?

Log in

Capuano & Coakley contrast on the issues - The Boston Community [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
The Boston Community

[ website | b0st0n memories ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Capuano & Coakley contrast on the issues [Dec. 8th, 2009|03:04 pm]
The Boston Community

b0st0n

[cos]
A lot of people haven't made up their minds even today, and one reason is that the candidates seem to be so similar on the issues. Well, if you're looking for an actual substantive difference on the issues between Mike Capuano and Martha Coakley, here it is:

Coakley: More war on drugs.
Capuano: Less war on drugs.

Coakley: Defended the PATRIOT Act.
Capuano: Opposed the PATRIOT Act.

Martha Coakley, as Attorney General, has presided over a criminal justice system that does a tremendous amount of collateral damage, and could use a lot of improvement. She's been in a position to do that, and at best, she's been a weak reformer. What she's been strong on, throughout her career, is advocating for harsh punishment - whether it be for a mentally disabled convict in Alabama, or an obviously innocent Massachusetts man who was railroaded into jail through egregious prosecutorial misconduct (something Coakley doesn't seem to care much about), or those two guys who put up Mooninites around Boston.

Which brings me to another big contrast: While they seem to agree on almost every issue except for freedom & the criminal justice system, on most of those issues,
- We know Coakley's position because she said so
- We know Capuano's position because he's voted on it and worked for it in his decade in Congress.

So isn't it interesting that Coakley has positioned herself as a progressive identical to Capuano on every single issue *except* for the ones she's actually been responsible for in her career in public office?
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: m00n
2009-12-08 08:23 pm (UTC)
That's actually a pretty compelling argument since I think our overall approach of using the criminal justice solution as a way to solve all of our problems ....can be blamed for many of our problems.

Good thing I already voted for Capuano ;-)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: macthud
2009-12-08 09:02 pm (UTC)
Yeah.

I'm only sorry that this post wasn't made *yesterday* so I could have consciously acted on (and shared!) it, instead of gone with my gut (for Capuano).
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sophiaserpentia
2009-12-08 08:24 pm (UTC)
Is Capuano pro-choice?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: cos
2009-12-08 08:30 pm (UTC)
He's one of the most pro-choice members of Congress, and works closely with the leaders of the House pro-choice caucus. He's not just pro-choice, he makes a real effort to do something about it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: thetathx1138
2009-12-08 08:35 pm (UTC)
Not only is he pro-choice, he pulled a 0% from the Christian Coalition. A more sterling recommendation I cannot conceive.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: hrafn
2009-12-08 08:39 pm (UTC)
LOL! Good point.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mkb_technologie
2009-12-08 08:50 pm (UTC)
Capuano was endorsed by the Herald AND the Phoenix. What the hell?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: clevernonsense
2009-12-08 09:23 pm (UTC)
Well, he is a white male
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tober
2009-12-08 10:12 pm (UTC)
It may have been a tactical decision on the part of The Herald, in that... although I do not think Capuano will defeat Coakley, he seems the most likely among the candidates to be able to do so. I'm a little surprised that The Herald didn't endorse Pagliuca, though.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: thetathx1138
2009-12-08 11:22 pm (UTC)
It's not that surprising; even they've had enough of Mitt.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: badlydrawnjeff
2009-12-08 09:30 pm (UTC)
Of course, if one is looking for a real change from what we've dealt with for the last 40 years, there is Scott Brown on the other side. It's worth noting that there are, in fact, alternatives to the Democratic candidates running for this seat.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tober
2009-12-08 10:05 pm (UTC)
There are, in fact, actually two Republican candidates - Brown and Jack E. Robinson - although I do favor Brown. I am an unenrolled (that is to say registered but without party affiliation) voter and I intend to vote the Democratic ballot today so that I can vote against Coakley, who I think there is very good reason to oppose. That said, I will be voting Republican in the general election.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: badlydrawnjeff
2009-12-08 10:44 pm (UTC)
I personally like to pretend that Jack E. Robinson doesn't exist.

