Originally Posted at Only In Boston
The three candidates vying for the Democratic nomination for Governor squared off in the first of five debates to be held before the primary election on September 9th. The hour-long debate, streamed online from Stonehill’s website, was largely uneventful. The candidates mostly reiterated their positions on a variety of key issues and gave their opinions on two important ongoing crises – the Market Basket fiasco and the protests in Ferguson, MO.
Martha Coakley, current Attorney General and favorite to win, played it safe last night. She didn’t take any strong positions and continued to espouse moderate, dispassionate views on everything from the Economy to Universal Pre-K.
Current state treasurer Steve Grossman, in his attempt to differentiate himself from Coakley, took much stronger positions and emphasized his private sector experience. Being the consummate insider and business-friendly candidate, he gave polished, well-rehearsed answers straight from the Clinton/DLC handbook.
Berwick continued to distinguish himself as by-far the most progressive of the three candidates. He used the phrase ‘politics as usual’ several times to decry the policies of the establishment candidates sharing the stage with him. The doctor and former Medicare administrator made sure to mention that he was the only candidate to come forward in support of single-payer healthcare. For me, this is reason enough to vote for him.
Berwick, lacking the name recognition and resources of Coakley and Grossman, is lagging far behind in the polls, but has raised the most money in the month August.
For a full play-by-play check out my liveblog from last night. Watch the whole debate at Stonehill’s site. Here is a rundown of some of the highlights from the debate:
Market Basket
All three candidates came out in support of Gov. Patrick’s intervention in the Market Basket negotiations, feeling that even though the governor has no right to intervene in the operations of a private business, the jobs provided by the company are too important. None of them would recommend the current boycott if they were governor, but they support the right of consumers to boycott if desired.
Berwick: Made sure to announce his support of the workers involved, (notably the only candidate to do so), saying they were a great example of employees standing up to corporate greed.
Grossman: Pointed out that he would only support such an intervention by the governor on the condition that it was requested by the business in question.
Ferguson
Coakley: If tasked with such a situation in Massachusetts, she would make sure the investigation was handled properly from the beginning and work to deescalate conflict by building trust between police and community.
Grossman: He would emulate Gov. Patrick’s leadership in the wake of the Boston Marathon Bombings. He emphasized the importance of diversity (the first of several mentions of diversity throughout the debate) in law enforcement.
Berwick: “I’m for community policing, not combat policing… This kind of violence is inexcusable…” He also mentioned the importance of transparency, diversity, building trust between community and law enforcement.
Universal Pre-K Education
Grossman: Talked about a four-part solution to funding universal pre-k – Jobs growth, public-private partnerships, more savings, and fairer, more progressive tax code.
Berwick: “I’m the only candidate for governor in favor of single-payer healthcare.” He said that savings yielded from single-payer healthcare and a fairer tax code would help to fund universal pre-k.
Coakley: Called universal pre-k important for the commonwealth and investment should be a priority in future budgets. Budget should be reexamined to allocate funds for it.
Casinos/Gambling
Berwick: Reiterated his strong opposition to casinos and gambling: “Casinos destroy communities. They destroy jobs… More jobs are lost then gained… They are predators on the poor. Income inequality is the biggest problem in this country. There are better ways to add jobs… My colleagues are not looking at the data, they are taking positions of convenience.”
Coakley: Came across as rather ambivalent on the issue, but stated she wouldn’t have turned to casinos as a first option for generating revenue and creating jobs. She would not seek to repeal the casino legislation.
Grossman: Reiterated his strong support for in-state casinos, saying they will generate tax revenue that would otherwise be brought to surrounding states, and create construction and service jobs.
Marijuana
All three candidates took similar positions on medical marijuana and legalization for recreational use – they support limited medical use and will reserve opinion on legalization until experiments in Washington and Colorado yield results.
Berwick: Says that he, as someone with healthcare expertise, would have been able to manage the medical marijuana rollout here in MA better.
Coakley: Seemed the most cautious when it came to implementation of medical marijuana and legalization for recreational use.
Grossman: Similarly cautious, but appeared to be more open to the possibility of legalization in the future. He also mentioned that he could have managed the medical marijuana program better.
Affordable Housing/Homelessness
Coakley: She said that the stigma attached to mental and behavioral healthcare, and the lagging economy are the underlying problems causing homelessness.
Grossman: Declared that investment in affordable housing is essential to keeping young professionals and families in the state. He would give away state-owned land to developers in return for promising to build affordable housing.
