I was disappointed in Tim Murray. It was the first time I have heard him in any extended remarks, and I didn't think he came off very well. He looked like he was running for class president, rather than the state's second-highest elected office. I though he was evasive--instead of answering moderator Jim Braude's questions directly, he seemed to use each question as an opportunity to repeat a canned line. When he did speak extemporaneously, he seemed to speak not with conviction, but as someone who was hoping to be liked.He also carved out a new policy position for the campaign. Braude asked Murray if the MCAS "would be the sole graduation requirement under a Patrick-Murray administration, or no?" Murray responded, "Yes it would, but we believe we can also improve it by value-added assessment."
That's not what Deval Patrick's position paper says:
I support the MCAS, including the addition of a science component, as a high school graduation requirement. However, I do not believe it should be the sole assessment of student academic progress.I read that to say that the MCAS should be one among many requirements. If the MCAS is the sole requirement, these other "value-added assessments" are meaningless. Just before Murray's policy shift, he tried to defend the Patrick/Murray position by pointing to similar positions by republicans:
Deval Patrick and I support the MCAS, but think there are ways to improve upon it, as outlined by Jeb Bush, governor of Florida, and Mayor Bloomberg, in terms of value added assessment.I can't imagine that Jeb Bush and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg have ever said anything about the MCAS (I did a quick Google search and cannot find any comments). Even if they did believe that the MCAS could be improved, I'm sure they wouldn't say so publicly, since Mitt Romney is a fellow Republican.
I'm sure Murray was trying to say that Bush and Bloomberg have suggested improvements to the tests in their respective states, but he sounded uninformed Actually, he sounded like someone who remembered bits and pieces of this soundbite, but not enough to get it right.
Reed Hillman seemed gruff and abrasive. He frequently interrupted his opponents and seemed to teeter on being angry. His demeanor made it seem like he was always on the attack, even if he wasn't. I suppose intensity and passion is a good thing, but there is a fine line between being passionate and being in your face, and I thought he crossed it a number of times.On another note, perhaps it was the lighting in the studio, but I was continually distracted by Hillman's resemblance to suicidal cult leader Marshall Applewhite.
Independent candidate John Sullivan acquitted himself nicely. He has a calm, almost grandfatherly way about him and was much more effective than the head of his ticket, Christy Mihos, in arguing for their candidacy as an alternative to the two major parties. Kristen Beam at MassLive (the Springfield Republican's web site) agreed: "It was interesting and refreshing to hear from Independent Christy Mihos's running mate. At a few points throughout the night I thought John Sullivan should be running for governor, not Mihos."
Finally, I thought Green-Rainbow Party candidate Martina Robinson was also credible. I thought she was hurt by her speech assistant (Robinson has Cerebral Palsy and has some difficulty speaking), who either didn't take very good notes or didn't listen very well, since I was able to understand Robinson just fine. I also thought that Robinson's halting speech pattern made Braude uncomfortable, and he cut her off a couple of times when she seemed like she had more to say.
(Debate quotes via Political Intelligence.)
Tags: Massachusetts Election 2006 Tim Murray Deval Patrick Reed Hillman Kerry Healey John Sullivan Christy Mihos Martina Robinson Grace Ross
Posts
