Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Will the real Martha Coakley please stand up?

By

Then yesterday, Coakley reiterated that she would have voted against the House bill:


“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.” – Boston Globe

Tonight, on NECN, she seemed to back off of a hardliner stance, hinting that had she better understood the legislative process, she may have been open to voting for the bill in the house on Saturday.

KING: But isn’t it true that if you had gotten, if you were in the House and you had gotten your way and you voted against it, that would have been the end of health care reform?

COAKLEY: And I have said, then let somebody explain that that was the strategy. Let someone say, well, we knew we had this problem but this was the only way to move forward on it.

I am pretty sure that dozens of legislators have said just that, including Capuano, so I am not sure why she said this.

I was shocked to then hear her non-committal non-answer to the follow-up question:

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.

This refusal to answer the question seems to be a far cry from the principled leadership position that her campaign is claiming. Why the reversal?

How has she has gone from “I believe that I would not” and advancing the bill is “a mistake” to “let somebody explain that that was the strategy” and “I am not going to answer that question” in just 2 days?

Did Coakely just flip-flop?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. …but definitely a reconsideration.  Going from “Fighting for women’s access to abortions was more important than passing the overall bill” to “I’m not going to answer that question” is definitely a, er, re-trenchment.  Perhaps the attorney general is discovering what Capuano already has — this process doesn’t lend itself to sound bites that stand up to scrutiny.

    • I have said, then let somebody explain that that was the strategy. Let someone say, well, we knew we had this problem but this was the only way to move forward on it.

      <

      p>Shocking really that her fallback is no one told her the situation, no one explained.  

      <

      p>Whose job is that? They should be fired.  Uhh, it’s her job.  

      <

      p>Whereas at first, Capuano seemed harsh in his ‘mannah from heaven’ comment, now his first response to Coakley’s unequivocal no vote on HR3962 due to Stupak seems entirely justified based on Coakley’s cluelessness.

      <

      p>Health Reform is only the biggest piece of legislation in decades  and Coakley opines what vote she should would have taken in the house without knowing the situation in the house because no one told her the situation. Fact is, she was just brandishing her pro-choice bona fides for her target constituency the XX caucus, and doing it cluelessly.

      <

      p>Everyone keeps saying Capuano stepped in it. Coakley’s naivete about legislative process and ignorance about the situation (which she blames on others, specially “someone”)  is “stepped in it” in my book.  

      <

      p>If Martha becomes Senator, who is going to be the person who tells her the situation and do we really want a Senator that isn’t on top the legislative situation?

      <

      p>

    • 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.

      Who could argue with that?

        • we will not hear from any of the Coakley people now. What say you? How about the editors? I think it is very clear, that Coakley is the only one is this debate who has not been clear and has almost no understanding on how to get things done in the Senate or the House for that matter.

          <

          p>

  2. Coakley takes a stand
    Plus, free speech at UMass
    By EDITORIAL  |  November 11, 2009

    Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley this week separated herself from the gang of essentially like-minded candidates seeking to fill Senator Ted Kennedy’s Washington seat by rejecting the US House of Representatives compromise that traded approval of a health-care-reform bill for greater restrictions to abortion access. Good for Coakley.

    Coakley’s opposition is not only principled; as more becomes known about the pernicious nature of the House compromise, her position demonstrates foresight. And in political terms, it also appears shrewd. Coakley’s chief Democratic rival, US Representative Michael Capuano, now has egg on his face. After blasting Coakley for her congressional naiveté, Capuano conceded that he will vote against a final measure that does not erase the abortion compromise.link

    <

    p>Don’t they know Coakley was clueless about the compromise struck in the house (nobody told her) to pass the bill by giving Stupak a vote, getting 24 votes to pass in return, and working to fix the Stupak amendment in the Senate?  

  3. one of the diaries in the recommended list has two.  I thought readers choice controlled that, no?

  4. I was on the fence.  I am not any more. I’ve defended her from the Cap boyz over her prosecution of Fells Acre and the Nanny….but this is just nonsense.  This pre-Title IX woman has finally picked a camp.  Thanks for making my choice that much easier.  

  5. So, in essence, it comes down to juggling priorities, and legislative strategies to accomplish those priorities; different voters will come down differently on Coakley’s approach.

    But one subset of the electorate is pretty one-sided about it: the trade unions. You may recall that those trade unions kind of kicked Steve Lynch to the curb at the start of this Senate race, because Lynchie wasn’t strong enough on health care reform. Many have endorsed Capuano, and a bunch have endorsed Coakley, and others have remained neutral. Now, Coakley says she would have voted no — while Lynch voted yes.

    “Lynchie did the right thing at the end of the day,” says Robert Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO.

    Buyer’s remorse, anyone? Did Coakley choose her social-issue friends over her workers-issues friends when push came to shove?

