Could this happen anywhere else, even in the context of a Democratic primary:
US Representative Michael E. Capuano yesterday blasted Attorney General Martha Coakley’s decision to get involved in an Alabama death penalty case, saying the man they are vying to succeed in the Senate, Edward M. Kennedy, “would have never supported this position.’’
“She is out of step with the progressive values of the Commonwealth,’’ Capuano said in a statement.
The Globe reported yesterday that Coakley, who says she is firmly against capital punishment, has drawn the ire of some death penalty opponents by urging the US Supreme Court, in a case involving a mentally disabled convicted murderer, to limit federal review of state court decisions. Opponents say a decision in Coakley’s favor could mean the murderer is put to death and could hinder the ability of death-row defendants to challenge their sentences.
It’s a mark of shame that only in Massachusetts (and maybe in Vermont) is it politically acceptable to claim to be more anti-death penalty than your opponent. I wonder too, why is it that the Catholic Church, which allegedly opposes the death penalty, does not give pro death penalty politicians the same treatment it gives to those who are in favor of abortion rights?
All that being said, is it surprising that Capuano is being a bit disingenuous here? Apparently the case involves non-death penalty issues affecting the rights of states vs. the federal government, and it’s on those issues that the attorneys general are weighing in. The law can be a messy thing.
As an aside, don’t you wish politicians and pundits would be a little less willing to speak for the dead?
Addendum: Capuano is a piker compared to Newt Gingrich when it comes to channeling the dead. Capuano claims to speak for Ted Kennedy, who he most likely at least knew. Newtclaims to speak for all the founders, who he apparently thinks, like him, would have converted to Catholicism from deism were they alive today.
Post a Comment