State Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee for US Senate, reluctantly threw her support yesterday behind the Senate health care bill, even though it contains restrictions on abortion coverage that abortion rights groups are calling unacceptable.
During the primary campaign, Coakley said she would not have supported the House health care bill because of provisions designed to prevent federal funding of abortions that abortion rights advocates said went too far. Her stand was a major point of debate during the campaign; several of her opponents criticized her for being willing to sink the health care bill over a single issue, but she insisted that there were some things on which she would not compromise.
Except when push comes to shove in the general election:
“Let’s be clear on what’s principled here,’’ she said at the time of her opponent, US Representative Michael Capuano. “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?’’
Stand by as Coakley places a giant chip on her shoulder:
Coakley used her stark position on abortion rights to appeal to supporters for donations; in an e-mail, she declared her decision to make her position “a defining moment’’ in her campaign.
Asked last week whether she would vote against a bill that went beyond current law in restricting abortion coverage, Coakley said, “Yes, that’s right.’’
And now she knocks that chip off her own shoulder:
In a statement to the Globe yesterday, Coakley said that although she was disappointed that the Senate bill “gives states additional options regarding the funding mechanisms for women’s reproductive health services,’’ she would reluctantly support it because it would provide coverage for millions of uninsured people and reduce costs.
Somehow the phrase "self-serving opportunist" comes to mind here.
Wangsness explains the reason for the Coakley flip-flop:
But it would be extremely difficult for Coakley to be willing to be the only Democratic senator standing in the way of the party’s most important priority this year.
The special election for the Senate seat left vacant following the death of Senator Edward M. Kennedy in August will be held Jan. 19. Because the Senate is tentatively scheduled to reconvene the same day, whoever wins the election will probably vote on the final bill negotiated by a conference committee.
Of course. Did anyone out there really expect Coakley to have voted against Harry Reid's health care bill in the senate no matter what supposed abortion restrictions were in it? Even the Boston Globe couldn't swallow this bit of hypocrisy from the disingenuous Coakley.
The Boston Globe readers themselves were almost unanimous in their condemnation of Coakley as you can see from a sampling of their comments:
Whenever I hear a politician say "Let's be clear on something" it really means they have already been all too clear on what they said. Croakley will promise and say anything to get elected. Now she wants to side with Mr. obama.
Dear God Mass., please don't elect this arrogant buffoon. Her and her buddies at Globe think she can just sit back and glide to victory.
She is not even elected yet and the flip flopping has begun. Another typical Democrat, be for what is expedient and say anything that sticks to the party line.
SHE ACCUSED HER OPPONENT (BROWN) OF FLIP FLOP. WHAT DO YOU CALL THIS LATEST SWTICH?????
What I fond most interesting after reading this story again. . . Not even the Globe could spin this to make Coakley look like anything other than a panderer and a flip flopper.
Exactly. Coakley is such a self-serving hypocritical flip-flopper than not even the Boston Globe could spin this story to make her look good. In almost any other state, Coakley would have very little chance in the general election but, hey, this is Massachusetts we are talking about here. Democrat candidates for senator aren't so much elected as automatically coronated.
