Gomez-Markey Debate: Central Mass. Experts React

Thursday, June 06, 2013

GoLocalWorcester Political Team

Republican Gabriel Gomez and Democrat Ed Markey squared off Wednesday night in the first of 3 debates between the two candidates for John Kerry's vacated US Senate seat. The newcomer Gomez and the veteran Markey wasted no time getting right into the fray from behind their closely set acrylic podiums that were well within swinging reach (and in the privacy of the WBZ-TV studios in Alston, MA). And swing they did, hitting each other on topics ranging from guns and foreign policy to abortion rights.

GoLocalWorcester spoke with several Central Mass political experts to get their fresh take on the debate, as well as what they see for the future, as the competitors drive toward the June 25 special election.

David L. Schaefer, Professor of Political Science, College of the Holy Cross

In the set of three scheduled debates between Rep. Ed Markey and Gabriel Gomez, Mr. Gomez needed to accomplish two things: first, to establish himself as a credible candidate before a mass audience; second, to begin to overcome Rep. Markey’s substantial lead in the polls (52% vs. 40% according to a poll released yesterday by New England College). In tonight’s debate, Gomez accomplished the first goal, but probably did little to move towards the second one.

Both debate participants had incentives in the debate to try to represent themselves as centrists – Markey, because he already holds a substantial lead and doesn’t want to alienate any potential centrist supporters (he already has a firm grasp on the left-liberals); Gomez, because in a liberal state like Massachusetts, his hopes of winning depend in large part on presenting himself as a Scott Brown-type moderate rather than a Tea Party conservative. Hence there were only a couple of issues on which clear differences between the candidates’ positions emerged – although even here, the differences had to be inferred from the silence of one candidate or the other than from a direct opposition between them.

The Middle East

One of the issues was Syria. Here, Gomez emphasized the fact that Syria is Iran’s “only ally” in the Middle East, making it strongly in America’s interest to assist the “right” revolutionary group to succeed in overthrowing Assad. At a minimum, he contended, this requires a commitment to enforce a no-fly zone that would defend rebel forces against the government’s air raids. Markey, by contrast, refused to endorse a no-fly zone, and emphasized the need to build a “coalition” to support our Syrian policy, as well as the dangers of making a “mistake” there. Hence, he favored giving “material” aid to the rebel forces but being cautious about any “military” assistance.

Abortion

The other issue, arising at the end of the debate, concerned the proposal that women be required to undergo a 24-hour waiting period before undergoing an abortion. Gomez, after stressing that “reasonable people can disagree” on the abortion issue, said that a 24-hour waiting period didn’t seem like much to ask – so that, presumably, he would support the law. He also stressed that he “wouldn’t change any laws” – regarding abortion, he must have meant. And he added that if called on as a Senator to assess nominees to the Supreme Court, he “wouldn’t have any litmus test” concerning the nominee’s views on abortion. Markey, on the other hand, who has served in the House since 1976, said that he’d been “pro-choice for thirty years,” and that as a Senator he would have a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees, meaning a guarantee that they would not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. (Gomez, clearly, wanted to represent himself as a candidate who should be more acceptable to pro-life voters, but without taking a stand sharp enough to drive away those voters who lean pro-choice but for whom the issue isn’t the top priority.)

Immigration

On immigration, when asked whether the U.S. should make it easier for skilled immigrants to enter the country (or remain here following higher education), Markey tried to have things both ways by saying that he favored encouraging skilled immigrants, but not if they would displace “native-born” Americans from their jobs (how could one know that in advance?). Gomez, who emphasized his “unique perspective” owing to his parents’ having been immigrants, promised that he would join the “Gang of 8” favoring immigration reform, turning it into a “Gang of 9,” but also stressed the need to achieve border security first, a theme not addressed by Markey, but one that could turn into a sticking-point in immigration legislation.

Jabs and slip-ups

Gomez’s most persistent theme was accusing Markey of being too partisan a Representative, almost always voting with his party and putting “politics” over “people.” Markey on the other hand warned that allowing Gomez to win would add another vote to support conservative Republican forces such as the Tea Partiers.

