Oy.
What candidate for U.S. Senate wouldn't be able to articulate clear positions on abortion and the War on Women? A Republican candidate in Massachusetts, of course. Because he's a Republican, so he can't be unequivocally pro-choice, and he's in Massachusetts, so he can't let his forced-birther flag fly. So he tap dances, and does it really, really badly. So badly, the
Boston Globe had a
sit-down interview with him just to try to get some clarity. That didn't work so well. Gomez says he's personally "pro-life," but wouldn't vote that way, mostly.
But he refused to take a stand on two of the most heated women’s health issues of recent years—congressional amendments that nearly derailed the health care overhaul and fueled allegations of a Republican “war against women”—because he said he remains unfamiliar with the details.
“Honestly, I haven’t read the Blunt Amendment, so it’s hard for me to go yea or nay without reading the full Blunt Amendment,” Gomez said last week, regarding a 2012 proposal that would have allowed employers to deny workers birth control coverage based on moral beliefs. “That’s part of the reason why these guys and women down there should read these whole things. . . . I’m happy to look at it.”
Um, yeah, the guys and women down there
should read those whole things. And maybe so should the guys and women who are trying to get the job, or at least be briefed on them before they go into interviews that are specifically about those issues. Here he is on
Roe v. Wade.
“I’m not a lawyer, and obviously, Justice Scalia is about as educated a lawyer as you can be and has read thousands and thousands and heard thousands and thousands of cases,” Gomez said. “When I hear Justice Scalia say that 40 years is basically precedent in established law, I just kind of take it from a nonlawyer’s view and say, that pretty much—that makes sense to me just from a common-sense perspective.
Gomez’s campaign later acknowledged that he had misspoken when he referred to Scalia in the interview, as well as during previous debates and public appearances; he had confused him with Chief Justice John Roberts, who has called Roe v. Wade “settled law.”
Oy. Yeah, he "misspoke." He totally knows the difference between the Supreme Court justices. Here he is on the Stupak amendment that nearly derailed Obamacare:
“Is this federal funding for abortion? I don’t believe that there should be federal dollars to fund abortion,” Gomez said. When told that it was about whether private insurance companies that cover abortion can receive federal subsidies, Gomez said: “OK, but I don’t think there should be federal funding for abortions.”
Remember, this was an interview that the
Globe scheduled with him to talk specifically and exclusively about the War on Women and choice. He knew going in what he was going to be asked about. And we thought Scott Brown was an empty suit.
Help keep one more dim Republican out of the Senate. Please donate $3 to Ed Markey.