1st Congressional District Debate

It was clear from the outset that it was going to be a wild night. You make the turn in to the driveway to Mount Wachusett Community College and are immediately flanked by two or three dozen Bill Gunn supporters. They've got signs. They're loud. They've got t-shirts.
The debate for the First Massachusetts district was sponsored by the college's Center for Democracy and Humanity. The moderator was MWCC Prof. Jim Korman, chairman of the MWCC Paralegal Studies department. Students from the Paralegal Studies program were time-keepers. The debate would be shown on local cable. The panelists who asked questions of the candidates were from the local newspapers - Joseph Benavidez of the MWCC student newspaper, the Mount Observer, Andres Caamano, senior news editor of the Gardner News, and Marisa Donelan, city editor of the Sentinel-Enterprise.
In the commons area in the center of the college, nearly 100 chairs werfe set out. By the time the debate started, they need more chairs in the back. Even then, there were folks standing. Did I mention that they have t-shirts?
It was going to be a wild night.
Except that it wasn't.
The audience, with just a couple of exceptions, listened intently and articulated their opinions with facial expressions only.
There are three seeking the congressional office - incumbent Democrat John Olver, Republican Bill Gunn, Jr. and Independent Michael Engel.
The topics were familiar, but presented as thoughtful questions that invited thoughtful answers. As the candidates outlined their views on Social Security, spending and deficit, immigration (legal and illegal), Don't Ask-Don't Tell, the stimulus plans, housing, and transportation. Olver not only defended, but even promoted his liberal actions and his support of the president. Gunn would jettison the Education Department, replace the income tax with a national sales tax, and urgently pared down the size and scope of government. Engel proferred nuanced solutions. He, for example, would support raising the retirement age, but only if we address the issue of age discrimination in the workplace. His approach to tax reform and simplification would ensure that corporations and the very rich would have fewer ways to avoid paying taxes on their considerable income.
By this late in the election season, the three candidates had their stories well-honed, except when they didn't. Olver stumbled badly on many answers and ran over his alloted time without finishing his answers. He had a lengthy and somewhat embarrassing 15-second pause while he tried to think of a description something that the Republicans wanted to do with Social Security. It's called privatization, which he finally remembered. Gunn put Wal-Mart in Hubbardston, rather than in Gardner.
At the end of the night, the winner was Engel on points. He commanded his ideas and facts well and made us want to listen. Gunn started out as the most collegial, but tended to get louder when straying from substance and into platitudes. His remarks regarding immigrants, illegal and otherwise, and those who were losing their homes in the mortgage meltdown, were mean-spirited. Finally, it was just not John Olver's night as all. He was generally inarticulate, except when detailing the funding that he brought to the district. We should probably be grateful for his work, but that doesn't mean that we're proud of it.
After the debate, Gunn supporters talked enthusiastically among themselves about where they would be in the coming days. The few Olver supporters sought out each other and quietly chatted. If Engel had supporters there, we couldn't tell. There were no signs for him, no t-shirts. Just some folks mulling over his ideas.