Tonight I attended the fourth debate between Joe Kennedy and Sean Bielat, the two remaining candidates in Massachusetts’ 4th Congressional District, held at Wellesley College. The League of Women Voters moderated the debate (Gregory, Lehrer et al. could learn from them) and asked questions the League had generated and that were suggested by audience members. As the debate wore on, audience members asked some questions directly.
These candidates, though they agree on little, have been quite civil in their debates and tonight was no different. I can’t say the same for one audience member. The low point of the evening was the last question. An older gentleman said (I paraphrase): “It’s often said those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. About 50 years ago, in another Massachusetts campaign, the question was asked ‘If your name were Edward Moore and not Edward Moore Kennedy, wouldn’t your candidacy be a joke?’ And so I ask both candidates, if Mr. Kennedy were Joseph Patrick instead of Joseph Patrick Kennedy, wouldn’t his candidacy be a joke?”
The audience booed loudly, and even Bielat supporters near me expressed disgust. Kennedy answered, to large cheers, by defending his record quite passionately. He said he was proud of his work in the Peace Corps and as an ADA. Bielat quickly disavowed any suggestion that “Joe’s candidacy is a joke or that Joe’s a joke,” but said he believed his experience, particularly in the private sector, made him the better candidate. He also said that he didn’t think another candidate with Kennedy’s resume would have raised $4 million, and said someone who didn’t know his opponent’s identity said, based on resume, that Kennedy had no chance. Kennedy responded that they are both in their thirties, and that the election is about two very different visions for where our country should go.
Here’s a summary of the debate on the issues. I’ve tried to be fair but I don’t pretend it’s exhaustive.
Economic issues: Fairly predictable. Both candidates spoke of the need for tax and regulatory certainty, though Bielat defined this as “tax relief” and Kennedy focused on asking the wealthy to pay their fair share. Kennedy stressed the “balanced approach” and said that, while there are aspects of Simpson-Bowles he likes, there are others he doesn’t support. He specifically cited the proposed benefit reductions in Social Security. Kennedy also referenced small business a lot. Bielat argued that “Obamacare” is the single biggest driver of uncertainty for small businesses, and claimed small business owners on the trail tell him they don’t know what to expect. He also repeated the notion that the Affordable Care Act creates “18” or “20” new taxes. They agreed that the sequestration cuts would be bad, and Kennedy expressed hope that an agreement could be reached in a lame duck session to avert them.
Kennedy referred to the need for training to match the unemployed with jobs that are going unfilled for lack of applicants with the proper training. Bielat said lack of education is not the problem, the economy is just lousy. Kennedy defended Obama’s performance, saying Bush inherited a surplus and left Obama with not only a trillion-dollar deficit but an economy shedding 800,000 jobs his first month. He said things are getting better slowly but surely.
Bielat pre-emptively stated that Kennedy would accuse him of supporting “the Ryan budget” but that it’s not that simple. He is on record as supporting some aspects of the Ryan budget and called it a good starting point. In the last debate Bielat cited cuts to Pell Grants as something in the Ryan budget he opposes. Kennedy cited a number of things that are objectionable in the Ryan budget (notably voucher-izing Medicare to seniors’ detriment, steep Medicaid cuts, Head Start cuts, education cuts and large tax cuts for the wealthy). Bielat said he recently read the 90-page summary and didn’t see any of those things in there. He also said trying to tie him to the Ryan budget is part of the hyper-demonizing we need to move away from.
Healthcare: In response to a question about support for “universal healthcare,” which my wife and I took to mean “single payer” or something like it, Kennedy launched into a defense of the Affordable Care Act/Massachusetts model. He said keeping costs down was of supreme importance for our whole economy. Bielat said he thinks “Romneycare” is great for Massachusetts, but shouldn’t be imposed on the whole nation, and repeated that “Obamacare” imposes new taxes. He said he’d vote to repeal the national Affordable Care Act.
