Finally, a Mass. Governor’s Debate Worth Watching
Even if the stage was missing three gubernatorial candidates, the two who were invited finally brought substance and feistiness to the Worcester stage Monday night.
If you believe the polls and the wave of newspaper endorsements, Democratic candidate Martha Coakley had a lot of ground to make up during the hour-long debate, aired on NECN Monday night. Republican nominee Charlie Baker seemingly has the wind at his back in the race. Whether Coakley did enough to change the momentum remains to be seen.
The debate started with a question about Baker’s campaign donation to the New Jersey Republican Party, which was followed by the state investing with Baker’s employer, General Catalyst. Baker said the investigation is ongoing but he has given all the documentation requested.
“I’ve been completely transparent about this issue since the beginning,’’ said Baker.
Coakley pressed for Baker to release his employer contract.
“I just don’t think it looks good,’’ said Coakley.
Baker was blunt when asked if he wished he never made the donation.
“Well, yeah,’’ he said.
Coakley was also greeted with a rough first question, asked why she was not the clear favorite in a predominantly liberal state. Coakley insisted it’s a close race despite her lackluster poll results and a Boston Globe endorsement of Baker.
“I’m confident we’re going to win on Nov. 4,’’ said Coakley.
NECN’s Alison King moved the conversation to welfare reform, asking Baker if it was his top priority.
“Everybody wants to find their way to a job, and that should be a fundamental part of our welfare system,’’ said Baker.
“I don’t want any kid to go hungry,’’ said Coakley.
King asked about charges by investigator Greg Sullivan that Coakley tried to stop an investigation into former Speaker of the House Sal DiMasi.
“It never happened. I never said that,’’ said Coakley.
Pressed on whether Coakley thought Sullivan was making false allegations, Coakley didn’t back off her stance.
“He’s either flat out lying or flat our wrong,’’ said Coakley.
Baker backed Sullivan in his response.
“He is a person of extraordinary integrity,’’ said Baker. “I think the Attorney General owes the public an explanation.’’
The Telegram’s Chris Sinacola asked about a graduated income tax for Massachusetts, suggested Coakley was in support of such a plan.
Coakley said she spoke about graduated income tax as part of a larger conversation in a previous debate and was not a part of a proposal.
“I am not going to raise your taxes. the Attorney General has made it clear she will,’’ said Baker.
“You talk about a lot of things you want to do, but you don’t say where the money is going to come from,’’ said Coakley. “He has a typical Republican playbook of ‘let’s cut taxes for businesses and hope it trickles down.’’’
Asked about immediately reverting the income tax back to its former level, Baker said he would “work it back’’ to 5 percent.
“That happens under our current statute,’’ said Coakley.
Coakley said Baker’s tax plan for businesses will cut state revenue by $600 million, though proposals that are not needed or even wanted by the business community.
“Things business haven’t even asked for,’’ said Coakley.
A reader brought the debate back to the 1980s Fells Acres child abuse case, and called Coakley out for arguing against commuting the sentence of Gerald Amirault.
“Three governors looked at it…and refused to issue that commutation,’’ said Coakley.
A Twitter user asked about the feasibility of bringing the Olympics to Boston. Baker said he was intrigued but wanted to see more details before throwing his support behind a bid.
“I’m sticking to my notion that it’s a great planning exercise,’’ said Baker.
“I say go for the gold,’’ said Coakley, who said an Olympics in Boston would bring with it much-needed infrastructure improvements. “We have the smarts to do that here in Massachusetts, so I think we should do it.’’
Baker took a left turn during the Olympics talk, saying Coakley’s support of the games was similar to her support of the disastrous health connector web site changes.
“On big issues like this, people need to dig into the details,’’ said Baker.
Head to Head
In the second half of the debate, Coakley and Baker questioned each other. Coakley cited the loss of jobs, dropped policies, increased premiums in Baker’s turnaround of Harvard Pilgrim, asking why Baker decided to increase his salary to well over $1 million per year.
“You bring this issue up all the time, and even people like Tom Reilly…(have) called many of your accusations nonsense,’’ said Baker, citing the former attorney general. He also asked Coakley how she would have saved the company.
“Why wouldn’t you have looked at other options, like not take a $1.7 million increase in your salary,’’ asked Coakley, who later clarified the salary increased to that amount.
“So you don’t have any suggestions on how you would have dealt with the problems at Harvard Pilgrim,’’ retorted Baker.
Baker next asked why Coakley has insisted state government “doesn’t need to be fixed.’’
“I understand that we need to do better, and I appreciate that I have plans to do that,’’ said Coakley.
Asked about why women voters should support him for governor, Baker highlighted his policies on education.
“Those are issues that matter to everybody. They matter to women and they matter to men,’’ he said.
“I’m asking for voters to decide who will stand up for all the people of Massachusetts,’’ said Coakley.
The Lightning Round
In the “Yes’’ or “No’’ segment of the debate, the candidates tried at times to get some nuance into the conversation, but were shut down by moderator Latoyia Edwards.
Has either candidate smoked marijuana?
Baker: Yes
Coakley: No
Should the sale of marijuana be allowed nationwide?
Coakley: No
Baker: No
Does either candidate support Question 3, which would repeal the state’s casino law?
Coakley: No
Baker: No
Would either candidate freeze state college tuition rates?
Coakley: Yes
Baker: Yes
Should the state issue driver licenses for illegal immigrants?
Coakley: I don’t know
Baker: No
Should the state allow illegal immigrants to apply for in-state college tuition rates?
Coakley: Yes
Baker: Supports the governor’s executive order to give those with work permits in-state tuition.
Would the winner of the election hire the loser for his or her administration?
Coakley: Yes
Baker: Coakley responded in his place, saying “no.’’
Is either candidate done with politics if they lose this race?
Coakley: Yes
Baker: Yes
The debate was hosted by the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, the Worcester Chamber of Commerce and The Hanover Theater for the Performing Arts.
Correction: An earlier version of this article said that Baker’s position on granting illegal immigrants in-state was ‘no.’ At Monday’s debate, Baker said he was in support of Patrick’s executive order.
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com