I initially missed the first 15 minutes or so of the Sept. 2 debate, on Channel 22, between the two Democratic candidates for the 9th Hampden state rep seat. (The two face off in tomorrow’s primary.)
Fortunately, I got an email from one of my favorite political sources alerting me to the debate, and describing it as can’t-miss viewing. And just as fortunately, 22 has posted the debate, in its entirety, on its website, for the enjoyment and edification of voters who missed the original airing. (The debate ran at 12:30 in the afternoon, when the TV-watching demographic skews to stay-at-home parents and retirees—two desirable voting blocs, when you think of it.)
The debate, between incumbent Rep. Sean Curran and challenger Chris Asselin, who’d previously held the seat for two terms, followed the “Lincoln/Douglas” format, in which candidates pose questions to each other. (Not a bad format, but really, isn’t it time we consider a new name for the debating style, given the high oratory expectations it creates for our reliably less-impressive modern-day candidates?)
From an entertainment standpoint, the debate was a bit excruciating to watch. Neither Curran nor Asselin will ever be accused of dynamic stage presence; indeed, I found myself hoping that someone offstage was periodically handing host Rich Tettemer an oxygen mask, to compensate for the vast quantities of air his guests were sucking out of the room.
In truth, the debate—like the entire Curran vs. Asselin match-up—couldn’t be anything but awkward, given the latter’s recent history: Asselin had lost 9th Hampden seat, which represents parts of Chicopee and Springfield, in 2004. Asselin was trounced at the polls by Curran, with a strong assist from the FBI, which for months had been pursuing a wide-ranging public corruption investigation that ensnared numerous members of the Asselin family. Asselin initially proclaimed his innocence but eventually pleaded guilty to accepting bribes from contractors working for the Springfield Housing Authority, which for decades had been run by his father, Ray Asselin Sr. In 2007, the disgraced former rep. was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison; his father is still serving a 10-year sentence.
Asselin’s announcement, back in the spring, that he planned to run for the seat again, was met with much surprise—and the biting comment, from Curran, “I thought he was still in prison.”
At the 22 debate, Curran didn’t address Asselin’s record directly, but rather stuck with peripheral shots at his opponent’s shameful record: calling on voters to elect “upstanding people” to public office; referring to the “ethics controversy” plaguing Beacon Hill; asking Asselin about his plans to work with law enforcement agencies, including the FBI. You know, the federal investigators Asselin had referred to as “a nasty bunch of people” during the investigation.
In his nearest hit—and perhaps the most satisfyingly awkward moment of the debate—Curran, with a more or less straight face, asked Asselin, “Do you see yourself as a good-government reformer?”
“Oh, yeah, absolutely,” Asselin replied, without blinking.
It was Asselin who most directly addressed the elephant in the room, referring to the “life-changing experience” he’d been through, which, he added, has left him “a changed person.” He also admitted to perhaps having been “a little arrogant” in the past.
Asselin’s willingness to accept accountability had its limits, however. He spoke, in passive terms, of “what happened to me,” rather than of what he had done. And he insisted that his criminal record was a personal issue—“It had nothing to do with my office,” he said.
Not quite. While some of the bribes Asselin had accepted were, perhaps, more “personal” in nature (including the now-infamous backyard swimming pool), he also, as Jack Flynn reported in the Republican back in March, “admitted the same contractors made illegal campaign contributions and financed flyers, signs and fund-raisers.”
In the end, that’s meaningless hair-splitting anyway; whether Asselin used his ill-gotten gains to pad his campaign funds or feather his nest, he was knowingly breaking laws at the same time he was making laws for the Commonwealth, and personally profiting from an agency created to help his community’s poorest citizens. Are the 9th Hampden’s voters ready to forgive and forget that?
