There’s been some confusion in recent days over Martha Coakley’s position on Stupacky health care bills, in light of her comments to NECN suggesting that maybe she had backed off her “no at every stage” position.
Well, Coakley laid all that to rest. Her latest in the Globe is as clear as can be: “no” at every stage to a Stupak’d-out bill. No in the House, No in the Senate, No on final passage. Just “no.”
“There are other matters where, of course, you would be involved in compromise,” Coakley said in an interview. “This is one, whether as a congresswoman or a senator, I wouldn’t have compromised on. This is an important issue for me; it always has been.”
As to the argument made by Capuano and others that they voted initially, with plans to change the bill later, she said, “You can’t guarantee that you can do it later. What says that Congressman Capuano won’t make the same decision? He already made the decision that moving it along in the House was more important than standing up for choice. And that’s fine. He can explain that and try and iron it out. . . . I, for one, am not comfortable saying we’ll pass this and we’ll fix it later.”
And, as for those awkward NECN quotes,
Coakley said she was declining to answer the question because she did not think it would be an issue, because the abortion language would be removed. She also said she felt she had answered the question in earlier comments that did not air on television.
“Maybe I didn’t do it as artfully as I should have,” she said.
So, there it is. Coakley would have voted “no” in the House because, as she accurately told the Globe, “you can’t guarantee that you can do it later.” No more ambiguity. Same with Capuano, I think: “yes” on a Stupak’d bill in the House, but “no” on final passage. (I don’t think anyone has yet asked Capuano if he’d vote “yes” in the Senate and hold out hope that it would be dropped in conference, nor do I think anyone has commented on the difference between voting for cloture and voting to pass the bill. But at this point, it’s getting ridiculous.)
Khazei and Pagliuca remain of the view that the correct vote is “yes” at any stage, and try to fix Stupak later. (The Globe story says that Khazei “waffled” at some point, but I haven’t heard it, and he’s been very clear up to this point, so I don’t take that very seriously.)
the type of Senator I would want. I want a Senator who sees the larger picture and will let the process work for the greater good, which is to get Universal Health Care passed this session.
<
p>She can be as clear as she wants, her position is one that tell me she is not willing to work with all of the tools available to a member of a legislative body.
<
p>
You can have your opinion about whether no health care is better or worse than health care without abortion coverage, I suppose. But this:
<
p>
<
p>After Capuano has said that he won’t make the same decision, Coakley dismisses that out of hand. This tells me that Coakley has no patience for the notion of Mike Capuano’s integrity. If she can’t meet a minimum standard of respect for fellow Massachusetts Democrats, how is she going to get anything done in a diverse body such as the Senate?
<
p>Not a bad way to put it in polite company. Let me take a crack at it:
<
p>She called him a liar and without one scintilla of substantiation.
<
p>That’s a pretty serious charge to make and a highly personal attack on his character. Now you see how Coakley acts under pressure. You know the worst thing about it, she said it without much thought.
moderate voters if they’re even paying attention at this point. Her willinging to squander an opportunity to provide real change in health insurance access–in some cases, lifesaving change–for millions of women, men, and children is really disturbing. There are literally millions of people shut out of access to health insurance who are waiting for relief, waiting for pre-existing condition restrictions to be removed so they can get insured.
<
p>Again, smacks of purity politics to me–and at real cost to thousands of sick folks. Wow. Not cool.
The whole thing is quite disappointing, from this latest ridiculousness from Coakley to Capuano’s initially unclear and now unacceptable approach to the issue. As I’ve expressed before, it would be nice to have a bit better state-wide candidates in as blue a state as Massachusetts.
<
p>Nevertheless, on most other things during the campaign, Coakley and Capuano’s positions have been for the most part solid and reasonable. So looking at the bigger picture, I’m still optimistic that whoever wins (i.e. Coakley) will grow in office and not stand in the way of progressive reform.
come to that conclusion. Martha Coakley is on record saying she would have stood in the way of real reform by voting NO in the house.
<
p>
<
p>She is too beholden to Emily’s list to actually admit that part of her job as a member of a legislative body would be to compromise to advance legislation, then work to make sure before passage, it is the RIGHT legislation. Not cool at all.
<
p>
As a Senator, Martha Coakley may have a chance to vote on an un-Stupaked version of a health care bill, thanks to the legislative savvy of folks like Nancy Pelosi, Mike Capuano, and other progressive pro-choice folks in the House. Assuming there is nothing else that is horrible about the bill, I think she’d be happy with that outcome and I’m guessing she’d vote yes and be proud of that vote.
