Next Tuesday, December 8th, Massachusetts Democrats will go to the polls to determine who their candidate will be in the race for the currently-empty Senate seat early next year. Attorney General Martha Coakley is the current frontrunner for the Democratic primary, followed by Congressman Mike Capuano. WSPN political reporter Ben Schattenburg interviewed Capuano over the phone about his stance on some important issues of the day and the race for the late Ted Kennedy’s vacant seat.

WSPN: What got you started in public service originally?

CAPUANO: To make it brief, the bottom line is I just made a decision at one point in my life to either accept life the way it is or to try to change it and make it better, and that was precipitated by a couple of things, but mostly that was the bottom line, and I decided to jump in and try to make the world a better place to live; at the time it was mostly local issues, for me it was about making playgrounds better and safer for kids, but the motivation is still the same.

WSPN: A more pointed question: Do you approve or disapprove of Obama’s job so far?

CAPUANO: In general I think he is doing a pretty good job. Doesn’t mean I agree with him on everything, but in general I think he is doing a pretty good job.

WSPN: You’re not disturbed by some of the roll backs in his promises in terms of civil liberties, his decision to ramp up our involvement in Afghanistan, and some of his decisions on gay rights issues?

CAPUANO: I didn’t say that Ben; I said in general I thought he did a pretty good job. I said I did not agree with him on every issue, and you just named a couple that I did not.

WSPN: The most recent poll commissioned by Rasmussen showed a distant second behind Martha Coakley, a full 15 points behind. How do you intend to bridge that gap?

CAPUANO: Well Ben, I don’t talk about campaign strategies with the press and that includes even young people. Campaigns are done in certain ways and everybody has different strategies. Mine has always been the same, and it’s a mistake to focus on the horserace. The only thing that matters is how many people have made up their minds, and even in that poll the number was above 50% of people have not yet made up their minds…

WSPN: So you’re optimistic?

CAPUANO: Very few people have made up their minds in this race yet…

WSPN: So you’re optimistic?

CAPUANO: I have been optimistic all my life.

WSPN: Do you believe that Joe Lieberman should lose his seat as the chairmen of the Homeland Security Committee if he tries to obstruct health care reform?

CAPUANO: Not yet. Depends what he does. One thing at a time.

WSPN: Well, if he keeps on his promise to block a public option, do you think he should lose his seat?

CAPUANO: Not on the basis of that alone, no I don’t.

WSPN: What is your plan for regulating Wall Street and preventing another economic debacle like we saw back last September, and more specifically, would you be open to having stringent capital requirements, breaking up “too big to fail” banks and removing holes in enforcement?

CAPUANO: Ben, I have been working on this since I got to Congress. I have thought that the United States government moved way too far away from the concept of thoughtful and reasonable regulation starting in 1980. And now that we have finally gotten back to the table about thoughtful, reasonable balanced regulation. That’s what I am pushing for across the table; capital requirements are only part of it. You have named a couple of small items, but there are a lot of other small items as well; it’s got to be across the board or it won’t work.

WSPN: But specifically would you be OK with breaking up banks that are “too big to fail”?

CAPUANO: Well, I don’t understand the definition of the term. That’s a nice media term; it doesn’t mean anything to the financial services world.

WSPN: But banks that just by virtue of there sheer size; if they fail they are a threat to economic stability.

CAPUANO: That’s not a definition that means anything. That’s a media definition. Define the term: how big, how large of a share of the businesses sector, how many dollars are at stake, what are they doing?

WSPN: But you would be —

CAPUANO: The term is a nice phrase, Ben, but it doesn’t mean anything.

WSPN: Would you be open to the idea in general though?

CAPUANO: Let’s put it this way: I was against repealing the Glass–Steagall Act, which allowed some of these banks to get even bigger than they ever imagined being, so I believe in reasonable regulation.

WSPN: I know this is an open-ended question, but how do you plan to reduce the federal deficit, and, more specifically, would you be open to tax increases?

CAPUANO: Ben I have never voted for, well I shouldn’t say never, I have seldom voted for a tax decrease. I don’t believe you have tax decreases in times of deficits and in two wars, number one; number two, I am one of nineteen people in the Congress that voted to keep the pay-go rules in 2002. I am a strong advocate of a balanced budget, and I am a strong opponent of a deficit. At the same time right now most of the deficit is caused by something called counter-cyclical spending, and I do believe in counter-cyclical spending in periods of a recession and potentially a depression, so there is always an exception to every rule and right now we are in the middle of one of these exceptions.

