To the editor:
Massachusetts is fortunate in having an array of smart, hardworking citizens who are willing to run for public office. This is certainly the case for the upcoming November 4 midterm election. Struggling through the complexities of campaign speeches and analysis, I find it sometimes difficult to sort out fact from fiction, well supported accusation from malicious innuendo or affront. The Baker/Coakley race is no exception, but after careful thought, I have determined to support Martha Coakley. Here’s why. I have summarized my thoughts into four categories, each based on evidence that I have found to be persuasive.
Character: Coakley has grit, sometimes called good old-fashioned pluck, and determination. The evidence is there in her feisty comeback from her 2010 election defeat, and the lessons she has learned about humility and taking nothing for granted. She also has integrity as demonstrated throughout her career. I am confident that she won’t answer to special interests, whether locally based in Massachusetts, national or global. Moreover, she doesn’t prevaricate or avoid making comments on “hot” topics such as the behavior of Roger Goodell, the National Football League Commissioner, when confronted with domestic violence issues on the part of football players. There are, in addition, no questions about her ethical positions on matters such as those her opponent faces in regard to his relationship with General Catalyst.
Leadership and Style: On the personal side, Coakley has the capacity to focus, to hone in on a problem, and to deal with it incisively and effectively. She is a clear, analytical thinker who can go to the heart of a matter with alacrity. She has practiced those skills for years, and the results show not only in her job performance but also in the way she handles questions in interviews and debates. She clearly has the intellectual, managerial, political and leadership attributes to be an effective governor.
Vision: Coakley is committed to all the people of Massachusetts. To borrow a phrase from the Berwick candidacy in the Democratic primary, “all means all.” Coakley has made a big effort to reach out and to really listen to all the citizens of this state. She clearly wants a more inclusive Commonwealth. That vision is reflected in many of the policies she is advocating in areas of health, education, regional economic enhancement and opportunities for women.
Specific policies: The policies Coakley advocates reflect a concern for fairness and opportunity for all. She does not deal in generalities; she offers specific recommendations. For example, her position on early childhood programs would provide pre-school education for more than 17,000 Massachusetts youngsters who are at present on waiting lists for such opportunities. Policy recommendations on closing the wage gap for women and reducing domestic and sexual violence are not mere platitudes but are linked to specific steps for implementation. In the health arena, assuring access to earned sick time would vastly help Massachusetts citizens across the board. Promoting educational opportunities in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) along with expanded vocational education would benefit wide swaths of the Massachusetts public.
In sum, for me, Martha Coakley is offering a coherent package in which her vision—one that I firmly support—is buttressed by specific, relevant policy recommendations. Her character has been tested through long years of public service and several rigorous political campaigns. She has long developed and demonstrated the requisite skills for effective leadership. I’ll vote for Martha Coakley for governor for all the reasons noted above—and more, and I hope that readers of The Lincoln Squirrel will too.
Sincerely,
Barbara Slayter
7 Trapelo Rd.
Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters must be about a Lincoln-specific topic, will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.