Patrick, Healey give their best shots

THE FINAL televised debate was a time for the gubernatorial candidates to make their best cases, and last night, Republican Kerry Healey and Democrat Deval Patrick did just that. Both turned in forceful, interesting performances that put their contrasting philosophies on display.

Christy Mihos hurt his cause. The independent candidate never seems particularly well-informed, but usually he is funny, leaving viewers feeling good about him. Last night, however, he turned nasty, interjecting several insults at Healey, asking her to drop out, and essentially accusing her of having no core beliefs.

Nor did Green-Rainbow Party candidate Grace Ross do herself any favors with a manner that was steeped in sanctimony. As for her complaint of being ignored, is it really such a surprise that the two candidates who actually have a chance to win might want to highlight their differences?

Healey did that fairly effectively with Patrick.

Her view of government as all about safety struck me as thin, though she later amended it to include education.

Still, she did hit tried-and-true Republican themes, conjuring up a return to the days of one-party Democratic control on Beacon Hill that Patrick's election would represent, and claiming that would drive taxes and spending through the roof.

She also repeatedly emphasized her call for returning the state income tax to 5 percent, and played upon the idea that Patrick will be beholden to the unions that are helping his effort. (Despite Patrick's insistence that there will be no quid pro quo involved, it is hard to be a union-backed reformer, particularly in education.)

Healey's gotcha moment of the night was the accusation that Patrick hasn't told the truth in describing himself as a prosecutor, but if one considers Bill Weld, a former US attorney, to have been a prosecutor, that point won't strike you as particularly compelling.

Healey's contention that Patrick can't afford all the spending his programs would require is surely true, the more so since fiscal watchdogs are warning that tight budgets lie ahead.

Yet Patrick is just as correct when he says that Healey, with the tax cut and toll reductions she favors, would have trouble paying for what she has proposed, a point he made pretty effectively. Further, if many of his ideas lack a price tag, as she charges, he at least can say, rightly, that he will have the $700 million in yearly revenue that keeping the income tax rate at 5.3 percent will provide.

For his part, Patrick offered a more interesting philosophy of government as an enterprise whose mission should be to help people help themselves. As he has done in the past, he emphasized the social purpose those retained income-tax revenues can be put to: better roads, better schools, safer neighborhoods.

He was more pointedly on the offensive last night than he has been in the past, highlighting, for example, the Romney administration's embarrassing rehiring of Bechtel on the Big Dig.

Healey's strategy pretty clearly was to push her rival out of the Massachusetts mainstream and to make a vote for him seem not like a leap of faith, but rather a reckless gamble.

Patrick was just as intent on portraying himself as a reasonable, experienced, likable leader, someone who will listen and who can be trusted to guide the state.

In the end, Healey didn't accomplish what she needed to. This was probably her best performance, but Patrick was just as good.

And in the final televised debate, a tie goes to the front-runner.

Scot Lehigh's e-mail address is lehigh@globe.com.