<
p>However, if those same folks in the House voted no as she says she would have, she’d never get that chance.
<
p>I just don’t understand why she’d advocate throwing up a roadblock along a path that leads to what many of us, including her, want in the end.
and Capuano is still screwed.
<
p>I don’t see how Cap erases the impression that he “flip flopped” (though he didn’t). But maybe this creates a new opening for him.
<
p>Must be doubly infuriating given how all-over-the-map Coakley has, in actual fact, been about this. (Not “artful.”)
<
p>PS the overarching positions of Pags and Khazei is that it’s OK to throw choice under the bus for health care.
<
p>Seems to me this only strengthens Martha’s rhetorical hand, by making it less credible for Capuano to claim there is a firewall later in the process. Also adds weight to the notion that if even progressive men don’t “get it” on choice, maybe ought to send a woman.
Saying that a bill with Stupak in it is acceptable is guaranteeing that the Stupak provisions will make it through. It’s giving up your negotiating position at the outset.
<
p>Think about it. Suppose you went to a car dealer, and you were looking for a new vehicle. You asked for a price quote, and the salesman quotes you the sticker price. If you reply “I want a 5% discount. But if I can’t have it, I’ll pay sticker price.” – you’ll never pay less than sticker price.
<
p>If more pro-choice representatives in the House kept their starting position, a bill with Stupak in it would have never made it to the floor. They didn’t, and so Stupak is in.
<
p>It’s unlikely that a provision similar to Stupak makes it in the Senate, because 60 votes are needed to add it as an amendment, and the Senate has more than 40 pro-choice votes to stop it from being added.
<
p>Everyone keeps asking if Coakley would stop it. I think you need to start asking a better question – why would 60+ Dems insist on changing abortion law as a pre-requisite to supporting the overhaul of healthcare in America? Why did 39 Democrats vote against expanding healthcare?
<
p>If we, as Democrats, don’t stand together for expanding healthcare coverage to all, what do we stand for?
<
p>
<
p>It’s not that simple, by a long shot. I was actually trying to think of an analogy to the legislative process while explaining my position to someone today and I just could not. The two houses, multiple committees, procedural votes, multiple steps in the process, and the sheer number of people involved just do not lend to a simple analogy from everyday life. If George Lakoff is right and our minds work via metaphors, using simpler constructs to make sense of larger and more complicated things, it’s no wonder we have problems understanding the legislative process.
<
p>
<
p>First, this is shifting the argument. The question Coakley had to answer was what she’d do in the situation that did occur. We could argue that Reps could have held out for any particular position, but the point would be moot.
<
p>Secondly, since when is Coakley the sole pro-choice defender? Even Niki Tsongas, her endorser, voted for the flawed bill. What does Coakley know that these others don’t?
<
p>If there was a chance to get a bill out of the House without Stupak, it would have happened. You would have seen a stand from the pro-choice reps if they knew there was a possibility. But the fact that it didn’t happen and all of these reps voted the way they did should tell you something.
<
p>It’s really results vs. ideology. A big part of the legislative process is getting people who don’t agree with you to vote your way. That’s why Capuano spent his first year in congress getting to know all of the other reps – so he’d know what made them tick, what sort of district they represented, in other words, what he had to work with to make deals.
<
p>I tend to believe that there is something in the works to get a reconciled bill without Stupak (assuming the Senate does its job) through the House. It might be the case that some Dem reps needed the cover of one vote to help fend off Republican challenges next year. That’s just a guess, but it’s the sort of stuff that does go on.
<
p>I don’t know if Coakley just doesn’t understand this or is just pandering. Given the high probability of her election, I hope she’s just pandering.
A band of terrorists is holding a large group of innocent men, women and children hostage. A large group of police stand behind a government negotiator, who is attempting to defuse the situation (with no casualties) by listening to their demands.
<
p>A group of terrorists grab a dozen children and place them in the line of fire between themselves and the police. The terrorists then threaten to begin executing the adults, one by one, if their demands aren’t met.
<
p>The debate between Mr. Capuano and Ms. Coakley is analogous to a debate between two police officers on the scene about whether or not they should shoot the terrorists — and kill innocent children in the process.
<
p>It is is terrible, immoral choice. There is no way to handle this situation without innocent lives being lost. Neither police officer can be blamed for taking either stand.
