Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

    • it was unknown whether Pelosi would publicly endorse Capuano, against a woman opponent. Pelosi has been a strong advocate of increasing the number of women in elected office; Martha Coakley would be only the 18th woman in the current US Senate if elected.

      According to the campaign, Pelosi will hold a press conference at 11:30 Friday morning, at the Omni Parker House in Boston, to announce the endorsement. Pelosi will be in town to speak at a forum at the Harvard Kennedy School later that day.

      • who know and respect Nancy Pelosi more than Martha Coakley.  Pelosi has broken through the glass ceiling. Martha is trying to.  

        • Nancy Pelosi did not care enough about women to make sure the anti-women’s rights amendment did not even see the light on day on the House floor. She has the power but did not spend her chits on that one. She is the ultimate beltway boy. And if you did not notice, given the current polls, the “I’m an insider’s insider” strategy does not seem to be gaining traction for Congressman Capuano with primary voters…perhaps it is because middle class voters are sick to death of the insiders’s insiders and the nonsense that goes on in DC.

            • And our brave so-called progressives are more than willing to roll over and cave.

              <

              p>Ellen Goodman had a great piece today: Lawmakers Left with a False Choice On Healthcare
              http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x…

              <

              p>”Universal health care was the cause of Kennedy’s life. Four Democrats are vying for his seat here. The one woman, Attorney General Martha Coakley, said she would vote against any bill that further restricts reproductive rights. Rep. Mike Capuano dismissed her as naive and then flip-flopped into agreement. The other two have said they would reluctantly put reform first.

              <

              p>But it’s fair to ask: What would Teddy do? In public, after all, he was best at framing moral issues so that even abortion opponents might feel compelled to put health care at the top of the ‘life’ list. In private, he was expert at wrestling his colleagues onto common ground.

              <

              p>As Coakley says, “I can’t believe that we are now reduced to saying the only way we can get good health care is by taking steps backward on women’s rights. It’s a false choice.”

              <

              p>She’s right. Now we’ll see if this false choice becomes the final choice.”

              • your candidate continues to not answer questions when asked. Or how about not answering queries from this blog.  

                <

                p>She should come on and post as all of the other candidates and/or campaigns have thus far.

                <

                p>Also, while we have you, please defend and/or explain this gem:

                <

                p>

                KING: If you’re in the Senate, and this comes before you and the amendment’s in the bill, you will vote it down because you think it’s more important to protect the abortion issue than the health care reform issue?

                COAKLEY: Alison,  I’m not going to answer that question. I am not saying, you know, if I’m on the bridge and this is the only choice I have that, that you know, I’d say we’re not going to be there.

                <

                p>What does this mean?

                <

                p>How would she vote? Why not answer the question if she is so principled?

              • This column by Ellen Goodman you linked us to sums up what is the root of this issue…Coakley is correct…Congress needs to do better…they can IF they want to…but, my liberal and progressive standard bearers are too willing to be rolled over.

            • Clyburn said that, without Stupak, there would have only been around 212 votes for the final bill, suggesting that, if the Stupak amendment is stripped in conference, House leaders will only need to convince a handful or two of Democrats to put their pro-life views aside and vote for the final legislation.

              • House leaders will only need to convince a handful or two of Democrats to put their pro-life views aside and vote for the final legislation.

        • You mean like being elected the first woman Attorney General in Massachusetts history. Or only the second woman DA in the state.

          <

          p>And please, provide some links to support your statement that “a lot of women in MA know and respect Nancy Pelosi more than Martha Coakley”. I mean something other than talking out your ass.

          <

          p>It’s great for Congressman Capuano to have the Speaker come in to endorse him. I respect both of them and certainly as a part of her leadership team in the U.S. House she is showing loyalty to Mike. But then again, Ted Kennedy’s endorsement couldn’t put Massachusetts in Barak Obama column in a primary and I don’t see Speaker Pelosi doing it for Congressman Capuano.

          <

          p>It’s really kinda sad Neil that you always have to trash the highest elected woman in Massachusetts as the way to support Mike Capuano. Honestly, Capuano’s better than that -too bad you don’t get that about your candidate.

          • As a Coakley supporter and a member of the labor movement, please explain her position here.

            <

            p>We have all been waiting all day to hear a logical defense of the only candidate who seems to be a bit confused by the legislative process and who wanted to kill the debate on Health Care before the debate really started.  

    • but it must be particularly galling for Coakley’s campaign

      <

      p>

      Nevertheless, it was unknown whether Pelosi would publicly endorse Capuano, against a woman opponent. Pelosi has been a strong advocate of increasing the number of women in elected office; Martha Coakley would be only the 18th woman in the current US Senate if elected. link

  3. Speaker Pelosi’s endorsement will be a compelling, easy-to-cite soundbyte that Capuano people can take to voters –especially likely female voters who are not sold on Coakley– in the final weeks.

    <

    p>It’s no small deal that Pelosi, who advocates strongly for more women in Congress, would reject Coakley for Capuano. One might have expect her at least to remain neutral.

