would be.”

      <

      p>Let’s take it point by point.

      <

      p>

      1. If we had voted ‘no’ in the House, the bill would’ve been dead. This is surely and factually correct. Let’s not forget that Martha Coakley’s first salvo was to oppose Mike Capuano’s vote. Had she been in his place, health care reform would be dead. Which candidate demonstrated deeper understanding of the “legislative process”?
      2. I’m very proud of the fact that we advanced health care to the Senate so that we can fix it.  Again, factually correct. The baton has been passed to the Senate. The Democratic majority in the Senate is more strongly pro-choice than in the house — the Senate is more likely to fix it than the house. Had Martha Coakley been in Mike Capuano’s shoes, by her own public statements, it would be dead. Yet you suggest that Mike Capuano doesn’t understand the “legislative process”?
      3. And, by the way, that provision has been fixed in the Senate, as we predicted it would be. The bill before the Senate includes language that ensures that every exchange will offer at least one plan that covers abortion. The problem has been fixed — as Mike Capuano (along with virtually every other observer) said it would be. Can it be broken again? Sure. Anti-abortion forces are likely to try. Nevertheless, the bill is fixed — thanks to Mike Capuano’s successful efforts, efforts that Martha Coakley opposed before she supported.

      <

      p>It looks to me like Mike Capuano has been playing the “legislative process” masterfully, even if he did blunder a single move in the political theater that Martha Coakley is producing. The only case I see being “overstated” is the case for Martha Coakley’s legislative prowess — along with your “case” against Mike Capuano’s.

      <

      p>I don’t know or care why you feel the need to be “provocative” about this issue, but your attempt to undermine Mike Capuano’s understanding of the legislative process is an abject “fail” — especially in contrast to Martha Coakley (or either of the other two candidates).

        • of having invoked a laughable response to your well-played frame against BrooklineTom and yours truly or just BrooklineTom?  If its the former, do me the favor of a substantive response before laughing at me in a mocking tone.    

          • David’s obviously in one of his “moods” today as evidenced by a couple of other comments:)

              • …he was trying to get a rise out of Capuano people.  Here is another example of a playful comment from him today.

                • when I was a substitute teacher in the 7th grade.

                  <

                  p>Trying to get a rise out of the teacher, and still stay just this side of getting thrown out of the room.  

                • That’s about right.  Folks, if you can’t have at least a little bit of fun while blogging, it’s hardly worth the trouble.

                  <

                  p>But on the serious side, let’s assume that the conference bill emerges either with Stupitts, or (more likely) something closer to it than what’s in the current Senate bill — a result that IMHO is at least 50/50.  Then how easy will it be to crow, “well, I guess it wasn’t ‘fixed’ after all, was it, Mr. Legislative Expert?”  (Yes, I know, this will all happen well after the primary is over, but let’s assume that the time-frame isn’t a factor.)

                • it got out of the house, that they didn’t have the votes otherwise, that there’s reason to believe it’ll be fixed in the Senate, thus giving conference with the home team advantage a good chance to have a health care bill with acceptable policy for abortion access?

          • I am well aware that Cap knows that the bill can be amended on the Senate floor, and (assuming it eventually passes the Senate) will then go to conference where it will morph yet again into God knows what.  (As does anyone who passed 10th grade civics.)  That’s precisely why I think he’s making a mistake by overstating his case that the abortion funding issue has been “fixed” in the Senate.  Should the bill eventually have something worse than what’s in the Senate bill now, I don’t think he wants to be in the position of explaining how his definition of “fixed” is different from the ordinary English definition of the word.

            • He needs a club and this is one of his best clubs. Like this:  

              <

              p>She has no experience and her missteps would have killed the bill. See, I was right it’s fixed.  

              <

              p>If health care gets through conference with a crappy abortion access policy, he’ll have to vote against it or flip-flop.  That’s were his real exposure is, not on whether the bill is fixed and then later broken.  

              <

              p>Stuff happens during the legislative process. One of the things a congressman or Senator has to do is explain what happened during the legislative process. If it gets broken he’ll have to say, “I was wrong, it didn’t stay fixed.  The social conservatives in the Senate got X Y and Z on board…”  

        • Let’s see you bait the Coakley supporters similarly and see if you have any skin left.  lol.  

          <

          p>

        • I’m not sure which of us is the comic, but so what.

          <

          p>Intentional or not, suggesting that Mike Capuano does not understand the legislative process while Martha Coakley is the leading candidate is itself a joke.

          <

          p>I’m happy to play along.

          • Listening to Capuano convinced me he had a strong understanding of the legislative process, but there are some weak points in his argument that I haven’t heard the Coakley people address.

            <

            p>Right now, I see no significant ideological or policy differences between the two candidates, so I care about how good each will be at senatoring.

            • Although I don’t see the “weak points” you mention.

              <

              p>The two candidates have no significant ideological or policy differences.

              <

              p>The question remains — which candidate is more Senatorial.

            • Actually, I am going to award him the Billy Madison Award!

              <

              p>

              <

              p>More likely, Mike Capuano might be privy to information as a member of the House leadership team and one of Speaker Pelosi’s most trust confidants which allows him to speak with such confidence on the matter.

              <

              p>This entire healthcare debate has proven that Coakley has much to learn regarding the legislative process. Her hypothetical no vote in the House, would have put her at odds with leadership, 99% (Does Kucinich really count anymore?) of pro-choice members and could have killed the health care debate entirely.

              <

              p>

Archives