<
p>The focus of attention should be on the terrorists who immorally and shamelessly use the children as pawns to advance their aims (never mind taking the group hostage to begin with). It is the terrorists who have demonstrated evil behavior here, not the police who — however imperfectly — are attempting to solve the crisis.
<
p>I blame the Catholic church for orchestrating this conflict. The rightwing, in this analogy, are the terrorists. The Catholic Church, in this analogy, is the group of terrorists that chose to use children as human shields.
<
p>I am disgusted, appalled, and nauseated by the tactics of the anti-abortion and anti-feminist groups that have shamelessly used innocent and powerless poor women and human shields to advance their agenda.
<
p>Mike Capuano and Martha Coakley have, over the past week, landed a millimeter apart on their views of how to handle this terrible situation. That is a good thing, and in my view we do all of us a terrible disservice by harping on how they got there.
<
p>The focus of our ire should rightly be on those forces that have created this terrible dilemma — not on any of the candidates.
<
p>So now we’re there, at least. I think.
I agreed with David that Capuano’s original attack on Coakley about this issue and then his apparent backtracking was a poor campaign move. I disagreed that it was illustrative of a problem of his general political skills.
<
p>This move by Coakley, however, seems worse to me. First, it gives Capuano back a strong argument that he squandered. Second, it shows a real problem with Coakley’s judgment. It is absolutely the wrong position on health care reform.
<
p>I also find it interesting that Coakley now clearly disagrees with every pro-choice member of the House, including Choice stalwarts such as Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Diana Degette. She also disagrees with NARAL’s Nancy Keenan, who clearly stated on Hardball that a ‘Yes’ vote on HR 3962 was the right thing to do.
<
p>
<
p>That quote strikes me as pretty gross, pandering gender politics.
<
p>It’s really sad, but I suspect that it won’t hurt her that much given her strong lead. If this is how she will approach major legislation, though, I’m not excited to have her as my next Senator.
<
p>
That “strikes me as pretty gross, pandering gender politics.”
whether it is in the House or the Senate. I have never received more outraged emails from Democratic activists all over the country than on this issue. From the Eleanor Roosevelt Legacy Fund, NOW, Emily’s List et al to major Democratic donors who are going to DC next week to give Nancy Pelosi an earful. No more money until they take the poison pill out of health care reform. No one can call it health care reform as long as half the population is effected adversely. Not sure what progressive planet you guys live on but that’s what’s out there. From Daily Kos to Crooks and Liars and everything in between. This is a travesty of Democratic values and if you choose to draw the line over women’s civil rights do so at your own risk. We will not be silenced -we worked too hard to get where we are and will not go back.
Women, and mostly poor women at that, have always been asked to play nice and go along for the greater good. As Ellen Goodman says in her op ed piece ” False Choice in Health Care Reform. It doesn’t have to be Stupak or no health care reform.
http://www.boston.com/bostongl…
<
p>http://www.examiner.com/x-6572…
Pelosi may have even violated the First Amendment “congress shall make no law with respect to the establishment of religion”
“Rep. Bart Stupak who wrote the controversial amendment, admitted as much. “The Catholic Church used their power – their clout, if you will – to influence this issue. They had to. It’s a basic teaching of the religion,” Stupak said, according to Reuters.
<
p>Stupak went on to say that he told Pelosi, a Catholic, that if she wanted a deal on the health care bill, she would be well advised to invite the staff of the Catholic Bishops “to her table.” That staff just happened to be in Stupak’s office at the time of the call.
<
p>Pelosi did invite them, and the result was an anti-abortion amendment that went beyond the Hyde amendment which prohibits federal funding of abortion, which is why its causing such a backlash among Democrats.”
<
p>Martha Coakley’s principled stand protects more than just woman rights, she has laid down the gauntlet and said, we will not cave in and roll over to the demands made by those who would use religion as a bludgeon to crush any citizen’s civil liberties. It’s not either or here. It’s right over wrong.
…on that same article you linked to, do you think you might be able to? Here is what I said:
<
p>Ellen, you refer to Stupak as legislation “that would cover millions of uninsured Americans but also strip millions of American women of reproductive health coverage.” (Well, actually, you said “reproductive health converge” but given my own propensity for typos it would be hypocritical to judge you for that.)
<
p>I am emphatically pro-choice and would hate to see anything put into place that infringes on a woman’s legal rights in this area. But I’ve also been doing a lot of research on what the status quo is as far as insurance coverage for elective terminations, and per the Guttenmacher Institute, right now only about 13% of abortions are paid for by health insurance companies. (13% are paid for by Medicaid, and the remaining 74% are self-paid.)
