Congressman Mike Capuano keeps it real in the 'Ville. - Photo by Andrew Firestone

Calls labor unions healthcare amendment ‘un-American’

By Andrew Firestone

Congressman Mike Capuano is a world-traveled public figure in 2011, but he still remembers where he came from. Representing the eighth district of Massachusetts in U.S. Congress for twelve years, he continues to take an interest in his hometown of Somerville, where he was mayor for nine years during the booming ‘90s. Sitting down with the Somerville News, Capuano discussed his political philosophy, his plans for a possible Senate campaign, and his thoughts on current city policy.

Somerville News: When you campaigned for Senate in 2009, and lost the democratic primary to Attorney General Martha Coakley, she received a lot of criticism from her party after she lost the election, as many felt it was almost like she didn’t feel she needed to campaign.

Mike Capuano: People campaign in different ways. The way I look at it, when you take a campaign to win, any campaign to win, you want to risk serious embarrassment and that’s exactly what happened. Look, I’ve won and I’ve lost. I’ve never been accused of not working my heart out, and I never will be. I usually campaign more than I have to because I figure, when you look back on it, it’s kind of incumbent upon me to know I’ve given it all my all, when I ask people to donate money and I ask people to donate their time and give me their blood sweat and tears so we can win an election.

SN: Are you going to run against Scott Brown in 2012?

MC: It’s too early to tell. I’ve told people I will make my decision by the summer, and I will.  People who know me know me well enough to know that I do not engage in adventures. I’ve taken a fair amount of risk in my life, so I’m not risk averse in any sense of the word. At the same time, I am not foolhardy.

So for me, it’s about two things: it’s about personal life as to whether I want to and I’m still engaged in discussions with my family as to whether I want to do it. I know what it takes to run. It takes a lot. It takes a lot out of you. I told you earlier, if I do it, I’m a full-time committed guy. In the two months I campaigned, no one would have suggested that anyone came close to campaigning, not even as hard as me, no one campaigned half as hard as me. And that’s fine. That’s what I do, and I’ll do it again if I run for this or any other office. But it’s a major commitment of my life for a year minimum.

The other part of it is I am still in the midst of calculating is it do-able? Scott Brown is a popular Senator. That doesn’t necessarily translate to “undefeatable,” I don’t think that at all. I think anybody who thinks someone cannot be defeated is a fool. At the same time that doesn’t mean he’s easy to defeat. So I’m trying to make the calculation as to whether that’s real or not. Some of the votes he’s taken lately have made it clear that he can be defeated; he’s angered significant groups of constituents. I think there will be some votes in the next month or so that might make that clearer or not.

I’m not Don Quixote. I know exactly what it takes; I know exactly what I’d have to do. Every time I’ve ever run for office, win or lose, and I’ve done both, I’ve always been able to see a path to office. I don’t mean I should win because I’m the best candidate, I mean that’s all well and good. I’ve been doing this for a long time. I have to see the logistics, and the thought process and the path to it.

The truth is, as I sit here today, with the field as I know it today, and it could change tomorrow, I’m not worried about winning the primary. You have to understand, you cannot put your name on the ballot without having an ego. You have to believe in yourself, and anybody who says they don’t is lying or they’ll never win. You have to believe, “I’m the best candidate of the field that’s running.”

I’m worried about going through the primary and winning the final in a matter of seven weeks. I’m not worried about Scott Brown, I’m about “can the democrats come together and win in seven weeks?” Can the democrats raise the money in seven weeks? You go through a primary, you give it your all.

After a tough primary, people are divided. After a tough primary, you don’t have any money left in the campaign; you’ve spent it all getting past the primary. [Senator Brown] has a lot of money. You cannot be spending seven weeks raising that money. You would need to spend a week or two, and then get out to Springfield and Brockton. With a late primary the logistics of beating a popular incumbent is difficult.

SN: What is dividing the Democratic Party right now?

MC: In general, democrats are cats and republicans are dogs. Republicans tend to travel in a pack. Once they decide who they’re with, they all go with him. Democrats believe everything will work fine in the end. I don’t think that is the best approach in this situation. We have not run against a popular, incumbent, republican statewide officeholder and won since [Senator] Ed Brooke, and that was 35 years ago.

People need to understand this is not a typical statewide election where democrats have the advantage going in, we don’t. The democratic nominee will not be the favorite. Scott Brown will be the favorite. Things change. This state is not as liberal as some people like to think that it is.

