Last night’s gubernatorial debate between Lt. Gov Kerry Healey, Deval Patrick, Grace Ross and Christy Mihos represented a telling moment in a long, strange campaign season.
The debate frequently lapsed into a mud-slinging free-for-all that pitted candidates against one another — a fitting end to a tumultuous race for the corner office.
After watching the candidate’s evolution over the months and carefully weighing their issues, The Daily Free Press endorses Deval Patrick as the next governor of Massachusetts.
For much of the campaign, important issues were lost in a flurry of misleading attack advertising. Both Healey and Patrick made mistakes. Healey often distorted the truth to make her points; Patrick’s ads were often timid and ambiguous.
Healey set a negative tone for the campaign from the start and shifted voters’ focus off the issues by taking personal jabs at her opponents. Through it all, Patrick kept his promise to run a clean campaign.
Despite all this, Patrick and Healey agree on some key issues. They both support stem cell research, embrace developments of renewable energy to save taxpayers money and champion the expansion of public education.
This is a good start, but the candidates vehemently disagreed on hot-button issues like the death penalty, crime, immigration and taxes.
Patrick has the right idea about the death penalty. In a June 2005 press release, Patrick states, “The death penalty can never be made foolproof, it is not a deterrent, and the huge costs incurred in capital proceedings divert resources away from actually fighting and prosecuting crime.”
Not only is the death penalty morally wrong, but nationwide studies have found that the death penalty is costly and ineffective. In fact, the cost of executing inmates drains money from law enforcement budgets and highway repair, according to a 2001 National Bureau of Economic Research report.
But Healey favors reinstating the death penalty for inmates convicted of killing prosecutors, judges and police officers. And while there may be merit to harsher sentences for criminals who murder public servants, resurrecting the death penalty would neither make the streets safer nor deter criminals from committing murder.
Violent crime has surged in the state, but the victims have been innocent bystanders, not police officers.
Patrick proposes a better option for fighting crime, proposing the addition of 1,000 new police officers to Boston streets. Nowhere in her 50-point “Plan for Change” does Healey address the state’s need for an increased number of police officers.
And while Patrick’s critics baulk at the price tag of the new officers, it is an investment the state cannot afford to pass by.
Patrick supports cooperation between local, state and federal officials to fight crime. His plan to cut the red-tape that plagues our justice system will help bring criminals to justice.
Patrick proposes immigration legislation that is fair, humane and practical. He understands the contributions immigrants make, supports in-state tuition for illegal immigrants and has called for a simple path to citizenship.
Healey argues immigrants are a burden on our schools and hospitals.
But blocking access to education will not deter immigrants from crossing the border. It will only marginalize them, instead of encouraging them and welcoming their contribution.
Immigrants perform jobs that Americans simply won’t accept. Healey toes the party line on these issues and her ideological stance does not coincide with the practical needs of the state.
In fact, her ideas are downright paranoid and reactionary. During the debate Healey told Patrick: “You want to give them in-state tuition and licenses so they can disappear into society and get into air planes.”
Patrick, on the other hand, stands by the belief that education is one of the most effective ways to welcome immigrants into American culture and “level the playing field.”
During the primary, the Free Press stood by Patrick’s opposition to cutting the income tax, and still does.
Healey rightly argues that the state legislature should honor the will of voters who approved a rollback of state income taxes. But six years have passed since the 2000 vote and the state’s needs have changed. The mandate no longer exists. The state cannot afford to lose the revenue or make the necessary cuts to social services.
Patrick also sees the need to reduce the cost of living in Massachusetts, but prefers more progressive tax cuts, such as cuts to the property tax.
Contrary to critics who think Patrick will be a rubber stamp for the state legistlature, if elected, he will be a strong, practical leader. His experience as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under the Clinton administration and his experience in the private sector as the Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Coca-Cola Company have given him experience with personal accountability, not political pandering.
Patrick has big plans for Massachusetts but he concedes, “We may not accomplish all of theses initiatives at once or even during my first term, if elected.” This implies, though, that he will be in the corner office for the long haul and voters deserve a full-time governor.
We are confident that, if elected, Patrick will address important issues that not only affect the lives of Boston University students, but all Massachusetts residents.