CD-5 Race: Clark’s Refusal to have debates – Arrogance or Concealment?

Last Friday night, two candidates to fill the vacant seat in the 5th Congressional District finally had their first and only debate televised by NECN.  Unfortunately, due to the lack of prior debates and limited (less than 30 minutes) allocated time, there was no opportunity for them to go into details about their positions, ask each other tough questions and have full-fledged political discussion expected from a race of federal importance. 

The debate host, Jim Braude, asked various questions on many different topics trying to fill the voters’ knowledge gap, but unfortunately for them, the conversation never touched upon the issues of high significance, such as restoring American economy and creating more jobs in Massachusetts.

The blame for this absence of public discussion can be laid squarely on the Democratic candidate, Katherine Clark.  Both campaigns received at least 8 other debate invitations by various organizations and civic groups.  While the Addivinola campaign accepted all of them, Clark refused (or mostly ignored) all of the requests.  When criticized by her Republican opponent and questioned by the media, neither her campaign nor the candidate herself had any comments.

It is worth noting, that many of the proposed debates that were refused by Clark, were set up in a public forum setting where voters could ask or submit questions.  But Senator Clark chose to deny the voters this opportunity to participate in the American democracy.  She didn’t even bother to issue a statement for the live televised debate on November 19th, where she let an empty chair face her opponent. 

It is appalling to see such an arrogant behavior from a candidate who hasn’t even been elected yet.  It is obvious that Katherine Clark thinks she’s anointed to this position forgetting that it is an elective office after all and that her election prospects are in the hands of the voters.  This unacceptable attitude makes many voters concerned about the level of constituent services this candidate would provide if elected.

But the real reason why Katherine Clark is hiding from the debates is because she doesn’t want to explain many of her positions that don’t resonate even with traditional Massachusetts Democrats whose votes she is hoping to receive by default on December 10th.  What Katherine Clark doesn’t want voters to know is that she has been endorsed twice by the Democratic Socialists of America. Socialists are not what the majority of Massachusetts Democrats consider themselves to be and Sen. Clark doesn’t want this fact to come up.

Senator Clark also staunchly supports the Affordable Care Act even as over 6 million people had their insurance cancelled and major Congressional Democrats now admit that the bill was a mistake and an overreach.  But Katherine Clark lacks independence to admit this fact and when asked whether the law will help or hurt Massachusetts, answered “We’ll see.”

Senator Clark also doesn’t want to have to explain her voting record in the State House.  While always supporting bills that increased spending and raised taxes on our families, she voted against having applicants for government benefits produce valid Social Security numbers, against having them produce address verification, and against prioritizing qualified residents for subsidized housing over those that don’t qualify and are not residents.

In addition, Senator Clark also sponsored a major wiretapping bill that the ACLU says allows "law enforcement to listen into private conversations for virtually any investigative purpose". 

And despite her promises to protect seniors, before the primary, Clark expressed her willingness to compromise the Social Security and Medicare benefits for our seniors to cut federal deficits instead of reducing waste and duplication.

Clark also recently raised eyebrows when she made a call to the Governor’s Council in support of the judicial nominee who was one of her large campaign donors and her husband’s former law partner.  This nominee is one of very few cases when the Council refused to confirm the nomination.  Too many questions were raised about his role in the Anti Defamation League, pro bono representation of Guantanamo Bay prisoner and excessive ($110K) political contributions.