As might be expected of a first-time candidate, Gomez made an occasional verbal slip (the most egregious being a reference to Syrian “terrorist” groups we ought to support, quickly changed to “rebels”) but on the whole held his own. The more experienced Markey, however, played effective defense, and thus has reason to be satisfied with his debate performance, given the edge with which he began the evening.

Chris Pinto, Worcester Republican City Committee

I was not at all surprised to see Markey come out of the starting gates invoking the political term assault weapons while standing on the graves of the children killed in Newtown. He is absolutely disgusting. If Markey truly cared about the murders of innocent children he would be talking about crime control not background checks and gun control which only affects law abiding citizens.

Gun control only serves to abuse the law abiding and has zero impact on criminals. But Chevy Chase Eddie has no solutions so he will try to scare people with his political rhetoric as Mr. Gomez predicted in his opening.

Gabriel Gomez scored points by calling the congressman the "poster boy for term limits" and by calling for a "No Budget, No Pay" rule on congress.

On health care, Mr. Gomez wins again simply by pointing out Markey's flip flop on the medical device taxes that are harming employers and their 25,000 employees in the medical device industry. Markey's claim that the device tax can't be repealed without finding replacement for those taxes is very telling. Markey is all about taxing and spending while Gomez understand to grow the economy you need to lower taxes to stimulate growth and cut spending. Markey was already making his excuses for not repealing the device tax in the future. Bad news for the device makers if he is elected.

On the criteria for going to war the navy seal wins again. His years of military service give him the experience that is sorely needed in Washington and that was quite obvious during their exchange. Gomez spoke from the heart with great insight while Markey struggled to pick his words carefully and appeared insincere and rehearsed.

On the Benghazi scandal Markey was more worried about protecting Hillary Clinton than getting to the truth about what happened that night, which should always trump politics. It was this exchange that really rattled Markey the most. Markey asked for a solution to keep this from happening again and never once mentioned getting to the truth. Where have I heard that before? ... Oh yeah, Hillary Clinton's testimony. But hey, at this point, what difference does it make Edward Rodham Markey?

Markey claimed to be supporting immigration reform for years, so i have to now ask why didn't he work to get it done when democrats had control of both houses and the Presidency?

By bringing up the Blunt and Stupack amendments Markey thumbed his nose at the first amendment and religious freedom for ALL Americans and confirmed how much of a lock step rubber stamp vote he will be for President Obama.

For his first debate Gomez exceeded my expectations and came off as being very intelligent and sincere. He is has the integrity that is badly needed in Washington. On the other hand Maryland Markey came off as rehearsed and seemed to just parrot the talking point of his party. He was slow, calculated and rattled at points in the debate.

My only disappointment with Gomez was that he never asked Markey why his address, Chevy Chase MD, was redacted when he released his tax returns.

Mindy McKenzie-Hebert, MASSGOP State Committee, 2nd Worcester District; President, Women's Republican Club of Worc. County; Shrewsbury Republican Town Committee, Chairman

Rep. Markey kept bringing up his record from decades ago when he actually passed legislation, it made him appear to be part of the history of our problems that exist today.

From the debate, I didn’t get the impression that Rep. Markey grasps the severity of the economy here in Massachusetts. When he referred to the unemployment rate being ‘low’ here, he doesn’t know how many people are working part time and less pay just to stay here! Not to mention the fact that this state has lost three seats in Congress since he has been elected, because like Mr. Markey, people have moved to where the jobs are.

Gabriel Gomez was well versed in the issues and didn’t get flustered or emotional. He was consistent and had a surprisingly polished debate style for being so new to this endeavor. Gomez stayed on the message of getting things fixed in D.C. This has been a frustration I consistently hear from active voters all over my district. It is this new voice with a fresh outlook that I think will resonate with engaged voters on June 25th.

Rob Eno, Red Mass Group

Ed Markey ignited a fire under me to help elect Gabriel Gomez to the United States Senate. Whatever lingering issues I have with Gomez as a candidate pale in comparison to the train wreck of a Senator Ed Markey would represent. It's as if Markey were a caricature of an aloof, out-of-touch partisan.

Three times he said it was more important to protect Hillary Clinton than find the truth about the response to an attack on America.

He said it is more important to do the bidding of public employee unions than protecting the homeland.