WSPN: So you would be open to tax increases to reduce the deficit?

CAPUANO: If people want services they have to pay for them. If they don’t want services, then we should cut them. There is no free lunch. Never has been, never will be.

WSPN: The Boston Globe reports that your PAC, and I am quoting here, “collected $64,500 through a high-powered lobbying firm that is the subject of a federal pay-to-play investigation.” In addition, while this is quite common, your campaign is willing to take money from corporations and unions. Overall is there an ethics problem with your campaign? And do you see your insider status in this race–

CAPUANO: Hang on a second, Ben. Ben, hang on a second. If that’s the way you’re going to go that’s the end of this conversation; what ethics problems do I have with my campaign?

WSPN: I am not saying that there is a specific ethic–

CAPUANO: Ben you just said–

WSPN: I think there is–

CAPUANO: Ben, Ben that’s what you just said, either back up or restate the question.

WSPN: I am not saying that there is a specific problem, I am saying that there is a suspicion among the voters that your insider status–

CAPUANO: Ben, no Ben, thank you very much, Ben it’s been very pleasant talking to you there is no suspicion amongst anyone.

WSPN: I think–

CAPUANO: If you have a suspicion, state your suspicion.

WSPN: I am not personally suspicious, but I think that–

CAPUANO: Well then, where are you getting your information?

WSPN: I am seeing right here I was quoting directly from the Boston Globe, and I am sorry that I offended you but–

CAPUANO: You didn’t offend me, but I want clear specific questions that are based upon fact.

WSPN: I am not saying that, well most of the voters don’t work on fact, but there is, I think–

CAPUANO: Ben, I am sorry to disagree with you, but I actually think voters do, I think voters are a lot smarter than some people think.

WSPN: Ok, but I think, beside the point there is a perception that, and this isn’t for you in specific but for any incumbent, anyone who has been in Washington–

CAPUANO: Ben, I don’t think there is any suspicion at all. If you think there is, say so.

WSPN: You wouldn’t think there is an anti-Washington mood in this country?

CAPUANO: Ben I am asking you, if you have a question, ask your question, if you think that you’re going to sit here and state what you think is a general perception, well then, that’s fine you’re entitled to your opinion.

WSPN: Well, my personal opinion is beside the point; I am trying to answer question–

CAPUANO: No it is, you’re stating an opinion, Ben, and you are entitled to state your opinion but you need to say it as your opinion or–

WSPN: Well let me rephrase it then–

CAPUANO: Ben, on what basis do you base your judgment of what public opinion is?

WSPN: I don’t know, I have read a lot about your campaign and it’s a recurring theme–

CAPUANO: Then why did you state it that way then?

WSPN: It’s a recurring theme there is–

CAPUANO: I am out in Western Mass; I must be hitting a tough cell area, say it again.

WSPN: From what I have read, and I, OK let me rephrase the question, do you believe that there is an anti-Washington mood both in Massachusetts and throughout the country, and do you feel that it is a liability to your campaign?

CAPUANO: I don’t think there is an anti-Washington mood, no I don’t.

WSPN: You don’t at all, even though there seems to be a growing frustration with Congress, that Congressional approval ratings have gone down, and that overall support for incumbents have gone down, you don’t feel that there is–

CAPUANO: I am sorry I am losing you; you will have to say that again, I am sorry.

WSPN: Congressional approval ratings have gone down and I think that there is a growing feeling of frustration with Washington–

CAPUANO: Well you think there is and that’s fine that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to feel that way.

WSPN: Ok I will leave the question there–

CAPUANO: You made a statement that wasn’t a question that was a statement, which you’re entitled to make. There was no question there.

WSPN: OK. Is there anything you want to say to the people of Wayland?

CAPUANO: I would like them to review the different candidates in this race. There are a thousand ways to check it on the Internet, and I hope people do, and I believe the average voter will come very well informed.

WSPN: All right, thank you very, very much for taking out the time to talk to me. I am sorry that I got in a little hot water with you, but I hope you forgive me for that.

CAPUANO: You didn’t get in to any hot water; it’s just if you’re going to ask a question ask a question. If you want to make a statement that’s OK too. That’s two different things.

WSPN: Ok. Thank you very much.

CAPUANO: OK.