I did consider voting for Capuano as a spoiler, but turnout is so ridiculously low today that I figured a statement vote was more important.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: thetathx1138
2009-12-08 11:27 pm (UTC)
Are you kidding? Robinson's great. He's walking political comedy. If I didn't actually value my vote I'd have switched registrations just to vote for the guy. Imagine if he pulls it off. Yes, he's insane, but watching both Daily Kos and RedState both shit their transmissions trying to reconcile his views with theirs would be brilliant.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: urbpan
2009-12-08 11:38 pm (UTC)
I'm unenrolled so I could have voted on the Republican side, but I didn't think they had a silly enough spoiler to vote for.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: cos
2009-12-09 12:00 am (UTC)
That's counter-logical. When turnout is really low, you have a higher chance of being able to affect the outcome, so it's not reason to decide that voting to alter the outcome to be what you want is *less* valuable.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: badlydrawnjeff
2009-12-09 02:18 am (UTC)
I don't agree in this case. If I felt it were a given that one of the Democrats would win - hardly so in the current climate - you might have a point, but Brown needs press.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: cos
2009-12-09 04:03 pm (UTC)
You're still not making sense. I'm not saying you made the wrong choice, because I don't know what your competing goals were that you were trying to balance; I'm saying the reason you gave above is wrong/illogical. Your followup just makes it more confusing. In what way would you have acted differently if turnout were higher? How did the low turnout make you change your action?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: badlydrawnjeff
2009-12-10 01:25 am (UTC)
Brown needs press. The bigger numbers he gets, the better his press would be. If we were in a situation where the Republican would get any sort of legitimate press...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: cos
2009-12-10 05:08 am (UTC)
Sure, but how does that explain what you said about low turnout affecting your decision not to vote in the Democratic primary? Again, I'm not asking "why do you think voting for Brown would be a good thing". But you suggested might have voted in the Dem primary as a "spoiler" if turnout were higher, but low turnout made you decide that wasn't as important. That sounds exactly the opposite of logical to me, and you haven't tried to explain it further. Whatever your ultimate decision, if you were considering voting in the Democratic primary for that reason, low turnout should've made you *more* motivated to do so, not *less*. I don't know how to make this clearer: I'm not asking why you wanted to vote for Brown, I'm asking why you thought low turnout made it *less* useful to vote in the Democratic primary than it would've been if turnout were higher. Because that's the part that (as I said) didn't seem to make sense.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mkb_technologie
2009-12-09 02:08 am (UTC)
motherfucker had a BAGPIPER at north station today.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: xiphias
2009-12-09 12:55 am (UTC)
Even if Jack E. Robinson gets the nod?

I mean, I LOVE Jack E. Robinson, but that's 'cause I'm a liberal, and I find him one of the funniest people in politics today.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tober
2009-12-09 05:13 am (UTC)
Well... that's a tough one. I rather doubt that Robinson will win... but... I guess... if, in the general election, it's Brown vs. anyone, I'm voting Republican. If it's Robinson vs. someone other than Coakley, I'm voting Democrat. If it's Robinson vs. Coakley I'm going to declare shenanigans and go home and get my broom. Ok, no, but I'll probably abstain and bemoan the fact that there's no "conscientious objector" slot to fill in on the ballot.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: cos
2009-12-09 09:10 pm (UTC)
You could write in "conscientious objector".

If an election comes up where you want to do that, and you post about it beforehand and get enough people to do it, it might even be reported. Except in the city of Boston, where they don't seem to have figured out how to count write-in votes :/
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: xiphias
2009-12-09 09:17 pm (UTC)
Fortunately for you, you got the sane Republican. Now I need to figure out how I'm going to vote. I haven't looked at Brown yet, since I was just focused on the Dems.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: xiphias
2009-12-09 09:22 pm (UTC)
Just looked at his website -- he seems generally sane and decent, and I agree with him on a bunch of issues, but I fundamentally disagree with him on enough dealbreaker issues to hold my nose and vote Coakley. Oh, well.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: cos
2009-12-10 03:36 am (UTC)
BTW, I highly doubt "a real change" is what most Massachusetts voters want in this election. Someone just like Ted Kennedy would probably be most voters' preference.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: badlydrawnjeff
2009-12-10 01:09 pm (UTC)
It is unfortunate that you're telling the truth here.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: urbpan
2009-12-08 11:37 pm (UTC)
Don't blame me, I voted for Khazei. (too soon?)
(Reply) (Thread)