Don’t hold your fire

That surprise transition came during the radio debate Thursday between Cahill, Republican Charlie Baker, and Governor Deval Patrick, moderated by WTKK’s Jim Braude and Margery Eagan.

In response to a question about education, Cahill had offered a weak explanation of his evolving position on the state’s decision to agree to adopt federal testing standards in return for $250 million in “Race to The Top’’ cash. Cahill said he had been against the decision but wouldn’t attempt to overturn it as governor. Reversing the decision, he said, isn’t “a fight worth having.’’

Baker, who seems to think this is Patrick’s worst decision since he chose a Cadillac for his official car, answered in a voice that got angrier by the second.

“Why we choose to tie our wagon to some yet-to-be-developed set of federal standards run by some bureaucracy out of Washington makes no sense,’’ he said. “I can’t believe the treasurer said this is a fight that’s not worth having! This is exactly the fight we should be having, and I will fight this!’’

That prompted Cahill’s attempt to lower the temperature: “Calm down, Charlie, calm down.’’

“No, I’m not going to calm down on this!’’ Baker shot back. Then, regaining his composure, he added, “I will try to overturn this.’’

Some immediately jumped to the conclusion that Baker’s “temperament’’ is a problem, if not an impediment. But at least it was an unguarded moment in a campaign surprisingly short on them. And it was a vivid reminder of what really gets Baker hot these days — that Cahill, the potential spoiler, is still in the race.

In the small community of those who knew who Charlie Baker was when he decided to run, the prospect of a Patrick-Baker campaign seemed mouthwatering. Especially enticing was the prospect of debates between these two smart, thoughtful men with such different views of government and the role it should play.

What we’ve gotten instead is a lot of mush about “seats at the table’’ and who should or shouldn’t join the Group Insurance Commission; whether Cape Wind is a “no-bid contract’’; and whether the failure to reach agreement on a casino deal is a damning indictment of one-party rule on Beacon Hill.

Even the debate over educational standards is misleading, in the sense that the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, if it goes away, will be replaced by another high-stakes test that probably won’t be all that different. But at least it was an argument over a genuinely substantive issue.

The point isn’t that campaigns are supposed to offer nonstop excitement; they usually don’t. But you do hope to gain a deeper sense of who the candidates really are and what they stand for and hope to accomplish. And you hope for a campaign that lives up to the true ability of its participants. You hope, in short, for things you aren’t getting this year.

Instead: Patrick is playing defense, insisting that though we live in hard times, he has made “tough decisions’’ based on “values’’ — which has supplanted “hope’’ as his buzzword of choice. Baker, the outsider who isn’t, insists that this is a battle for the future of Massachusetts that he plans to win by tax cuts. Cahill’s buzzword is “jobs,’’ though he is beyond vague on explaining where these jobs are coming from, other than to say that they can result only from cutting taxes.

In the six weeks or so left in this race, I think voters would love to hear how the candidates really plan to deal with the looming $2 billion deficit, how they will bring equality to education, and whether the state’s pension mess can ever be brought under control. No buzzwords or gimmicks or revisionist history, please.

But in the service of substance, gentlemen, feel free to get as mad you want.

We can dream, right?

Adrian Walker is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at walker@globe.com.