<
p>Also, given the fact that Stupak puts restrictions on PLANS, not companies or providers, I cannot see why insurance companies couldn’t offer two comparable plans on the Exchange: one with coverage for abortion and one without. Companies already administer dozens of different plans within their network; this is not new.
<
p>And as it is RIGHT NOW, lots of women who get health insurance through their employer don’t have coverage for elective terminations – it is very common for a business to opt out of that piece while offering otherwise great coverage.
<
p>If I’m missing something, please let me know, but as it is now I cannot figure out who the “millions of women” are who would lose their current coverage in this area. Absent that understanding, it’s really, REALLY hard for me to see why that amendment is worth walking away from the chance to give about 18 million women coverage for primary care, breast cancer treatment and everything else that comes with having health insurance. I think Capuano made the right call, and I’m thankful that he voted the way he did.
Here’s a page that links all of the details- I think you’ll find your answer.
http://www.blogrunner.com/snap…
<
p>This is just one article from The Nation: Stupak Stupor but I recommend you read all the links and this entire piece. Maybe after you’ll understand the fear and anger.
<
p>”Over the summer, legislators struck an agreement on abortion funding in which private plans offered through the health insurance exchange couldn’t use federal dollars to cover abortion care. They could, however, cover abortion care with funds from individuals’ premiums, and the agreement, the Capps Amendment, required at least one plan in every region to offer abortion care, and at least one not to. As many observers predicted, the Capps Amendment didn’t mollify anti-abortion crusaders, namely the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which commands an outsize role in the debate over healthcare reform.
So what we ended up with was drastically worse.” read on at;
http://www.thenation.com/blogs…
There is a reason that all of these powerful activists and journalists are so upset-many of these folks have spent their lifetime fighting and reporting on women’s rights. I hope you will take the time to read, with eyes wide open and no bias, the research.
<
p>My husband, a physician who worked with the Crittenden home in the 60’s and been on the national and local board of NARAL, has thrown up his hands. He’s so angry he says he’s never voting again and is certainly leaving the Democratic party. He probably will vote again but he will never feel the same way about being a democrat. When the Catholic bishops, a group who pays no taxes, gets to sit with the Speaker of the House to shape bills before Congress, there is a problem. If you don’t see it that way I’m sorry but many of us do.
<
p>I think melora was hoping you could answer the question. So was I.
…actually respond to the questions I asked? I’ve read that Arons article already, and I’ve also seen some very clear and relevant clarifications asked for and not received. So again I’m going to list the things I am still looking for information on. Answers that are factually-based, have cites and do not involve patronizing admonitions to keep my eyes open would be appreciated; I am looking for answers, not slogans or rallying cries.
<
p>1. Who are the millions of women who would lose coverage they CURRENTLY HAVE for elective terminations? What circumstances, specifically, would cause the end of that coverage, given that a) in the Nation article you linked to, it says right in the first paragraph that it refers only to plans bought on the Exchange, and b) almost all plans which cover abortion now are offered through employers who would not be affected by Stupak?
<
p>2. Seeing as how insurance companies already administer many multiple plans within their network, and seeing as how the Stupak language talks about limitations on plans, not companies or providers, why wouldn’t a health insurance company that offered plans through the Exchange be able to offer some which DO cover abortion as long as they are paid for with private funds? (Without actual evidence or further explanation, I’m not buying the “oh, it would just be too complicated” argument. What do you think is happening right now?)
<
p>3. Does it really not seem odd to you to jeopardize the extension of health care benefits to 18 million women over a procedure that is only paid for by insurance 13% of the time as it is right now?
…we’d never move on this issue. Plus your read of the first amendment doesn’t work. That amendment actually PROTECTS the right of religions to lobby the government as much as any other group. The single-issue people can stomp their feet all they want, but what are they going to say – “If Stupak’s part of the package we won’t vote for it all”? That’s both politically dumb and morally wrong in my book. Keep in mind many of these prolifers are either conservative in other ways or come from challenging districts. If we say our way or nothing then the other side could very easily say, “OK, nothing then; we weren’t enthusiastic about health care reform anyway.” If I were in Congress I would have voted against Stupak when it was its own question, but I’m also firmly on the side of voting for this legislation on final passage – Stupak or no Stupak.
