The ways of Washington

It’s over Washington and how it works.

Capuano, a longtime congressman, revels in the gamesmanship. “Oh my God. Compromise in Washington. What a shock,’’ Capuano said sarcastically at a Monday night rally, referring to his decision to support a health care bill that could restrict some private insurance coverage for abortion.

Attorney General Coakley, one of four Democrats vying to succeed the late Edward M. Kennedy, sees it differently. “I refuse to acknowledge that this is the best we can do,’’ she said about the health care bill squeezed out of the House at the last minute.

With issues like abortion, there’s usually no middle ground. In this case, antiabortion Democrats and Republicans had enough votes to win support for the restrictive amendment. This time, they bet that pro-choice Democrats, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, would accept it as the only way to move a revolutionary health care agenda to the Senate.

But Capuano’s message to voters quickly became mired in inconsistency.

“You deserve leaders that don’t try to thread the needle,’’ he said at his Monday night rally. Yet, in this case, he threaded it, and then blasted Coakley for saying she wouldn’t do the same. Then, instead of sticking with the principle he said he believed in, Capuano shifted. He said he would vote against health care legislation if a final version included the restrictive amendment.

The art of wheeling and dealing, dodging and weaving, flipping and flopping comes with long years in Washington. Massachusetts has a congressional delegation steeped in it. The big question is whether Bay State voters want more of the same from their next US senator.

A complete innocent will be cut out of important deal-making. A rigid ideologue will refuse to participate in reasonable negotiation. A jaded, been-there, done-that pol will work the system as it has always been worked.

What’s wrong with wanting a senator who mixes pragmatism with idealism, who compromises when necessary, yet still holds fast to core principles, even when it means going up against fellow Democrats?

To his credit, Capuano stood up to the Bush administration on the Iraq invasion and the Patriot Act. Who else will he challenge? At his Monday night rally, Capuano described campaign finance reform as a principle he passionately embraces. Will that principle ever come between him and Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha, who has close ties to a lobbying firm under investigation for allegedly making illegal campaign contributions? Capuano attended a recent Murtha fund-raiser in Boston out of loyalty, he said.

That kind of loyalty keeps Washington exactly as it is.

Capuano criticizes Coakley as inexperienced in Washington’s when-to-hold-them, when-to-fold-them ways. That may be, but as attorney general, she showed skill in reaching the legal equivalent of compromise.

In 2008, she dropped criminal charges against Bechtel-Parsons Brinckerhoff in exchange for a $458 million financial settlement. The Big Dig contractors accepted responsibility for tunnel leaks and a Big Dig ceiling collapse. With compromise came criticism. It almost always does.

You have to hang tough for what you believe in, in a court of law or in the court of public opinion.

What happened with Capuano on health care undercuts his argument about the value of Washington experience. He voted for the bill and against the restrictive abortion coverage amendment because, he said, the principle of expanded health care should take precedence over concerns about women’s reproductive rights.

Coakley took the opposite view and was criticized for it. She stood behind it anyway.

As soon as a backlash developed against Capuano’s position, he buckled. Is that what Washington teaches you?If so, it isn’t a great mentor. He has voted on thousands of bills, Capuano said, and not one was “all good or all bad.’’

Without compromise, there can be no progress in Washington. Where you draw the line matters, and how long you stand behind it does too.

Joan Vennochi can be reached at vennochi@globe.com.