Education: Answering a question about access to quality education for all districts, not just affluent ones, Kennedy said it’s important to give every child, no matter where from, the best chance at success. He said that can be done through adequate and equitable funding and accountability at all levels. He brought up Head Start as a program that helps kids come to school ready to do the work, and criticized proposed cuts under the Ryan budget. Bielat supported school choice via vouchers, etc., citing Michelle Rhee in DC as an example, and accountability. He said his mother took a pay cut to teach in a Catholic school instead of a public school because she didn’t like the teachers’ union protecting incompetent teachers. Kennedy defended the teachers’ unions, which he said have been working with the state and districts here in Massachusetts to better serve our kids.
“Women’s issues”: In response to a question largely about reproductive choice, Bielat candidly admitted that he is pro-life before attempting to redirect the question by redefining “women’s issues” as primarily economic issues. Kennedy said that, while economic issues are very important and have received a great deal of attention during the campaign, reproductive choice was an area of key difference between him and Bielat. He stressed that he strongly believes government has no role in interfering with a woman’s ability to consult with her doctor on private health decisions and make her own decisions. He also pointed out that the current GOP House has, since 2011, voted 10 times to curtail reproductive rights.
Bi-partisan happy fun: An audience member, seemingly supportive of Kennedy, asked if Bielat could be sufficiently independent to represent Massachusetts or if he’d be tied to the national GOP. Bielat said he is not getting national Republican money (which to be fair is because they are focused on other races, not because he’s not Republican enough for them) and that Kennedy’s debate “talking points” are straight from the DCCC website. He said he’d work with whomever, and identified points of distinction from his party (rejects Norquist pledge, some military issues). He suggested Kennedy would be a more partisan Democrat. Kennedy in turn cited three specific GOP Reps that he agrees with some issues and said he’d be eager to find common ground with them.
Gun Control: Kennedy said he supports Second Amendment rights for individuals (which, as I recall, were only invented by the Roberts Court in the past few years), but that reasonable restrictions on guns are by definition reasonable. He said he wished President Obama had done more in this area, and that he supports restoration of the assault-weapons ban, elimination of the gun show and private sale loopholes, and other reasonable steps to regulate weapons, including making sure they cannot be obtained by the mentally ill. Bielat said we all deplore tragedies like the Aurora and Arizona shootings, but that we can do a better job of enforcing the laws on the books rather than pass new legislation. He focused on Kennedy’s remark about the “mentally ill” to suggest it would be hard to work out who is mentally ill (“Would one visit to a psychiatrist be enough?”) or who should make the determination. My sense was that he skirted the issue for the most part.
Congressional approval/oversight of military action: Kennedy said that getting Congressional approval for military strikes is difficult given partisan gridlock in Congress and that the executive would fill the vacuum. He said, without specifying, that he supported “more” oversight by Congress. Bielat said this issue is important to him and he believes Congress in recent decades has failed to be a check on the use of force abroad as intended in the Constitution. He said Congress is the best check on use of force the public doesn’t support, and that we would not have used the military in Libya if the public, through its representatives, had been consulted. I thought it was a good answer.
Staying in DC Forever: Someone who seemed a Bielat supporter said he “knew” Bielat was motivated to run by our economic crisis, and asked if Kennedy planned to be in the House forever. Bielat said he ran for many reasons and feels his experience, particularly in business and getting things done, are needed now. He specifically said he didn’t want to stay in Congress all that long. “A couple of terms and then I want to come home.”
Barney Frank declined to run again in large part because he viewed the new 4th district as less favorable to him. Most people say it’s still a pretty solid Dem district and Kennedy, who does have a huge fundraising advantage, is expected to win. I think Bielat’s positions on most issues are too conservative for the district, even though I expect he’ll do well in his (and Scott Brown’s) home turf of Norfolk, Wrentham, Attleboro, southeastern Worcester County, etc.
But in a less Democratic district, Sean Bielat would be a tough candidate. He is polished but down-to-earth and good at seeming reasonable even if I don’t think many of his positions are reasonable. He also did, in my view, a better job than Joe tonight at seeming responsive to the questions asked. Kennedy at times tied his answer back to the question only in the last 15 seconds of a two-minute answer. Some of his answers seemed a bit rambling, or like he was just reciting talking points, until he finally tied them back to the question. He would be better served doing it at the outset AND the end.
