Being part of a House caucus is a meaningless label. Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats. It's a convenience. Leading it is another matter, I'll grant you.
I also don't think the issue is "pro choice enough" - that assumes a single unvarying dimension on which people can be ranked, which I reject. The underlying issue is a question of which compromises people are willing to make, and for what end. Voting for healthbill+Stupak is a calculated risk. The gamble is that it comes out with healthcare-Stupak and that you don't have to trade off something else.
I'm well aware that Capuano is steeped in the "way things get done" - the political dealings and backroom tradeoffs that characterize how legislation is made. You dont' get to be mayor of Somerville and not "get" that. On the other hand, the range of possibilities defines the space of what gets negotiated and it's also reasonable to say that womens' reproductive rights are not a negotiable item, and still expect to negotiate over the substance of the legislation.
As I said in my posting back in November, I thought that a robust public option was the only deal-breaker. I view this issue as a deal-breaker. Now, as to whether or not Coakley seized on it for purely political reasons and won't follow through... that's something I don't know. All politicians are opportunists; some more so than others. It's certainly true that (as you noted in your other post) Coakley has taken other positions that I disagree with. And it's possible that over the course of a six-year Senate term those issues will loom larger. But right now it seems like healthcare reform is one of the top five issues we're likely to see legislated. Congressional action on, say, the War on (Some) Drugs may or may not happen, but in any event it looms much less larger in my political calculus.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
Re: I like Capuano but
Date: 2009-12-10 14:31 (UTC)I also don't think the issue is "pro choice enough" - that assumes a single unvarying dimension on which people can be ranked, which I reject. The underlying issue is a question of which compromises people are willing to make, and for what end. Voting for healthbill+Stupak is a calculated risk. The gamble is that it comes out with healthcare-Stupak and that you don't have to trade off something else.
I'm well aware that Capuano is steeped in the "way things get done" - the political dealings and backroom tradeoffs that characterize how legislation is made. You dont' get to be mayor of Somerville and not "get" that. On the other hand, the range of possibilities defines the space of what gets negotiated and it's also reasonable to say that womens' reproductive rights are not a negotiable item, and still expect to negotiate over the substance of the legislation.
As I said in my posting back in November, I thought that a robust public option was the only deal-breaker. I view this issue as a deal-breaker. Now, as to whether or not Coakley seized on it for purely political reasons and won't follow through... that's something I don't know. All politicians are opportunists; some more so than others. It's certainly true that (as you noted in your other post) Coakley has taken other positions that I disagree with. And it's possible that over the course of a six-year Senate term those issues will loom larger. But right now it seems like healthcare reform is one of the top five issues we're likely to see legislated. Congressional action on, say, the War on (Some) Drugs may or may not happen, but in any event it looms much less larger in my political calculus.