New Bedford Guide Your Guide to New Bedford and South Coast, MA
This week I attended the October 17th gubernatorial debate between Martha Coakley and Charlie Baker, held in the UMass Dartmouth auditorium. Hosted by the SouthCoast Alliance, a group of various media organizations, chambers of commerce, and universities in the southeastern Massachusetts area, this debate was a final chance for the candidates to make their case before votes are to be cast. In this article I will attempt as objectively as possible to present the candidates’ viewpoints, as well as the “feel” of their debate performance in order to help you the voter make an informed decision.
But to be clear: I am not endorsing either candidate. Much like the moderator of this debate I have sworn myself to complete and unmoving neutrality.
Speaking of the moderator, Political Science Chairperson Professor Shannon Jenkins had the honor of serving in that role. As a researcher of public policy, specifically focusing on state governments and politics, and a seasoned debate moderator, Professor Jenkins was well suited for the task.
I met with Professor Jenkins just a day earlier to discuss the debate, and though she couldn’t tell me much because of her own neutrality, she did tell me this about the importance of the debate, “In elections it’s important for candidates to get their names out there so voters know who they are and what they stand for, and debates are one way of doing that. And it’s a chance for voters of the south coast to hear where the candidates stand on issues that are important down here.”
And indeed we did as the candidates battled one another over issues including transportation, energy, income inequality, healthcare reform, and who was fit to be governor.
As the debate started that day almost all the seats in the auditorium were filled, and the air was full of anticipation over what the candidates were going to say. However, if like me, you had previously researched some of the candidates’ stances, then there were no real surprises.
In the first round the candidates dueled over the SouthCoast rail project. Coakley made it clear that she supports automatic indexing of a gas tax, (meaning the tax automatically increases according to the current rate of inflation), as one way of paying for it and other much needed projects, such as repairing an aging infrastructure in severe disrepair and rated among the worst in the nation. She also attempted to make it clear a few times in the debate that in past campaigns, Charlie Baker was not as staunch a supporter of the project as he now claims he is.
“One of the reasons it has taken a while to get here, unfortunately, has been financing on the Big Dig, that my Republican opponent was engaged in,” Coakley claimed, and indeed this claim would continue throughout the debate as a part of Coakley’s argument. The Big Dig was a major construction project in Boston that sought to relieve the overly congested traffic issues and crumbling infrastructure the city had. However the project took 8 years longer than estimated and ended up costing approximately 15 billion dollars, far more than the planners had originally expected.
Meanwhile Baker, pledged support to the ballot referendum that would repeal indexing the gas tax because he believes state legislators must vote on raising the tax and thus be held accountable to the voters. Even if the indexing is repealed, he maintained that the gas tax would remain in place and still bring in a sizable amount of money to the state’s budget. Referring to Coakley’s criticism of Baker’s role with the Big Dig, Baker said, “I worked on a bipartisan basis with the Clinton administration and with the Democratic legislature to come up with a financing plan to pay for that shortfall, which added up to 1.5 billion and it worked.”
He then elaborated on that by telling the audience how his financing plan allowed Governor Patrick to go ahead with his accelerated bridge reconstruction program. “The notion that the Big Dig is the reason that we can’t pay for projects in Massachusetts is simply not true,” Baker stated.
During the debate it was easy to see Baker as very personable, who at points even had the crowd practically eating out of his hands. “I’m looking forward to seeing the New Bedford Marine Terminal move forward,” he said. “You can clap on that one,” he encouraged the crowd, and a small somewhat quiet, gentle wave of applause erupted out immediately. Of course Coakley was not to let Baker get the better of her, and so while he adopted the role of a charming salesman, Coakley donned the persona of a determined boxer, getting as many jabs in on Baker as possible whenever she had the opportunity.
When she accused Baker of using “fuzzy math” to account for how he’d fund important projects while simultaneously lowering taxes and offering tax breaks to big corporations, he brushed off the hit and said with a smile, “I sometimes wonder if the attorney general has read my economic development plan.”
All in all this debate was an even handed fight fought by two opponents desperate to get an edge over the other before November 4th. If you’d like to see it firsthand, a recording of the debate is posted on the UMass Dartmouth website here: http://www.umassd.edu/debate/.
Although, for how long this will remain active I cannot be certain, so if you are interested please check it out immediately (skip to 20:00, that’s when the debate actually starts).
Additionally you can find information for both the Baker and Coakley campaigns here: http://www.marthacoakley.com/ and here: https://www.charliebaker2014.com/. I encourage any and all readers of this article to educate themselves on the issues in order to make a better an informed choice, and of course I encourage everyone able to vote to go out and do so.