Who are you/who do you work for?
<
p>It is important for people to make important disclosures of conflicts of interest on issues like this. If you work for an organization that endorsed Coakley, or you work for a government body, that’s important information. If not, why are you getting emails on this from “democratic activists around the country?” Please explain this to us as we deserve to know.
<
p>PS. Martha is perfectly willing to vote for the non-Stupak bill now that the house moved it forward, however she says she wouldn’t have been willing to move it forward to begin with (ie she would have voted to kill health care reform before it reached that step in the process). How do you explain how that’s a “principled stand?” Wouldn’t a “principled stand” be for Martha to put her money where her mouth is and vote the Senate bill down, simply because it passed the House and could make it through the Conference Committee in some fashion regardless of what happens in the Senate? If you’re going to declare how “principled” she is, I’m going to hold you on being intellectually consistent. Unless you can somehow explain the discrepancies there, you haven’t been so yet on this issue.
I’m someone who spent most of my life starting in the late 60’s and 70’s marching for civil rights, human rights and women’s rights. Many of us are now disillusioned and extremely disappointed that we are in a place in history where our politicians are willing to sell out major hard fought principle for the supposed greater good rather than putting up a fight.
<
p>I have made lifelong friends in the progressive world and I can say most of us, men and women alike, are appalled at the manner in which the media, money and political operative manipulation has influenced the discussion..
<
p>Once a talking point takes hold i.e. voting this House bill with the reprehensible Stupak amendment (aided by the inappropriate and probably unconstitutional influence of religious leaders) was a necessity and anyone who disagrees is ignorant of the system, doesn’t know how the “horse trading” works and is against giving health care to 36 million, the reality gets lost. You choose to believe the talking points put together by Nancy Pelosi, Catholic bishops and the C Street Stupak gang, fine, but there are those of us who don’t.
<
p>I have never been paid by a political candidate. From Eugene McCarthy through Ned Lamont and yes of course, Hillary Clinton I have been fortunate to be able to get involved on a grassroots level for candidates I believe in.
<
p>The reason that everyone here is Capuano, even though he is in third place in the polls, is that you make it very inhospitable for other opinions. Please note the gang bang above.
<
p>NeilSagan accused me of plagiarism, he had found something I wrote on another blog using another handle and assumed I had copied it. He even followed me to another post on BMG to continue his verbal assault.
<
p>Well, you’ve finally gotten rid of me too. Why would anyone post here if no matter what those with other opinions and candidate say; you attack.
<
p>Perhaps BMG is merely a microcosm of what has happened to our political system. Good v. evil; intelligent v. ignorant; D good R bad. It frightens me because no one wins and no one can wear a pure white hat.
<
p>Somehow I don’t think it will be as much “fun” for all of you when the number of us who disagree dwindles-or perhaps this is what you want? Is there any question who will get the endorsement of BMG?
what was said elsewhere in this thread: the endorsement of BMG is up to the editors. And, having just had lunch with Charley and Bob during which we discussed the Senate race at some length, I can confirm that all of us — all three of us — remain undecided in this race.
<
p>Political debates get heated; people say things that they perhaps, on later reflection, wish they hadn’t put quite that way. Don’t let it drive you away. Stick up for your candidate, and make your case.
He’s your typical bully – he whines when you fight back. It’s sad when progressives adopt the worst of the right-wing tactics – personalized attacks to belittle opponents and their supporters.
when that is exactly the tactic used by unions on the picket line to pressure union workers (and non-union workers) not to work during a strike.
<
p>Anyway, editors, is this name-calling within the bounds of BMG rules or did Striker57 break them?
…the only person Neil has been a bit nasty to is Menemsha, but she’s doing her part in that spat as well.
Obviously the fight about Stupak-Pitts in health care reform has moved to the Senate. Do you know, what are Kerry and Kirk’s position on the issue and have they said what measures can be taken to fix it?
<
p>I did wrongly accuse you of plagiarism and I apologized for it. When you said you were still waiting for me to apologize I replied again with a link so that you could find the apology. Now you bring it up again, so I can only conclude you’d rather nurture the insult than get passed it.
that you just used this phrase:
<
p>
<
p>…to describe legitimate and respectfully-phrased responses to your refusal to back up your statements with actual facts. Did you HONESTLY just compare having your political views challenged to being sexually assaulted by multiple perpetrators at the same time? And YOU’RE the champion of women’s rights? The irony is literally sickening.
