Mass. Senate Candidates - Coakley and Capuano Defend Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) in Schism with R.I. Bishop - Politician’s and The Catholic Church

Controvery over Abortion: Bishop Tobin and Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) image: CNA

FromThe Boston Globe: A recent forum on Boston’s Public Television WBGH between Democrat Senate Candidates; touched on the subject of the rift between Rhode Island Congressional Representative, Patrick Kennedy, and the Bishop of Rhode Island Thomas Tobin. Tobin had asked Kennedy to refrain from participating in the Sacrament of Communion, a decision made over Kennedy’s support for federally funded abortions in the Health Care Reform Bill passed by the Congress, as well as Kennedy’s public rebuke of the Church. Kennedy chose to make this a political issue, going directly to the press with a complaint against the “Church”.

Now, Senate Candidate Coakley and Capuano are siding with Kennedy in their quest to win the Democrat primary on December 8th. The two supporting Kennedy also stated they would not support the Health Care Reform without public funded abortions, while Pagliuca and Khazei, the other contenders for the seat, stated that their support for the Senate Bill does not rest on the abortion issue.

The Catholic Church has become publicly vocal to its opposition to abortion, more so now than in the past election cycles where John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi were chastised by their Bishops for abortion support. The question remains, however, if public officials openly espouse support for legislation that runs contrary to their religion (regardless of denomination), and are then chastised by the church, is it a public or private issue? In the instance between Kennedy and Tobin, Kennedy chose to make the issue public – creating a political debate where none should exist. It is a question of having two “masters” so to speak, one spiritual and one secular, and the individual, whether politician or layperson, who has a full understanding of their chosen “Church”, should be well aware of the Church Doctrine. Church membership is not a right, rather a privilege, and a personal commitment to follow a specific set of teachings. When one deviates from the Church’s teachings for political expedience, then should one be surprised when admonishment follows? The logical answer is no – an individual educated in any given Church doctrine, is well aware of consequences, and therefore, must make the choice between being a Catholic and or looking for a religion that suits their political bent.

The fact that Coakley and Capuano both voiced support for Kennedy over the Church, as Catholics, gives them the opportunity for further headlines, should their Bishop decide to chastise them over a public rebuff of Church teachings. Although Catholics make up the majority of the Democrat electorate in Massachusetts, it is doubtful that a candidate’s support for abortion would factor into their vote. Catholics overwhelming supported Barack Obama in the 2008 election, with full knowledge that he was a pro-abortion candidate. In instances of Party loyalty, and the separation of Church and State, the Catholic voter most often (or in the past) has forgone the Church for the Party at the polls.

As to Kennedy, who is up for re-election in 2010 used the opportunity to publicly cry “foul” and it worked. When one “Googles” Patrick Kennedy, the articles regarding his “issue of faith”, total well over 1,400. Coakley and Capuano decision has also resulted in a good deal of press, all tied to the Kennedy query. It is all about the press, and political posturing - nothing more and nothing less. The Catholic Church, is then chastised for its involvement in “public affairs”, the scandal that struck the church in the in the 1990’s, is the first issue brought to bear – as if the Church Doctrine and those members of the Church who were decidedly criminal – are one in the same.

Of course, the debate over the abortion issue may not be the one issue that sways a voter, regardless of party, in 2010 and 2012. Health Care Reform is rife with fiscal issues, from deficits to an expensive public option, and these will weigh a great deal more than the social issue. Fairly or unfairly, depending upon ones point of view, it is time for those politicians’ who belong to a Church that upholds the right to life, to either step aside from their Church or their party. There are myriad Churches available in the United States, given freedom of religion, and certainly one would be more than willing to embrace a Kennedy with open arms.

Massachusetts Senate Race to Fill Kennedy’s Seat Update - See’s Brown, Capuano and Coakley Confirmed on Ballot - Analysis

Scott Brown, (R) for Mass. 2010 Senate - image Boston.com

The race to fillthe late Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat, has three contenders confirmed as of October 16th. Scott Brown, the Republican State Senator, filed 17,000 (10,000 required) signatures with the Secretary of State’s office, with U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano filing “more than” 10,000 (according to the Springfield Republican), and State Attorney General, Martha Coakley, filed “approximately 17,000” signatures. The deadline for filing for party affiliated candidates is October 20th; non-affiliated candidates have until Nov. 20th to file with the Secretary of State. State primaries will take place on December 8th, with the general election taking place on January 19th, 2010. As of this writing, candidates Stephen Pagliuca, Boston Celtics Owner (Democrat), Alan Khazei (Democrat) and Bob Burr, Canton Selectman (Republican) have yet to file the necessary signatures, leaving Coakley and Capuano to face off in the Democrat primary.