    […]

    the AFL-CIO advocated hard for a yes vote on the bill, even with the Stupak language, and publicly thanked the Massachusetts delegation for voting that way.

    And Haynes is clear that his organization will be pushing for a yes vote in the Senate, regardless of the abortion language.“I’m as curious as anyone else to see what happens” if Coakley is put in that position, Haynes says. “If you are the 60th vote for closure, do you want your first major vote in the Senate to be on the wrong side on such a historic issue?”

    link

    • A large amount of the $2,000,000 she raised for her campaign is from Emily’s list, a national pro-choice PAC.  She was so eager to earn the money she forgot to stop and find out what was going on in the House with Democratic leadership’s deal with Bart Stupak and why it was the best bet to pass HR 3962.

      <

      p>In other news, Coakley, who has been debating since grade school and was hailed as a standout at BU law in debate but  declines to respond to her opponents requests to debate once a week during this short special elction cycle.  Why should she? She’s the incumbent

      <

      p>Martha was wait-listed for admission to BU law school.

      <

      p>After six years of private practice moved to the DA office for “more court experience.”  Isn’t six years about the time associates learn if they’ll make the grade as partner?  Who would wait six years for more court time?

      <

      p><embed pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer&quot; src="http://www.necn.com/avp32.swf?or9mv1)csQ,j!H,o* T~[Udf*AnB1Z&lt;_OpG]et~#azW&lt;e=&gt;))h@$;xR{gTc[BYv}ipirOXq}zR=HTx9t_V/7pc^?H/7S!J2edmzLyGep6E[txK#kMM?Thja@vVB(rz7'K&lt;B$QU0-VrPbOqEb|zFEa^nw3Xgd[(4/ZVUeRu7nfzyzO[0paV[0hU&@&lt;zJ*,82w,O*{l,/dp[s r;FL9cjUl4ZibMisY*ZsXsc'-}u4c&gt;&oW,=M~UI c5_Q5D.2I~:'~k7Yl!S~@(8’dB2HrZ6b#!0D)=0r5=8n!v)MyLynnU.jB” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowfullscreen=”true” wmode=”transparent” allowscriptaccess=”always” width=”320″ height=”240″>

      • I think she will do well in the Senate and will vote for her in the general if she is the candidate. But I’m voting Capuano in the primary.

        <

        p>Since Coakley was the one who started all of this in the first place, I would like to see a full flushed out answer to her statements.  We should question her statements if we find them troubling.  They should not be willfully ignored as the case with Bob.

        <

        p>I agree with you and others that the opportunity to do so in front paged postings is an unfortunate decision by the editors.  

        <

        p>They can FP JohnD’s ramblings but apparently this subject is taboo.  Whatever, it’s their blog.

  8. There you have it.

    <

    p>Mike Capuano has been calling it as he sees it from the beginning. I think he blundered in his “Manna from heaven” comment. I read his subsequent “flip flop” as an effort to avoid answering a hypothetical question posed by the editors here, while still being responsive to a community who’s input he values. In his own words:

    As far as why I did not answer the question immediately – I generally do not answer hypothetical questions and since I am absolutely convinced that the final health care bill will not include the Stupak amendment, it was clearly a hypothetical question.  At the same time, I am also a straightforward person and when I was asked again on Tuesday I answered it.

    <

    p>Meanwhile, foreverdem has succinctly highlighted Martha Coakley’s actual refusal to answer the same question:

    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>This is a flip-flop from Martha Coakley. I think that so long as front-paged posts that characterize Mike Capuano’s statements as a “startling reversal” and a “monumental 24-hour flip-flop” remain untouched, then fairness demands that Martha Coakley’s similar “startling reversal” and “monumental” flip-flop also be on the front page.

    <

    p>I further observe that Mike Capuano‘s participation in this community demonstrates a sincerity and commitment to the values that we represent that stands in stark contrast to Martha Coakley’s absence. It tells me that Mike Capuano is committed to this race in the way that the pig is committed to bacon and eggs — and Martha Coakley comes off looking very much like the other contributor to the breakfast.

    • that there’s no front paged story along the lines of “Coakley shifts on health overhaul” on boston.com either.

  9. Unless one of you plans to write up a detailed analysis a la Bob’s from yesterday explaining Coakley’s attempts to walk back her previous stance, you should promote this to the front page.  All’s fair in love and politics….

    • for front page. Coakley has been dancing around this issue all week. She doesn’t answer your questions, and she won’t answer Alison King’s questions either. Yet, Mike Capuano’s campaign has joined this community in an attempt to make sure people are clear on where he stands.

      <

      p>Editors, Why not call out Martha for not responding to questions? Bob, you have said one runs as they will serve. What does this tell us about Martha? Why not highlight the fact that she either doesn’t understand the legislative process or is just pandering to the special interest who are funding her campaign?

