Louise Slaughter and Diana DeGette, the leaders of the House pro-choice caucus, *also* voted the same way. Do you think they're not pro-choice enough to earn your support?
The real difference here was that Capuano, like his fellow members of the House pro-choice caucus, are actually working legislators, while Coakley a) doesn't know how to do that job yet, and b) just needed to stake out some clear positions for campaign purposes. She was *wrong* on substance, but it was a good campaign move. I don't think she knew she was wrong, though - I think she was showing her inexperience.
The House health care bill would've failed if the pro-choice members had voted against it, and they all knew that, so they all voted for it to keep it alive. Their goal, obviously, is a good health care bill without Stupak. The "without Stupak" part is, and always was, very likely to happen, but the "good health care bill" overall has always been a tricky thing that might not happen. The worst blow to its chances would've been no house bill, because then we would've had to live with whatever dreck the Senate put together; pressure from the House is the thing that could push the Senate to pass something good. All of the pro-choice House members knew that if they killed the House bill right then, there would be ZERO chance of getting what they want (good health care reform without Stupak), but if they kept it alive and then threatened to kill the conference bill later if it came with Stupak language (a threat Capuano joined in) they would keep the chances alive.
There are a number of members of the house who are as good on pro-choice issues as Capuano, but there are NONE who are better. He's at the extreme end on this.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
Re: I like Capuano but
Date: 2009-12-10 03:53 (UTC)Louise Slaughter and Diana DeGette, the leaders of the House pro-choice caucus, *also* voted the same way. Do you think they're not pro-choice enough to earn your support?
The real difference here was that Capuano, like his fellow members of the House pro-choice caucus, are actually working legislators, while Coakley a) doesn't know how to do that job yet, and b) just needed to stake out some clear positions for campaign purposes. She was *wrong* on substance, but it was a good campaign move. I don't think she knew she was wrong, though - I think she was showing her inexperience.
The House health care bill would've failed if the pro-choice members had voted against it, and they all knew that, so they all voted for it to keep it alive. Their goal, obviously, is a good health care bill without Stupak. The "without Stupak" part is, and always was, very likely to happen, but the "good health care bill" overall has always been a tricky thing that might not happen. The worst blow to its chances would've been no house bill, because then we would've had to live with whatever dreck the Senate put together; pressure from the House is the thing that could push the Senate to pass something good. All of the pro-choice House members knew that if they killed the House bill right then, there would be ZERO chance of getting what they want (good health care reform without Stupak), but if they kept it alive and then threatened to kill the conference bill later if it came with Stupak language (a threat Capuano joined in) they would keep the chances alive.
There are a number of members of the house who are as good on pro-choice issues as Capuano, but there are NONE who are better. He's at the extreme end on this.