(Front-paged by popular request, with the following caveats: (1) Personally, I think the Capuano thing was more newsworthy, since it was Capuano himself who attacked Coakley for her position in terms that made even sophisticated observers assume that his position was "yes on final passage despite Stupak"; and (2) I am unclear on the sequence of events -- were Coakley's comments on NECN pre- or post-WTKK debate? Would appreciate clarification on that. - promoted by David)
Coakley's comments on NECN tonight seem to back away from her principled stance of voting against any bill that contained the Stupak Amendment.
Just a few days ago on WTKK, Coakley said she would not vote to advance the bill:
Eagan: If you were Senator Martha Coakley today, would you have
voted for that (Saturday House) bill?"
Coakley: "I believe that I would not, Margery,"
Obviously a Senator could not vote for a House bill, but either way Coakley clearly states in the interview that: "I think that moving forward a health care reform bill that takes
steps backward on women's, what is, a constitutional right to choose is a mistake."
So it is safe to say that regardless of the House or Senate bill, she is not in favor of advancing the bill through the legislative process if she is against it in principle. |
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? |