Berwick: “I regard housing as a human right – food, clothing, and shelter… We will have no chronic homelessness if I am elected governor… We need to develop affordable housing.” He would expand existing programs like housing vouchers.
Charter Schools
Grossman: Supports expansion of charter schools and lifting of cap.
Coakley: Supports a limited lift of the cap on charter schools. To her, there is a false debate between charters and public schools. The best practices from both types of schools should be implemented.
Berwick: He would also take a nuanced approach to charter schools, says charter schools bring innovation and ideas to public schools. Does not support any weakening of the public school system or establishment of for-profit charter schools. Says charter schools should exist to strengthen the public school system, not weaken it.
Coakley has already “intervened” – far ahead of Governor Patrick’s recent moves to broker a deal – and well before Dr. Berwick or Treasurer Grossman offered an opinion last evening.
(I noticed you didn’t quote Coakley on that question in your review.)
AG Coakley joined the New Hampshire Attorney General in norifying Market Basket execs of their need to follow the law and respect the rights of their employees a ways back. Her Office also set up a dedicated hotline for Market Basket workers to call with questions and concerns.
In this here… ‘analysis’… Berwick is the only candidate quoted directly. Both Grossman and Coakley are here heavily paraphrased and that, often, laden with adjectival asides that are not flattering… When Berwick is not quoted directly he’s got a heaping helping of more friendly modifiers.
All that would be fine (and dandy) if it came with an actual disclaimer rather than purporting to be straight ‘analysis’, which it most certainly is not.
That should be enough. What analysis is neutral anyway?
Besides, I implied at the end of the fourth paragraph that I favored Berwick.
… that there were reasons to vote for him, without specifically stating that you were voting for him.
Your further implication, by heavy use of modifiers, was that there were no reasons to vote for anyone else.
Analysis does have to be neutral: it is merely the process of separating, or distinguishing, a whole thing in respect to its parts. It is an attempt to find what several components make up a larger whole.
If analysis is not neutral, it is not the process of finding components of a whole, but rather becomes the process of changing those parts to form the picture of a completely different whole. This is why the recognition of bias is important to begin with: so that we might try to find both the true components and the true whole which we pick apart…
Analysis of political speech is entirely subjective. Analysis by definition, is not neutral. It’s possible to come to different conclusions when examining the “components of a whole.” Analysis isn’t reporting, where you just state the facts without any context or framing. I wrote my analysis of the debate, and you wrote your analysis of my analysis.
The Coakley campaign had the most signs outside of the event, some were enormous. Once inside the auditorium, however, it was clear that the Berwick campaign had more people in the seats. The reception for each candidate was enthusiastic with Don Berwick receiving the loudest along with a loud chorus of “All means All”.
I thought some of the most notable things were Grossman and Berwick not taking the Ferguson question to go after Coakley’s record.
The other thing was Coakley’s terrible answer on casinos. She said that they wouldn’t be the first place she’d look for revenue, that state has to do a lot of work to reduce the many harms they cause, but also they she won’t vote to repeal.
Also as a Berwick supporter, this was a pretty lame debate. The candidates basically made their pitches without really going after one another. I am confused by that posture, perhaps Berwick has an incentive to play nice if he wants a role in the next administartion, but this is the all or nothing, betting the house move for Grossman and Coakley. A loss for either one of them will end their political careers. At his age, Grossman will fail in his lifelong ambition to the Corner Office, and it is one he has thwarted himself by running a bland, safe, frontrunners campaign rather than going toe to toe with Martha and hitting her hard. Now, thanks in part to him, Charlie Baker will do that for us and damage her far more than he would’ve.
Coakley was smart enough to play the long game, minimize risk, and develop a more personable campaign style. Her ads are significantly improved. I am not convinced this primary gave us the nominee we deserved, from the perspective of moving the needle of the next Governor’s agenda to policy areas we care about or making sure the nominee was tested and came out stronger due to the primaries. That isn’t her fault actually-the blame can be laid at the hands of her opponents who had ample opportunities to go for the jugular and landed hardly any blows.
even if you are convinced that is wise, which is disputable.
If these debates don’t get feisty and don’t make any real news, then she probably gets to stroll into the general election.
Berwick, for me, still plays as the single payer guy. I like his politics and if this was for a rep seat, I’d probably vote for him. Yet I do not get the sense he’s equipped to sit at the head of the table and get things done.
Building on what you said about Grossman, he’s either got to sell the notion that a boring governor is a good governor, or he needs to start chugging Red Bull.
