Comments | in_parentheses: Changing my mind: Capuano

in_parentheses

Changing my mind: Capuano

Dec 08, 2009 09:05

You know what? I'm changing my mind. When I get home tonight, I'm voting for Capuano. I thought more about experience vs. ideals, and proven record vs. nebulous "hope." Some of my friends made good points -- like martini_corona's that Khazei should start smaller if he really wants to get into elected office.

And then I read this story, which sealed the deal ( Read more... )

politics

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

beah December 8 2009, 19:19:27 UTC

I haven't verified this yet, but drwex responded to that story by saying that Capuano supports the health care bill with the Stupak amendment. That pretty much kills my vote, right there. I'm leaning towards Khazei.

in_parentheses December 8 2009, 19:29:14 UTC

Stupak pisses me off, no doubt. But this is an interesting take on Coakley's vs. Capuano's positions, and is the take I'm leaning towards.

I'm confused. beah December 8 2009, 19:33:37 UTC

This shows that Capuano voted against Stupak, if I'm reading it right. But this shows that he voted for it. Which vote is the one I actually want to be looking at?

Re: I'm confused. in_parentheses December 8 2009, 19:41:18 UTC

The NYTimes is for Roll Call 884, and the House.gov is for Roll Call 887. My guess is that the former was just for the Stupak Amendment and the latter was for the bill as a whole?

Re: I'm confused. beah December 8 2009, 19:54:40 UTC

Hm. I will have to look into it further. I'm not sure I want to punish Capuano for voting for the bill as a whole if he opposed the original amendment...

Re: I'm confused. cos December 10 2009, 04:03:20 UTC

See also my reply to drwex. I would've posted that response on election day, except LJ's comment notification brokenness caused me not to see it until later.

cos December 8 2009, 20:37:51 UTC

It's not exactly true. Basically, the House pro-choice caucus really really wants the health care bill to pass, and they want the Stupak language gone. All of them, including Capuano, voted for the health care bill with Stupak in the house, because they knew keeping it alive was the only way they'd get what they want. That's when Coakley started criticising Capuano about it. However, within days, the leaders of the pro-choice caucus (Louise Slaughter and Diana DeGette) were gathering names on a letter saying they'd vote against the final conference bill if it included the Stupak language, which I believe Capuano signed. They're playing a tricky game, because they want to keep health reform alive while defeating Stupak, and they all ended up going with the same strategy: keep it alive now, threaten to kill it later ( ... )

Back to all threads