I’m sorry, Menemsha, but this phrase exemplifies the style that I have complained to you about in the past.
<
p>Like too many of your other comments, you resort to gratuitous and inappropriate references to gender and sexuality. I am a man. If I made a comment like this in any professional situation I would correctly be fired for creating a hostile work environment.
<
p>Your use of the term “gang bang” is out of line, and is not the first. If you are unable to engage in discussions here without such offensive tactics, then I agree with you that you don’t belong here.
<
p>We don’t talk that way to each other here.
AmberPaw, for example, has done a very good job explaining her support for Coakley without implying the rest of us are evil. I even recommended the diary she wrote announcing such support even though I’m a Capuano supporter because I wanted to hold it up as an example of the type of discourse I want to see at BMG. Frankly you’re the one being hostile here.
<
p>I just want to understand.
<
p>The reason there are so many Capuano supporters on this site is due to the fact that there is a metaphoric gang of rapists (men, I presume) forcing, with metaphoric brutality, men and women into supporting Capuano. After all, no person would support Capuano, who is in third place in the polls, as you point out, unless they’ve been “gang raped.”
<
p>And, unless I am one of the “rapists,” then I am a “gang rape victim” because, otherwise, I would be supporting Coakley? Have I got that right?
<
p>Gang rape. Really?
<
p>You owe an apology to any female or male victim of rape and sexual assault on this site who may stumble upon this appallingly insensitive, sexist, and disrespectful comparison. And I’m going to tell you this: you have no business trumpeting yourself as a champion of women’s rights. Your behavior on this site has been nothing short of hostile, belligerent, exceedingly sexist, and intellectually unresponsive. As a woman, I can tell you that you don’t champion my rights or speak for me. Indeed, I find your self-serving behavior and exploitive comparison disgusting.
<
p>Here’s a clue: take this comment:
<
p>
<
p>seriously.
<
p>You’re doing a very good job of handling yourself here as you argue in support of Martha, and you are comfortable about making some pretty negative comments about Capuano and his supporters like the one above. I think gang banging accusation is a bit over the top.
<
p>
I’ve been attacked on BMG in the same way for supporting Coakley and questioning Capuano (by the same folks with the same lame tactics), join the club. I admire that you’ve continued posting despite the offensive and hope you continue to do so. Your posts are valuable and insightful, especially for people reading this site’s content outside of the BMG posters’ microcosm.
<
p>Regarding putting women’s reproductive rights on the line.
To push a transportation overhaul bill through the house congress would certainly not consider an amendment sending African Americans to the back of the bus, even if that amendment were to be later removed. That women’s reproductive rights and choices were used as a barganing chip, with a liberal congress is terrifying (real liberals understand why). I sleep better at night knowing leaders out there, like Martha Coakley, recognize that putting an issue like that on the table for compromise, even symbolically, is trespassing on the civil rights we’ve fought so hard for.
<
p>Keep fighting the good fight Meenemsha, I’m with you, men and women all across this nation are with you, Attorney General Martha Coakley is with you.
…don’t find you nearly as bitter and vitrolic as Menemsha, but I do think your posts come across sounding like campaign press releases rather than your own statements. I really don’t think Capuano supporters have been THAT bad for the most part so let’s cut the victim act.
Every primary, on every blog, people like this show up. They’re passionately dedicated to one candidate, which excuses any rhetorical device, any characterization of the community and its members with which they are so evidently unfamiliar. They’re here to tell everyone else what they’ve doing wrong.
<
p>It’s notable that after a token diary on Connecticut, menemsha went quiet for two years — not a single comment. Then the silence is broached by a series of attacks on Pagliuca. Then she went after Capuano. Eventually she got around to mentioning Martha Coakley.
<
p>I’d be shocked to hear anything from menemsha after the swearing in of our newest Senator, until one of the “good” women (not Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Louise Salughter, or Maxine Waters inter alia) run again.
The histrionics are a bit much. I’ll point to Lightiris’s comments and others for more on that. More importantly, though, elections often get very heated. If you can’t take criticism of your candidate, you probably should take your own advice. There are many ways to advocate for a candidate — and most of them are admittedly more effective than duking it out on BMG. Most of us know that, we’re just here because we like the heated debate. Not everyone can handle it and that’s okay. As I said, there are plenty of other places to rally for a candidate.
