I didn’t find it on the WTTK interview (starting around the 20 minute point.) They only discussed a hypothetical Senate vote, while denouncing the potential implications of the House vote.
I didn’t find it in the Globe story about the WTTK interview, but I only find this direct quote:
“To pretend that now the House has passed this bill is real progress – it’s at the expense of women’s access to reproductive rights,” Coakley said in an interview, after making similar comments yesterday morning on Boston radio station WTKK-FM.
She said later at a campaign appearance in Worcester, “I refuse to acknowledge that this is the best we can do.”
Hmm, no smoking gun about voting no in the House. Sure she’s critical of the vote, but she never says she would not have done anything differently than the 40 pro-choice Congresswomen now saying they will vote against the very bill they voted for, if the Stupak amendment stands.
The only direct quotes from Coakley about voting “no” pertain to a Senate vote:
Coakley countered that there are some things on which she will not compromise.
“Let’s be clear on what’s principled here,” she said. “If it comes down to this in the Senate and it’s the health care bill or violating women’s rights, where does he stand? If Congressman Capuano feels that he has to sell one set of constitutional rights for another, then he should say that.”
I certainly could be wrong, she may have said it and I look forward to seeing the quote. If she didn’t say it, then the Cauano Fire Brigade will be working over time.
…as Senator–listen to the TTK interview. You can post things that are out of context, but I’m asking for a simple smoking gun from Martha.
We’ll see if they respond. I haven’t had much luck with that lately! đŸ™‚
I listened again to the WTKK interview. Margery Eagan’s question is fatally ambiguous on this point, but it’s true that she actually asks “if you were Senator….”
<
p>
<
p>Eagan’s question doesn’t really make sense, because if she “were Senator Martha Coakley, today” she wouldn’t have had the opportunity to “have voted for that bill,” since “that bill” is a House bill that will probably never see the light of day in the Senate. So it’s actually hard to interpret Coakley’s answer. But I do think that, in light of subsequent events, it’s fair to say that Coakley’s position is that she’d have voted “no” in the House. Certainly, she’s had a million opportunities to point that out, and she has not taken any of them. Neil’s quote from WBUR is just one instance in which she could easily have “clarified” that she was talking about what she’d do if that same bill came out of the Senate, or out of conference. But she didn’t.
Is that what all the Capauno folks have to hang their hat on?
<
p>Let me grant you the inference that by not clarifying, Martha implied she’d vote no in the House (but I don’t really buy it), is an inference enough to construct your entire counter attack with? That counter attack being, “She wanted to end health care reform last week, instead Mike wants to fight another day”.
<
p>Given how central the contention is that Martha would have voted no in the House for their counter attack, they need much more than an inference for an anchor.
Martha Coakley never mentioned in which Senate she would vote to against the bill. Perhaps she would support that bill in the Canadian Senate, or the Belgian Senate — just not the American one. Shame on anyone who’s not a Marthapologist for presuming it would be the American body.
<
p>Frank, you can split hairs if you want. If the claim is that Coakley would have voted yes in the House and no in the Senate — even though it was the same bill at the same stage — then her principles are more transitory than I’d like. If you’re saying that Coakley would definitely kill the bill by filibustering it in the Senate (not an option in the House) then she’s even quicker to kill health care reform than I’d have thought.
Anti Martha chops very early in this race. Cap was my 2nd choice but hasn’t been impressing me.
<
p>As the above illustrates, the only thing helping Cap is sabutai’s wit, which is sharp, but still no substitute for facts.
…Cap screwed this thing up (manna) and now people are trying to grasp at straws that don’t exist to re-spin the story. Ya, I’m hair splitting, but given all the rhetorical contortions I’v read today trying to salvage Cap from this mess, its legitimate to weigh the evidence presented by Cap allies regarding the lynch-pin to their argument, that Martha said she would vote no in the House. It doesn’t matter what my claim is…I’m not making a claim. It matters what evidence people can provide that Coakley said what they say she said. What’s so hard about that?
It’s a distinction without a difference. The circumstances are so close to identical in the Senate and House that it doesn’t matter where the vote would have taken place. The consequences would be the same. The other three Democrats in this race are committed to health care reform. Coakley started strong, put her statement clarifies hat she would forgo health care reform if it would narrow abortion provision for the 13% of women who obtained it through insurance in lieu of paying the fee.
…because he in fact has clearly stated he will vote no after voting yes.
<
p> Going to call it a night.
Capuano hasn’t said how he will vote because we don’t know what the bill up for vote will be like. De-Stupkaed, I expect he’d vote yes. And I can’t imagine Stupak surviving Senate and conference. If Stupak is still there, Capuano will be the only one in this race who has to back up his words with his actions…
<
p>I still loves you Frank, as well as Deb, LynPB, BitB, and all of my friends who are Marthapologists…
It appears the Marthapologists (clever, btw) have their opinion and they’re sticking to it. It’s the weirdness, I tells ya. Something is in the water at BMG when normally rational people start to dissemble about what she actually means when she said it clearly–in English. Margery’s vocabulary might have been a big ambiguous but the intent of her question is not. Good grief.
Funny and original trumps negative.
The original Senate, after all. I mean, if the Romans couldn’t get health care coverage for everyone, what kind of a precedent would that set for everyone who came after.
Martha Coakley’s position is consistent with that of the progressives in the House who said they would not vote for the bill reported out of conference with the Stupak amendment. Sens. like Boxer, McCaskill, Feinstein and Mikulski have all said similar things. By putting pressure on the leadership perhaps a compromise can be worked out to make something acceptable here.
…the best hope remains with reconciliation. Get it done there, and Capuano will be able to vote in a way that Coakley, Pagliuca, and Khazei would agree with.