I don’t think Kennedy was bad at all tonight, though he was having trouble with his voice. He made some solid points and I think most voters of the 4th are on his side on the issues. Just saying that Bielat, who went through the process two years ago, is pretty good at this stuff.
…for rejecting the premise of the question of Kennedy’s candidacy being a joke. Moments like that are all too rare.
This race has not gotten a lot of attention and I assumed it was a lightweight scion v tea party extremist race, which is how the media has portrayed it. But they both gave reasoned well thought answers. I though Bielat was abrasive and off putting in his race against Frank but he softened his tone for this debate. I am glad to see self described fiscal conservatives finally distance themselves from deficit digging pledges like Norquist’s. Glad Kennedy took a reasonable stance on Simpson Bowles and mentioned what parts he likes. A better race than the appearance would have you believe. Solid coverage, it’s local perspective like this that makes BMG worth reading
They both did a pretty good job. Bielat seems to have cleaned up his act considerably from his 2010 race. Perhaps that is due to realizing he lost by 10 points in a big Tea Party year, and this time Obama is on the ballot and we have a hotly contested Senate race. He better soften his approach.
A couple of things I failed to mention. On immigration, both spoke in favor of comprehensive reform. Kennedy said deporting 12 million people is not an option in practical terms. Bielat generally agreed that deporting 12 million people is not feasible, but seemed to want to deport at least some of them. He referred to our porous borders – southern and northern and ports – as a national security issue.
Kennedy also referred to large sums of cash being held by businesses and banks rather than invested productively or lent out. TARP, after all, was sold as necessary to restore liquidity in credit markets (remember Mike Capuano’s rant in 2009: stop sitting on the money, get the money on the streets). Bielat, somewhat snarkily, said it sounded like Joe wanted to relax lending standards, which was what got us into the mess. I have my ideas on what got us into the mess, and most of it dovetails with Sean Bielat’s party and his preferred policies.
Here’s his latest web ad: “Joe Kennedy: A Legacy He Didn’t Build”. Also, look at some of the comments coming out of his paid consultants on Twitter, specifically Brad Marston. It’s his campaign, he owns these remarks as well.
Microsite paid for by Bielat campaign. He pretends to be moderate and decent during these public forums, but online his campaign acts like petulant frat boys. Plus, he’s endorsed by Citizens United (yes, that Citizens United). Don’t be fooled by his “respectful behavior”, he’s a bully.
he’s the type of candidate who could be effective with voters in another district who don’t follow all this super-close.
Joe Kennedy did point out that Bielat is endorsed by Citizens United and I knew that. Bielat did say at the debate – not just in his ad – that he thinks Kennedy got huge funding and instant credibility due to his name. He didn’t say it in so many words, too slick for that, but he said no other candidate with a similar resume to Kennedy’s would be in that situation. That’s clear enough a statement on how he feels about that.
He also made a snotty comment about knowing how it is to pay student loans, and that he was pretty sure Joe didn’t have to worry about that.
The Patch has a write-up that identifies the nasty questioner as Royall Switzler of Wellesley.
Some of you may recall Switzler as the 1986 Mass. GOP convention’s choice for governor. He served a number of terms in the state legislature and was forced to drop out of the governor’s race for having misrepresented his military record. He said he’d fought in Vietnam in the Army Special Forces, but he’d only visited Vietnam on leave from non-combat duty in Korea.
I was 11 in 1986 and remember it mostly for the Celtics winning the title and Calvin Schiraldi/Bill Buckner. But the 1986 Gubernatorial race is well worth a visit down memory lane courtesy of Wikipedia. In the end, Mike Dukakis won re-election handily against George Kariotis, the GOP fill-in when the top two Republican candidates found themselves forced to withdraw.
The Massachusetts Republican Party, eternally classy.