<
p>Secondly, you said you were getting lots of emails from activists — it was a decent assumption that you could have had a conflict of interest based on that statement, that’s why I asked. I’ve known people who have had clear conflicts of interest on this forum and not disclosed; when I see it happen, I call people out on it. You were not the first and will not be the last, but I take you at your word that you do not have a conflict of interest here.
<
p>Thirdly, the passive-aggressive tone is not helpful at all; you are not a victim here. I’ve admittedly been heated, but it’s almost always been about Martha Coakley and the issues – save for the important and necessary exception above, asking you about potential conflicts of interest. You’ve lashed out at just about every critic of Martha Coakley, throwing every label at them in the book (including, but not limited to, ‘gang bangers,’), and then you criticize those critics for being heated with you? I’m sorry, but in life, you reap what you sow.
<
p>Finally, I asked a very serious question in my “PS” and you have not answered it. If you’d like to be a part of this new-fangled blogosphere, instead of burning bridges, maybe you should try to answer why it’s okay for Martha Coakley to say that she wouldn’t have voted to move along a bill to the Senate (instead of a vote to kill it), when she now recognizes that the Senate will pass a better version without Stupak and everything will be okay? And why should it be “okay” to vote for that Senate bill when, if passed, it could still plausibly lead to something Stupak-like, as unlikely as it is, because at conference committee the House version will still stand and some compromise may need to be made. Knowing that, if Coakley is to be intellectually consistent, shouldn’t she vote against any Senate health care bill? And if not, how can she then be so “principled?”
…relative to recent discussions on anonymity/pseudonymity. Some people have no real-world connection to fellow BMGers, use a pseudonym, and don’t have to own their comments. Though I’d like to think I’d be polite regardless of my handle I know I don’t want to be a jerk knowing there is a good chance I’ll run into some of our regulars (including you) at a DSC meeting. I’m not asking to reopen the debate about using handles; I just thought it was a point worth noting.
Now the estimated 3,000 daily readers of BMG will have a clear understanding of who would vote for what at what stage of the health care/abortion controversy. And the other 397,000 primary voters (a low side prediction, I think) will either no clue that anything ever happened or that Capuano “flip-flopped”.
<
p>And to bring us even more back to earth from our political nerdiness. A friend of mine who I would consider a “low information” liberal–meaning he gets 10% of his political news from the Globe, 45% from TV (ads) and 45% from WEEI (and he’s liberal?)–he says to me, “Pags seems to be the most liberal of the them all”, telling me he was leaning his way.
Even my parents who are politically astute, especially my father (how else would I have been bitten by the bug?) had no idea what the fuss was about. I tried to explain to my dad at least five different ways why Capuano was right and Coakley was wrong, but her stances have apparently made a gut impression with him.
<
p>To sum up my dad’s opinion
<
p>”I think Mike is doing a great job where he is, I think she has more balls than he does so lets give her a shot”
<
p>Dad said that the day Coakley announced for the position. So I sense there won’t be much movement between candidates but hopefully the undecide’s will break for decisive, experience leadership thats practical and forward looking-and thus break for Capuano. I have already requested my absentee and look forward to casting my vote for Mike.
But then, we all know that BMG exists as much for fulmination as anything else, and you can still get plenty of that here.
<
p>So, she would have voted to KILL the bill, even though even she recognizes that “she did not think it would be an issue because the abortion language would be removed.”
<
p>And if she were in Congress instead of AG when that vote took place, it never would have got that far, because she’d have voted against it. She’d have killed health insurance reform for no reason at all.
<
p>How could anyone vote for her after this? I used to think Massachusetts would be well served by anyone in this race, most particularly Coakley, Capuano and Khazei. Now it’s clear that Coakley is not fit for the job.
male model on January 19.
If Martha Coakley wins the primary, I am likely to write in Mike Capuano in the January election.
<
p>I will vote. I will not vote for any of the GOP candidates. I am very unlikely to vote for Martha Coakley. I feel that Mike Capuano is the best choice for Senator, regardless of the outcome of the primary.
<
p>Hence, I feel that my write-in vote in January for Mike Capuano is a path that allows me to preserve my sense of political integrity.
…the general election is not likely to be close. If it were I’d be less forgiving of people who might cost the Democrat votes.
Mike is by far the best candidate in the race. He has the experience, the passion and the heart needed for the job.
<
p>He has an outstanding voting record starting with opposing the Gramm-Leach-Blilley bill – 10 years ago.