    <

    p>BTW the Press Release implicitly dings Coakley on Heath Care Reforem and the Stupak Ban:

    <

    p>

    Today, U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced that she will endorse Congressman Mike Capuano in his candidacy to replace Edward Kennedy as the next Senator from Massachusetts.

    […]

    “Saturday the House of Representatives passed a historic health care bill that was a great victory for the American People. Mike Capuano not only cast a courageous vote for this historic legislation, but was a constructive force in improving this bill and moving it to the Senate. Whether taking on the CEOs of the financial services industry, supporting marriage equality, or voting against the Iraq War because he didn’t believe Bush Administration made the case to take military action, Mike Capuano has a proven record of standing up for progressive values and what he believes is right. I am proud to endorse Mike Capuano for U.S. Senate,” said Speaker Pelosi.

  4. For the first woman Speaker of the House to attempt to derail the first viable and qualified Democratic woman for Senate from Massachusetts I’m betting she is going to meet a state and national fire storm.  If she likes Mike so much why doesn’t she want to keep him with his seniority in the House?   The timing on this smells.  “Horse trading?”  After allowing a bill with an amendment that grossly restricts the rights of millions of women she endorses one of the guys who helped her pass it?  I don’t think this will hurt Martha at all, women do think for themselves.  And once they’ve thought about this I’m betting the loss will be Nancy’s and probably Capuano as well.  The only good news for Nancy is that her numbers can go much lower.  

    • Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, is obligated to endorse the individual she believes will make the best U.S. Senator.  She is not obligated to endorse ovaries so as not to “derail” a female candidate from Massachusetts.  Pelosi showed, as well she should, that she endorses candidates based on factors other than anatomy.

      <

      p>Ironically, you note that “women do think for themselves.”  I imagine you include Nancy Pelosi among those women in her endorsement of Mike Capuano.  

      <

      p>And, even more bizarrely, you note that Pelosi has low approval numbers suggesting that her endorsement is worthless but your entire comment is intended to blast her for not endorsing Coakley.  

    • the bill does not restrict rights, it restricts access to abortion services through insurance policies offered on the federal exchange.

      <

      p>I think its a bad policy and I would fight it as a fundamental issue.

      <

      p>The vote on Stupak was not taken lightly, it was necessary. And just as important, Clyburn and Pelosi have a plan to strip Stupak out, as follows.

      <

      p>

      “I’m betting she is going to meet a state and national fire storm.”

      <

      p>What are you talking about?

      <

      p>

      “If she likes Mike so much why doesn’t she want to keep him with his seniority in the House?”

      <

      p>C’mon, that’s a grammer school taunt.

      <

      p>

      “I don’t think this will hurt Martha at all, women do think for themselves.  And once they’ve thought about this I’m betting the loss will be Nancy’s and probably Capuano as well.”

      <

      p>This isn’t about Martha, it’s about Pelosi endorsing Capuano.  Depending upon the news coverage, it will raise his profile in the state becuase everyone knows Nancy Pelosi and her visit to Boston will be news.  

      <

      p>

      “The only good news for Nancy is that her numbers can go much lower.”  

      <

      p>Nancy only has to win in her district. What you think of her doesn’t matter one smidge. (How quickly they turn in the sisterhood.)

    • Nancy Pelosi is the first woman Speaker, and one of the toughest pro-choice voters in the country. She’s an excellent vote counter, and along with Jim Clyburn (who you also burn in this thread) knows how to get things passed in Congress.

      <

      p>Martha Coakley, never having served in a legislative assembly, doesn’t.

      <

      p>I’m fine with your advocacy of Martha Coakley, and I think she has the makings of a fine senator.  However, a scorched-Earth policy toward anyone who dares speak differently speaks ill of you, and is far from what we need in the Senate from whomever wins.  As for what Teddy would do, I would guess based on his career that it would avoid saying “no” to health care reform as early and powerfully as Coakley did.

    • The Research 2000 polls consistently rate here favorables at twice what you state. In the Northeast, she’s viewed favorably 59% to 33%.

      <

      p>Guess what?

      <

      p>We live in the Northeast!

  5. I think that much of the problem reflects the difference between activist and legislative politics. While pro-choice activists are justifiably angered by the Stupac amendment, the Congressional dynamic (including pro-life pressure within many Democratic Districts) made its inclusion inevitable.

    <

    p>If you will indulge a quoted comment from another thread:

    <

    p>

    The bill only passed by two votes (one of which was Republican). Granted the forty votes Stupac promised were so much hot air, but the ten votes actually delivered were the margin of victory for the health care package.

    There is a tendency to equate the beliefs of progressive activists with those of the country as a whole; indeed it’s the working premise of the Coakley campaign to date.  While this is arguably adequate for a special election in Massachusetts, it doesn’t fly nationally, given a more numerous conservative electorate in the other forty-nine States.

    Folks like Kucinich simply don’t have the credibility in the House to sway many votes.

    This refusal to deal with political reality has croaked health care reform since the Nixon Administration.  In this sense, Coakley is a gift to the national Right, because she conflated the issues of abortion and health care, ultimately to the benefit of her Congressional adversaries on both issues.

    The ability to deal with political reality, and not sacrifice the needs of the many on the altar of egotism is why I’m inclined to vote for Capuano.

Archives