      <

      p>It should also be noted that 0 Coakley supporters have come to her campaign’s defense. Where are you all? Your silence duly noted for the record.  

    • We have essentially the same story as we did 24 hours ago but with a different candidate. No front page on BMG. No front page on boston.com. We’ll see what’s in the papers in the morning.

      <

      p>I don’t normally think along these lines, but it makes one wonder if the fix is in.

    • in asking that this be placed on the fp. This is shaping up to be quite the citizens’ movement – Alan you’d be proud!

  10. When Martha Coakley got into the race, I was happy that she did. I considered voting for her before going with Mike Capuano, not as an anti-Coakley thing but because I thought (and still think) that Capuano will make the better Senator. Coakley was my solid #2.

    <

    p>Key in my decision process was Capuano’s experience. I worried about how long it would take a newbie to get up to speed, especially with our other Senator busy with international events – not a knock on Kerry, he’s just a different sort of Senator than Kennedy was. If this were 2005 and we were talking about someone coming in that Ted could have taken under his wing, experience would not have factored in so highly.

    <

    p>After the House vote, I thought that Coakley’s initial statement was reasonable. However, once it became clear that she was saying she would have voted against the House bill, that set off some alarm bells for me.

    <

    p>And now this exchange from the NECN interview won’t get out of my head:

    <

    p>

    KING: But isn’t it true that if you had gotten, if you were in the House and you had gotten your way and you voted against it, that would have been the end of health care reform?

    COAKLEY: And I have said, then let somebody explain that that was the strategy. Let someone say, well, we knew we had this problem but this was the only way to move forward on it.

    <

    p>I don’t expect the other candidates to have the depth of knowledge that Capuano has, but I do expect them to be paying more attention than I am.

    <

    p>So, if for some reason I end up not voting for Capuano, it’s Khazei who will get my vote.

    • I don’t expect the other candidates to have the depth of knowledge that Capuano has, but I do expect them to be paying more attention than I am.

  11. Like I said in Mike Capuano’s thread, it’s beyond me why Coakley would take a firm (and in my opinion, misguided) stance on what she hypothetically would have done in a situation she’ll never be faced with, but won’t answer to how she would vote in the Senate–the position she’s running for!

    <

    p>This is the most crucial piece of legislation of the year. She’s happy to say she would have voted it down in the House (quashing any hope to remove the Stupak amendment), but won’t say whether she would do the same once the final bill makes it to the Senate?

    <

    p>When are we going to get solid answers from Coakley? Capuano came to BMG to engage our community, will Coakley ever do the same?

    • …either by editorial policy or auto-technology we could make it so that a certain number of “recommends” earns the diary front-page status.

      • You have to credit David and Bob I think for both sticking to their reasons and listening to their readers.  

      • All due respect to Democratic Underground and similar basically non-edited forums, that’s not what we want here.  We’ll keep control of the front page, thanks.  🙂

    • supplanted by ‘why we oppose cruelty’ and why ‘DeNucci’s retirement is an act of kindness’  … what’s on tv?

  15. http://www.boston.com/news/loc…

    <

    p>From the Boston Globe:

    <

    p>”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.”

    <

    p>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.”

    • 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.”

      <

      p>Except that Capuano also said that if Stupak-Pitts is not fixed in the Senate and in conference, he will vote against the bill.

      <

      p>So it seems that the judgment about how best to advance the legislation and eliminate undesirable amendment is a case of Coakley’s judgment versus Capuano’s and Nancy Pelosi’s. What does Pelosi has to say about it?

      “The vote on the floor is a vote to move the process forward,” Pelosi added, directly rebuffing Coakley’s position. “Why would we defeat that and then lose an historic opportunity to go forward? Then you see what happens in conference and then reserve judgment as to whether you want to support the bill at the end of the day.”

      <

      p>Martha would have been on the wrong side of history with her “no” vote on HR3962 last Saturday.  Good thing she’s not running for Congresswoman where we have 10 representatives. No, she’s running for US Senate where we have 2.

      <

      p>link

    • <

      p>

      The son of the late U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy warned the state’s U.S. Senate candidates yesterday not to apply an abortion “litmus test” that might stall the universal health care his father devoted much of his career to passing.

      “We cannot allow us to miss this opportunity because some people are drawing a litmus test to this bill,” said U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) “For anybody running for especially my dad’s seat to condition their support on an issue as to whether they’re going to vote for it or against it . . . to me misses my dad’s legacy of health care for all.” link  

      <

      p>It pretty clear Patrick Kenendy is asking Coakley to change her position on a hypothetical house vote on health care with Stupak from NO to YES putting health reform above abortion access.  He also asking Coakley and Capuano to change their hypothetical no vote on a final bill out of conference with Stupak.

Archives