<
p>He’s been right on all his votes ever since:
<
p>* voted no on Iraq War
<
p>* voted no on NCLB (only 41 representatives voted against NCLB) He’s against merit pay, charter schools
<
p>*voted no on the Patriot Act
<
p>Right now – Martha Coakley is about 25 points ahead of him in a 4-way race. Pagliuca is ahead of him by one percentage point.
<
p>Martha Coakley told the Boston Globe yesterday that she would not have voted for trhe HCR bill because of the Stupak amendment. The bill passed by two votes! Capuano explained that the progressive caucus voted for the bill to move it along – and to get rid of the Stupak amendment in committee.
<
p>(Capuano scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record.)
<
p>The Boston Globe is playing dumb about the HCR vote, too – making it look like it was a flip-flop by Capuano. (He voted for it but will vote against it if Stupak is not dropped from the bill) IMO, The Boston Globe and the Media outlets in Boston have gone after Capuano while propping up Coakley and Pagliuca.
<
p>Back during the presidential primary race, Matt Stoller (openleft.com) wrote a great essay “The Bar-Fight Primary”, and I always think of that when choosing a candidate now. IMHO, there is only one candidate in the MA Senate race who would be on our side in a bar-fight – Capuano. He’s a fighter, and he’ll be the passionate voice of the people in the Senate. I can picture him standing there on the floor of the senate giving the Republicans hell (a la Ted Kennedy’s speech to raise the minimum wage – remember that?).
<
p>We have an opportunity here to elect a Real Democrat – pro-choice, pro-labor, anti-war (I could go on and on) Senator. Coakley, Pagliuca, Khazei could be future members of the gang of 6 or the gang on 14, imho. Capuano – never!
<
p>There’s only 23 days till the election.
<
p>Blue MA Group should endorse Capuano for Senate!
Portia — it’s the BMG’s owners and editors, David, Charlie and Bob who will have to decide to come to a consensus on any endorsement.
<
p>So, David, Charlie and Bob please get your handsome heads together and endorse Mike Capuano for US Senate for all the reasons listed above, which are a thankfully short but still a good list of this progressive Democrat’s values and principles.
<
p>Please.
They already have. Isn’t it clear from postings like this? They control what posts are promoted and where attention is focused.Remember BMG is not a democracy.
A couple of days ago we were (according to some BMGers) clearly in the tank for Coakley. Ah, the blogosphere.
I get dinged another rep point. I guess the message is don’t question authority.
<
p>Absent a clearer view of his decision making prowess and thought process there’s very little to indicate that his votes are anything more than accidentally aligned with your approval…
<
p>
<
p>It ought to be even a little bit of a hard sell to argue that Capuano should replace the primary sponsor of NCLB based upon notions of ‘right votes’ (whatever you think that means) and some standards of purity. Ted Kennedy, it seems to me, was exemplar of the notion that moving the in the right direction is more important than purity on each and every vote. To date, none of the candidates have shown me that they get this fundamental notion of legislative vision. This fact alone, hurts Capuano most as he’s the only actual legislator in the pack…
<
p>
<
p>Funny… I thought all pay was merit pay… and I, myself, rather like charter schools, so he’s not ‘right’ on that one…
<
p>
<
p>The very fact that you feel the need to explain the vote, regardless of the state of Globe intelligence, starkly illustrates that the Capuano message on this is ( to be charitable) garbled and incoherent. I’d be more willing to take you, and Capuano, seriously if you just admit he hit a foul on this one. And don’t turn around and try to tell me Coakley fudged the thing too… maybe she did, and maybe she didn’t, but Capuano, absent the actions of any other candidate, or the press, made a royal mess of this one. I’d be more inclined to vote for him if he shows me he can learn from mistakes.
<
p>
<
p>Capuano and his team messed up with their initial response to Coakley’s statement that she’d have voted against the bill. No doubt. I suspect that he was so surprised to be handed an issue on which to differentiate himself (“Manna from heaven”) that he didn’t think it through before he started speaking.
<
p>
<
p>Maybe he has, given that his responses to Coakley’s follow-up positions have been more restrained and focused: Keying in on the fact that she’d have stopped progress of the health care reform bill.
Khazei’s a bar fighter, too. He’s the only one willing to take on issues because of their importance to Massachusetts, without regards to his own candidacy (casinos).
<
p>My vote will go to he or Capuano, but I have to say I was particularly impressed with Khazei when I met him last week. I know he’d be a fine Senator and I know just who’s side he’d be on if he were elected. He has a hill to climb and only a month to do it, but so does Capuano.