This was a far more substantive run-down than what you can find in the Globe. The Globe piece wasted 50% of its word count on Coakley-Grossman he said/she said and barely touched on any of the policy discussions from the debate.
Yet my original thoughts appear in the first post on the debate. None of the trio was vibrant enough for the November battles.
Repeatedly in the hour, Berwick (whom Kornacki insisted on calling “Mr. Bercick”) had the reasoning and facts thatke other two lacked. For example, he skunked them on casinos and their financial and other implications. Coakley went with variations on the-voters-spoke and maybe will again. Grossman was oddly obsequious in repeating that Gov. Patrick convinced him that they mean more jobs when we need them. Berwick offered the only opinions and info that seemed trustworthy. It’s not like the other two haven’t had time to think about this.
All three played the résumé card too often and out of context. We’re supposed to trust them largely because of previous successes in unrelated fields? I think not. One-time self plug should have been enough for each. I wanted more specific ideas and proposals for those big issues that they know face the commonwealth.
Lackaday, the candidate who allegedly has the slimmest chance of victory next month had the strongest vision. It’s like we have three backup quarterbacks.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
I differ with jconway, as I appreciate that the candidates are keeping it civil.
I don’t know that anything could have overcome the insertion of national politics in [election that I have pledged not to discuss] but having a very pissed-off unsuccessful candidate and supporters didn’t help. I really hope Berwick pulls it off, but if he loses, we really need him to not take his ball and go home. He is our ace in the hole against Baker, who is a successful health-care executive in name only, while the Democrats have the real thing.
Why didn’t Martha Coakley participate in the ice bucket challenge?
Clearly there is no more pressing issue on the state, federal and international level than geeting on YouTube.
He was challenged and said he wouldn’t do a video but would make a donation. The challenge is do a video and donate $10 or skip the water and donate $100.
Coakley hasn’t done either.
You have access to her checkbook. Amazing.
And if she didn’t do so publicly, then she missed the point and squandered a huge opportunity to raise awareness about the disease.
The openness about her brother and her spotlight on mental illness are enough. She needs to play to the flavor of the day. Of course if she did. Some would be yellng “pandering”.
I’m in favor of letting individuals, yes even candidates, decide which causes and charities they are most connected with.
And for the record. Critizing a candidate over a fundraising stunt smacks of a cynical use of that illness for political purposes.
I type poorly and far to fast.
Yes, definitely, but I’d suggest that this is a pretty unique instance given the attention this campaign has received. She was also asked specifically by a number of colleagues to participate.
But why not just cut a check and send out a tweet saying she donated and asking others to do the same?
Not when almost every elected official and candidate in the state has participated. Maybe they are all pandering, or maybe they’re just taking five minutes to have some fun and give some attention to a devastating disease that receives far too little research funding.
… and you get a chilly answer.
Not many people know this, and she doesn’t like to brag about it, but Martha Coakley spent 15 years in a Shaolin temple in Northern China learning the Tao of Ice-Fu. It’s where she learned her icy stare that has been intimidating courtroom opponents for many years.
Every morning, as part of her exercise routine, Martha Coakley swims from Boston Harbor to the North Pole where she breaks through the ice, wrestles a polar bear or two, and then swims back to Boston to present the pelt(s) of her vanquished foe to her husband, who doesn’t really like the cold… So, you see, it’s not really ‘a challenge’ for her… (Don’t tell her I told you about this, she doesn’t want anyone to know her husband can’t stand the cold….)
The cold never bothered her anyway.
She doesn’t go to hockey games either, especially when the game is at Fenway.
The problem that I have with all three candidates is not a single one of them has been able to lay out a vision on a core set of issues that need to be tackled during the next four years. This debate functioned more like a news panel, tackling some of the headlines du jour. I think that’s because neither the candidates nor the media has figured out what this race is actually about.
We nibbled around the edges of education with pre-K and charter schools. Yet issues like affordable college education, families getting battered by fees in the public schools and how to strengthen struggling school systems went untouched.
Does anybody have a cohesive transportation plan? Does anybody have an economic vision that extends beyond basic taxation? Does anyone have an idea about how to make all housing more affordable (e.g. exempting the full value of your rent on your state taxes)? Because affordable housing programs don’t touch the core issue of housing being a burden upon the middle class in MA. Can the state actually do anything to alleviate the property tax burden in our cities and towns? What are the development priorities of these candidates?
I feel like we’re watching the cheap knockoff of a governor’s race rather than an actual race with compelling candidates ready to address and tackle the issues of the day.