fb-pixelMartha Coakley criticized for ambiguous answers - The Boston Globe Skip to main content

Martha Coakley criticized for ambiguous answers

Martha Coakley (center) spoke during a roundtable discussion in Boston Sunday with US Senator Elizabeth Warren (left) and US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. Steven Senne/Associated Press

When Martha Coakley was asked about her stance on a graduated income tax, her campaign gave a less-than-decisive answer: “She is open to considering” it.

Increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit?

Coakley “is open to looking” at that, too.

And granting drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants?

“Throughout her entire campaign for governor, she has said she is open to” that, as well, according to her campaign.

It’s become a common Coakley refrain: She is willing to consider, review, or think about issues, ranging from the controversial to the banal.

During the Democratic primary, that cautious approach frustrated her rivals, who accused her of trying to sidestep difficult questions. Now that she has entered a head-on battle in the general election, her Republican rival, Charlie Baker, has seized again on Coakley’s open-to-that answers to accuse her of treading lightly on substance.

Advertisement



“The people of Massachusetts deserve candidates and campaigns that are straightforward and honest and specific about their visions and their plans,” he said. “I believe we’re doing that in this campaign, and I would urge the other folks running for governor to do the same.”

Coakley’s campaign defended her approach.

“At a time when Republicans have gridlocked Congress with their rigid ideology, it is ironic that Republican Charlie Baker is criticizing Martha Coakley for her thoughtful approach to issues,” Doug Rubin, a senior Coakley adviser, said in a statement. “Martha has proven that she is willing to take on the tough fights on issues like earned sick time, the Defense of Marriage Act, and against the big banks, but she is also open to listening and working together to do what is best for the people of Massachusetts.”

Baker is often more forthright about his views. He opposes drivers’ licenses for undocumented immigrants and a graduated income tax, and supports an increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit — issues Coakley has not taken firm positions on.

Advertisement



But Baker can hedge, too. After criticizing the South Coast commuter rail extension during his 2010 campaign for governor, he told South Coast Today in February, “I’m open to moving that one forward.” Coakley supports the project.

Baker has also not said how he would pay for the $250 million to $300 million in tax cuts in his jobs plan. “We can figure it out,” he said Wednesday.

On whether to raise the personal exemption, which would allow workers to shield more of their earnings from the income tax, both Baker and Coakley have been less-than-declarative.

“I am open to that as part of reforming our tax code to make it simpler and fairer,” Baker said. Coakley’s campaign said she, too, “would consider raising the personal exemption — as part of a review of all of our tax expenditures.”

Some analysts said Coakley’s open-ended answers reflect her training and experience as a prosecutor, charged with applying facts to the law, regardless of her personal opinion. Others see a strategy to offend as few voters as possible, a tactic that could backfire if she is seen as cautious to the point of timid.

“If you’re asked, ‘What’s your favorite color?’ and you say, ‘That depends what the color is on, and who is holding the color,’ it’s not very satisfying,” said Dan Payne, a Democratic political consultant who worked until April for Jeff McCormick, an independent candidate for governor. “You have to somehow let voters understand what your values are and when you say, ‘It all depends,’ you’re not really helping the voters.”

Advertisement



Democrats Steve Grossman and Donald Berwick, Coakley’s former rivals, both complained during the primary campaign about Coakley’s tendency to say she would consider a policy change, without saying if she favored or opposed it.

“Martha, all too often when she’s asked a tough question, she says, ‘Well, I’m open to it. I’m open to that. I’m open to that,’ ” Grossman said on WGBH-FM a week before the primary. “You’ve got to be decisive. Voters may say, ‘I don’t like that position. I don’t agree with that position.’ But I think being decisive and taking a stand is important.”

In recent days, Coakley appears to be trying to rebut that criticism. In her new ad, titled “Plan,” she highlights her proposals to expand prekindergarten and to spend $500 million over 10 years on road and bridge projects and grants to businesses and nonprofits. After facing criticism for not saying how much her prekindergarten plan would cost, her campaign provided a precise figure on Tuesday: $150 million.

But Coakley has not revealed her views on several other issues.

When Grossman and Berwick called for drivers’ licenses for undocumented immigrants, Coakley said she had opposed them in the past, but stopped short of declaring her support. Instead, her campaign said she would appoint a state official “to serve as a point person on all the challenges facing the immigrant community,” including “potential access to drivers’ licenses.”

Advertisement



Asked about allowing a casino in Springfield, even if voters repeal the state casino law at the ballot in November, Coakley said last week, “I am open to considering it, but no reason to jump the gun on that.” Baker said he would back a Springfield casino even if voters overturn the law.

Questioned about Secure Communities, a controversial federal initiative that checks the immigration status of those arrested by local police, Coakley spoke about the issue last week without making it clear where she stood.

“The federal government has failed to take appropriate action around immigration and not doing that has left the states to do a patchwork of responsible actions,” she said. “We’re going to take a look at what we need to do here in Massachusetts.” Baker supports the federal program.

Baker also wants to close a loophole in state law that allows unions to donate $15,000 to campaigns, 30 times more than individuals can give. Again, Coakley has said she would consider the change.

“She is open to reviewing donation limits for individuals and organized labor with the goal of leveling the playing field so that working families can compete with super PACs funded by corporations and special interests,” Coakley’s campaign said in July.

Martha Coakley chatted up students at the Kickstand Cafe in Arlington earlier this month. Jessica Rinaldi/Globe Staff

Michael Levenson can be reached at mlevenson@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @mlevenson.