Cos (cos) wrote in baystate,
Cos
cos
baystate

Capuano & Coakley contrast on the issues

[ Also posted in b0st0n ]

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?
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 2 comments
Thanks... I actually got on here specifically to ask your opinion about the primaries. What do you think about the Capuano corruption charges? What about Khazei?
What're the charges?

Khazei: I think his presence in the race helps Coakley. If we had instant runoff voting that wouldn't be so, and I wish we did (and will work for it), but we don't. I would've given him more consideration if there weren't already someone in the race who had an almost ideal record (Capuano); I think a solid record in the House gives very high confidence that we know what kind of a Senator someone will be, so give that, I didn't see much reason to consider someone who's more of an unknown. If Capuano weren't in this race, Khazei seems the one I'd most likely have supported. But since, like I said, we don't have preference voting, I think it's important to focus the progressive vote on Capuano.