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.
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.
...more accurately, she is enthusiastically supporting it because she wants to be the next Senator from Massachusetts, only her last name isn't Kennedy. Her 'principled' position was one that was made before Stupak stirred the pot with his amendment; so her principled position gets to go out the window - and never mind what she said before. After all, what are Massachusetts voters going to do about it? Vote Republican?
You know, with this particular candidate this particular candidate, they just might. Even if you find him too pro-choice, it has to be admitted that he's not a hypocrite about it.
Crossposted to Moe Lane.