Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

  • Shop
  • Subscribe to BMG
  • Contact
  • Log In
  • Front Page
  • All Posts
  • About
  • Rules
  • Events
  • Register on BMG

Where Did Martha Say She’d Vote No In House Vote?

November 11, 2009 By frankskeffington

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.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0
0

Filed Under: User Tagged With: ma-sen

Comments

  1. neilsagan says

    November 11, 2009 at 8:07 pm

    “I’m not adopting her position,” Capuano said. “She said she would have voted no on Saturday, which would have ended the debate. If that’s her position, I wouldn’t even come close to adopting that.”

    There’s clearly a difference in approach between the two candidates. Coakley said she could not – like Capuano- vote for something she opposes just to keep the process going.

    “I think it’s always very difficult to go through a process and vote for things that you don’t really believe in with the hope or expectation that you’ll be able to change it or clean it up later,” Coakley said. “Sometimes that happens. Sometimes that doesn’t, but that’s if what he did, then that’s fine.”

    “I was asked what I would have done,” she said. “I said I would have voted against, because I didn’t think that this choice was either necessary or fair and I didn’t think you had to sacrifice rights. He’s the one who attacked me for saying I didn’t understand the process.”

    http://www.wbur.org/2009/11/11…

    • frankskeffington says

      November 11, 2009 at 8:39 pm

      …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.

      • david says

        November 11, 2009 at 8:46 pm

        We’ll see if they respond.  I haven’t had much luck with that lately!  đŸ™‚

        • neilsagan says

          November 11, 2009 at 11:13 pm

          She says she would have voted against HCR as it stood in the recent House vote.

          Asked specifically “isn’t it true if you’d gotten your way, that would be the end of healthcare reform”, she replied “then let someone say that this was the strategy, the only way to move forward.”
          […]
          by: uffishThought @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 22:23:40 PM EST

  2. david says

    November 11, 2009 at 8:32 pm

    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>

    EAGAN:  If you were Senator Martha Coakley, today, would you have voted for that bill?

    COAKLEY: I believe that I would not, Margery, and let me tell you….

    <

    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.

    • frankskeffington says

      November 11, 2009 at 8:54 pm

      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.  

  3. sabutai says

    November 11, 2009 at 9:28 pm

    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.

    • david says

      November 11, 2009 at 9:53 pm

      • frankskeffington says

        November 11, 2009 at 10:20 pm

        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.

    • frankskeffington says

      November 11, 2009 at 10:10 pm

      …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?

      • sabutai says

        November 11, 2009 at 10:13 pm

        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.

        • frankskeffington says

          November 11, 2009 at 10:23 pm

          …because he in fact has clearly stated he will vote no after voting yes.

          <

          p> Going to call it a night.

          • sabutai says

            November 11, 2009 at 10:31 pm

            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…

            • lightiris says

              November 12, 2009 at 6:44 am

              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.

            • judy-meredith says

              November 12, 2009 at 6:49 pm

              Funny and original trumps negative.  

    • bob-neer says

      November 12, 2009 at 3:42 am

      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.  

  4. progressiveman says

    November 11, 2009 at 10:22 pm

    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.

    • sabutai says

      November 11, 2009 at 10:29 pm

      …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.

Recommended Posts

  • No posts liked yet.

Recent User Posts

Predictions Open Thread

December 22, 2022 By jconway

This is why I love Joe Biden

December 21, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Garland’s Word

December 19, 2022 By terrymcginty

Some Parting Thoughts

December 19, 2022 By jconway

Beware the latest grift

December 16, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Thank you, Blue Mass Group!

December 15, 2022 By methuenprogressive

Recent Comments

  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftSo where to, then??
  • Christopher on Some Parting ThoughtsI've enjoyed our discussions as well (but we have yet to…
  • Christopher on Beware the latest griftI can't imagine anyone of our ilk not already on Twitter…
  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftI will miss this site. Where are people going? Twitter?…
  • chrismatth on A valedictoryI joined BMG late - 13 years ago next month and three da…
  • SomervilleTom on Geopolitics of FusionEVERY un-designed, un-built, and un-tested technology is…
  • Charley on the MTA on A valedictoryThat’s a great idea, and I’ll be there on Sunday. It’s a…

Archive

@bluemassgroup on Twitter

Twitter feed is not available at the moment.

From our sponsors




Google Calendar







Search

Archives

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter




Copyright © 2025 Owned and operated by BMG Media Empire LLC. Read the terms of use. Some rights reserved.