Michael Capuano will face Coakley in Senate Primary - image Masslive

It’s all about the cash:

According to the Boston Globe, (full data not yet available on FEC Website for this election) Coakley has over 2 million on hand, Capuano $344,000 and Brown $179,000; (which may or may not include a maximum contribution from Mitt Romney's PAC, also of note Brown is the only candidate to date to receive funds from Romney) giving the Globe the nod to name Coakley as the clear front runner. In the battle for the hearts and minds of the disaffected and financially strapped citizens of the Commonwealth, most of whom are unenrolled (showing no party affiliation); a “reasonable person” would assume that the candidate with the most cash on hand automatically wins, especially if that candidate in Massachusetts is a Democrat.

That said looking at not too distant past race, the 2008 Republican Iowa Caucus brings that theory to naught. Mitt Romney spent millions in Iowa, drove a bus across the state, and was soundly trumped by little known (at the time) Mike Huckabee who spent a little more than $80,000 – total. It was a sound grassroots campaign that combined dedicated grassroots support with a savvy web team; that took down Goliath (Romney).

Martha Coakley (D) MA Senate Candidate, image: metrowest.com

Additionally, Coakley did pick up the endorsement of the SEIU, otherwise known as the White House “Union of Choice”, leaving one to conclude that Ms. Coakley is looked upon favorably as a “progressive”. Therefore, a primary between Capuano and Coakley, would, in all probability, place Coakley on the ballot to face Brown.

Name recognition and the media:

In the Suffolk University Poll conducted on September 15, (the only poll to include all candidates), Coakley, The State’s Attorney General, has the best showing, with only 12% unknown, 53% favorable, 16% unfavorable, and 19% undecided. Capuano received, 33% unknown, 16% favorable, 14% unfavorable and 37% undecided. Finally, Brown had a 39% unknown, a 20% favorable, a 13% unfavorable and 28% undecided. Looking at the favorable, Coakley has the clear lead, and is the best known (being the State’s Attorney General), that said, Brown, bests Capuano in favorable, and had, as of that poll, the highest unknown percentage. Both Capuano and Coakley are running television ads, most likely in the Eastern portion of the State, and having the larger budgets to date, need to first play to the base and those unenrolled inclined to vote for a Democrat in 2010.

How do the candidates stack up with the ever growing importance of social media? (Which, more than one social media firm suggest that the Obama campaigns use of social media networks secured his election.) Face Book: Martha Coakley (See SEIU), has 3,781 friends on her personal page and 4,681 “fans”, Capuano has 866 supporters and Brown, has 4,563 friends on his personal page, with 4,151 “fans”. This gives Brown, to date, a slight edge on Coakley. On the other major network site “Twitter”, Brown has 736 followers, with Martha Coakley at 794. While these numbers in Social Networking terms are miniscule at best, it is interesting to note that the two front runners are evenly matched.

The Election in General

First, Coakley must get through the primary against Capuano, who has time to get his message across the entire Commonwealth thereby increasing his name recognition, bringing up his favorability. Additionally, Massachusetts has yet to elect a woman to a major high profile office (Govenor, or Senate), therefore, despite cash and name recognition, Coakley also faces the Massachusetts Glass Ceiling within her own party first. Should she make it through the primary she will then face Republican, Scott Brown, who would have had the time to court the unenrolled, boost his name recognition with not only media buys, but grassroots county by county appearances. From the primary on December 8th to the General Election on January 19th, both candidates must secure their base, and more importantly the unenrolleds, Coakley has the additional burden of gender. Although Clinton did receive the most votes in the 2008 primary in the Bay State (a proud moment for Massachusetts), she was soundly rebuked by Kennedy and Kerry who came out with an early endorsement for Obama. Given this Scenario it is not a “given” that the next Senator from Massachusetts will be a Democrat, rather it would lend to a tighter race than anticipated. Harvard Law Apparently Agrees

Note on Polls
The Suffolk polls methodology, 8% of those polled are from Suffolk University, (which may or may not include a Conservative or two) and the voter registration makeup is slightly skewed: Democrats 39% (2008 actual 36.7%), Republicans 15% (2008 actual 11.62%) and Unenrolled 44% (2008 actual 50.75%) (source Mass. Secretary of State In the scenario according to Suffolk, both major parties were given a larger percentage - and the unenrolled, were underrepresented by 6% - with a margin of error of + or – “4.4%”.