SN: You’ve recently received flak for your “bloody” comment while supporting labor unions a few months ago. How do you view your comments now?

MC: I think I picked one word badly. It was only badly in light of the Gabby Gifford shooting. Everybody got super sensitive to wording. That’s fine. I understand that. I’ve never pretended to be the perfectionist. I picked a word poorly and I apologized for it.  But the thought behind it, the emotion behind it, I will never apologize for. I never did, I never will. I am a strong proponent of peoples’ right to bargain for themselves.

And by the way, the only reason it went viral is because republicans picked it up and decided against somebody who might run for Senate against their own guy. I understand it. It was still a poor choice of words. It was a poor political move because I allowed them to use it to beat me up by using the word. I get it. If my whole career is going to be judged on one word by anybody, shame on them.

SN: You’ve been a major proponent of both unions and healthcare reform. What’s your opinion about the current healthcare amendment in the state budget that strips public unions of their ability to negotiate healthcare?

MC: I don’t like it. I was also a mayor who negotiated with the unions. I understand that. I don’t have a problem in strengthening the executive’s hand on some things, but to strip others of the ability to be at the table I think it’s inappropriate. I actually think it’s un-American, and I hope it doesn’t pass.

SN: The current Mayor Joseph Curtatone has voiced support for the amendment.

MC: Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. I was the mayor for nine years and I fought unions on a regular basis. At the end, I ended up with their support. I ended up with their support not because I gave them everything they wanted but because I never lied to them; I never told them we were poor when we were rich, I never told them we were rich when we were poor. I never did any of that stuff. I treated them fairly, with respect and I think if you do that, yes, it is difficult. A union’s job is to get more for its members. That’s their job. That’s why they exist. And I respect that. But the mayor’s position is to negotiate on behalf of all the taxpayers, and to be fair to the best of their ability to the employees.

Healthcare is clearly a massive cost and it clearly has to be part of the negotiations or discussions, and, if done right, you can usually get a fair result. And if you can’t, then you’re going to have trouble with the unions and that’s life. If you explain it to the average person they’ll support you. I’ve had unions picket my house. I’ve had unions picket me when I was mayor for a long time. I was called “the Union Buster,” I was called everything and I understand that. That’s their job and I think that’s what helped build the middle class so I don’t think anyone should have their right to negotiate taken away from them. No I don’t.

SN: What are your opinions on the “Romney-care” controversy going on for the republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, our former governor?

MC: To my way of thinking, Mitt Romney had virtually nothing to do with passing that law. As a matter of fact, I may be the only person left who remembers he vetoed critical portions of it. His veto had to be overwritten to make that law a reality. Now he would probably be very happy to hear that today, and the democratic line today is to call it “Romney-care.”

Well you know what? I think he was a lousy governor for a thousand reasons. One of reasons is that he did not take a stand on healthcare. One of the reasons is that when he tried to kill it, he took credit for it when he thought it was to his advantage. Now I’m a politician, so yeah, fine, every human being including politicians shaves the edges once in a while. But here’s where I stand on the issue, here’s where I don’t stand on the issue. Let’s talk about that. When you get a guy who wants to be on both sides of a major issue like that, that is troubling to me.

SN: According to WikiLeaks, you met with the Pakistani Prime Minister in 2008, where he vehemently denied that Osama Bin Laden was in the country. How do you view the candor of the Pakistani government going forward with recent revelations?

MC: I remember the meeting, but it was a classified meeting and I’ve never talked about it. They were vehement. They were specifically asked a couple times ‘did you know where Osama Bin Laden is?’ At the time, you can’t call somebody a liar because you’ve got no information. In hindsight, I think it raises even more serious questions. They were vehement. It wasn’t just that he wasn’t there.

All I can tell you is that the results of the meeting I had, especially in hindsight, underscore the difficulties that we have with our relationship in Pakistan. There is a significant lack of trust. Probably a two-way street, but it’s certainly a one-way street. In that meeting we didn’t just talk about that. We also talked specifically about what they were going to do in the War against Terror. Were they going to help us? Were they going to stand up? Now that was also before they had tried to give over a significant portion of the country to the Taliban. The results of the meeting; at the time it raised questions, in hindsight, of course, it raises even more questions as to whether they are a trustworthy and reliable partner.