Photo: masslive.comMartha Coakley, Democrat Nominee for the special election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, has flip-flopped on her support of health care legislation.
Previously, Coakley had said she would not support a health care bill that restricted federal funding of abortion as does the current Senate bill. In fact, she used the issue to pummel her primary opponent, Rep. Mike Capuano. Quoting from The Boston Globe, Coakley said the following during her primary campaign:
“Let’s be clear on what’s principled here. 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?’’
We should now ask the same of Martha Coakley.
Again quoting from The Globe, just last week Coakley was asked “whether she would vote against a bill that went beyond current law in restricting abortion coverage,” and Coakley responded, “Yes, that’s right.’’
Yet here we are a week later, and she has changed her position. What happened?
One development was that Senator Ben Nelson (D - Nebraska) came on board to support the Senate health care bill, meaning not only that all 60 Senate Democrats were together on the issue, but that they had their filibuster–proof majority with or without Coakley.
Prior to Nelson supporting the bill, Coakley may have thought she could go in to the Senate as the potential 60th vote, in which case she could demand some concession for her support. Instead, she would now (assuming victory on Jan. 19) arrive in Washington as the most junior of Senators (albeit in the majority), unwilling to buck the entirety of her party’s caucus on this legislation.
What does Coakley’s about-face tell us about the timing of the bill, however? What it tells me is that despite predictions of finishing health care by year’s end, Coakley thinks the issue could still be hot when she would potentially arrive in the Senate in January. Why else would she switch positions? If she thought the bill would be finished and gone, she could still oppose the version under consideration and then, upon arrival in the Senate, explain to her new colleagues that her opposition was a campaign necessity and there would be no harm to her position since the bill was already passed. Instead, Coakley apparently believes she may need to take a vote on the issue and doesn’t want to get off on the wrong foot with her potential new colleagues.
So what we have here is nothing principled, but a demonstration instead that Coakley is perhaps all-too prepared for the horse-trading and currying of favor that happens in Washington. She seems to understand that such partisan politics is a victimless crime, unless you count principles that get sacrificed along the way.
Previously, Coakley had said she would not support a health care bill that restricted federal funding of abortion as does the current Senate bill. In fact, she used the issue to pummel her primary opponent, Rep. Mike Capuano. Quoting from The Boston Globe, Coakley said the following during her primary campaign:
“Let’s be clear on what’s principled here. 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?’’
We should now ask the same of Martha Coakley.
Again quoting from The Globe, just last week Coakley was asked “whether she would vote against a bill that went beyond current law in restricting abortion coverage,” and Coakley responded, “Yes, that’s right.’’
Yet here we are a week later, and she has changed her position. What happened?
One development was that Senator Ben Nelson (D - Nebraska) came on board to support the Senate health care bill, meaning not only that all 60 Senate Democrats were together on the issue, but that they had their filibuster–proof majority with or without Coakley.
Prior to Nelson supporting the bill, Coakley may have thought she could go in to the Senate as the potential 60th vote, in which case she could demand some concession for her support. Instead, she would now (assuming victory on Jan. 19) arrive in Washington as the most junior of Senators (albeit in the majority), unwilling to buck the entirety of her party’s caucus on this legislation.
What does Coakley’s about-face tell us about the timing of the bill, however? What it tells me is that despite predictions of finishing health care by year’s end, Coakley thinks the issue could still be hot when she would potentially arrive in the Senate in January. Why else would she switch positions? If she thought the bill would be finished and gone, she could still oppose the version under consideration and then, upon arrival in the Senate, explain to her new colleagues that her opposition was a campaign necessity and there would be no harm to her position since the bill was already passed. Instead, Coakley apparently believes she may need to take a vote on the issue and doesn’t want to get off on the wrong foot with her potential new colleagues.
So what we have here is nothing principled, but a demonstration instead that Coakley is perhaps all-too prepared for the horse-trading and currying of favor that happens in Washington. She seems to understand that such partisan politics is a victimless crime, unless you count principles that get sacrificed along the way.
No comments:
Post a Comment