I wonder if Violet will put up a follow up Coakley post?

by Datechguy | December 21st, 2009

Readability

I wonder if Violet will put up a follow up Coakley post?

Back in Novem­ber my favorite athe­is­tic lib­eral fem­i­nist blog­ger Vio­let Socks at the Reclu­sive left­ist wrote this:

On your blog, in your com­ments, every­where. That’s how memes start. Coakley’s got the courage and the con­vic­tions. She’s rais­ing her head above the para­pet, right now, when it mat­ters. Just as she did last year when she endorsed Hillary Clin­ton. Just as she did when she refused to sur­ren­der that vote at the convention.

Martha Coak­ley for President.

As you might guess by my descrip­tion of her Vio­let and I have a seri­ous dis­agree­ment on Abor­tion. Yes­ter­day she quoted a post at a blog called Con­flu­ence:

There were a mul­ti­tude of per­mu­ta­tions that would have suc­ceeded in cov­er­ing poor and sick peo­ple but the Democ­rats picked the one that is most likely to piss off their own con­stituents in the high­est num­bers. Con­grat­u­la­tions, guys.

But this abor­tion thing? I gotta won­der why it wasn’t suf­fi­cient to stick the knife into health care reform with­out adding the ago­niz­ing poi­son. You should have never even enter­tained Stu­pak and Nel­son no mat­ter how much they howled and screamed. That’s going to come back to bite you. And no mat­ter how much the­ater comes up on the floor of the Sen­ate dur­ing debate in the next cou­ple of days to try to remove the amend­ments and com­pro­mises, tak­ing them out is not going to make this bill smell any sweeter. The jig is up. We see through the distraction.

The actual post is inter­est­ing philo­soph­i­cally but bot­tom line is the abor­tion lan­guage makes the bill unacceptable.

Today the Boston Globe has this story about Martha the right­eous:

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?’’

Obvi­ously feel­ing the pres­sure, Capuano piv­oted a few days later and said that while he voted yes in the House, he would vote no on final pas­sage if the abor­tion restric­tions did not change.

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.’’

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.

As News­busters put it:

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.

I have thoughts con­cern­ing Ms. Coak­ley, they are sim­i­lar to my thoughts about Scott Harsh­barger. Nei­ther are print­able so I didn’t say a thing at the time of the first post. As I want to keep my sense of deco­rum I’ll con­tinue to restrain myself.

But I can’t wait to read Violet’s fol­low up post on this sub­ject once she reads the Globe’s story. I’ll wager it is going to be an inter­est­ing but not work safe read.

Back in November my favorite atheistic liberal feminist blogger Violet Socks at the Reclusive leftist wrote this:

On your blog, in your comments, everywhere. That’s how memes start. Coakley’s got the courage and the convictions. She’s raising her head above the parapet, right now, when it matters. Just as she did last year when she endorsed Hillary Clinton. Just as she did when she refused to surrender that vote at the convention.

Martha Coakley for President.

As you might guess by my description of her Violet and I have a serious disagreement on Abortion. Yesterday she quoted a post at a blog called Confluence:

There were a multitude of permutations that would have succeeded in covering poor and sick people but the Democrats picked the one that is most likely to piss off their own constituents in the highest numbers. Congratulations, guys.

But this abortion thing? I gotta wonder why it wasn’t sufficient to stick the knife into health care reform without adding the agonizing poison. You should have never even entertained Stupak and Nelson no matter how much they howled and screamed. That’s going to come back to bite you. And no matter how much theater comes up on the floor of the Senate during debate in the next couple of days to try to remove the amendments and compromises, taking them out is not going to make this bill smell any sweeter. The jig is up. We see through the distraction.

The actual post is interesting philosophically but bottom line is the abortion language makes the bill unacceptable.

Today the Boston Globe has this story about Martha the righteous:

“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?’’

Obviously feeling the pressure, Capuano pivoted a few days later and said that while he voted yes in the House, he would vote no on final passage if the abortion restrictions did not change.

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.’’

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.

As Newsbusters put it:

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.

I have thoughts concerning Ms. Coakley, they are similar to my thoughts about Scott Harshbarger. Neither are printable so I didn’t say a thing at the time of the first post. As I want to keep my sense of decorum I’ll continue to restrain myself.

But I can’t wait to read Violet’s follow up post on this subject once she reads the Globe’s story. I’ll wager it is going to be an interesting but not work safe read.

Buy Raspberry Ketone Here

American 023

Try the Double Burger!

nashoba

Annie’s Book Stop of Worcester

Annies Book Stop of Worcester 001

Find Discounts at the Stores you Love

TOP STORES

Listen to your Granny

RWG

Forest of Assassins

Forest of Assassins

DH Gate Dot Com, Online Shopping

ecigarette

Support our favorite Charties

Read me at Examiner.com

Examiner badge2

Only 114 Million Hits to retirement!

Most Innovative Blogger 2013

Most Innovative Blogger 2013

Tags

Help a Brother Knight of Mine who needs a hand