A majority of Thursday night’s discussion concerned the issue of affordability in the state. As Rep. Nguyen said, “People cannot begin to tackle the larger issues of politics if they cannot put food on the table or keep a roof over their heads.”

Signs of division between the candidates began to manifest as candidates argued over the root cause of this issue of affordability. Candidates wrestled with how much responsibility the Trump Administration bears over the affordability crisis: “Tariffs are shoring up all of our household costs,” said Belsito. “They are hamstringing every single one of us.”

Other candidates diverged stating that the issues of affordability in Massachusetts have existed long before the Trump Administration. All candidates shared concern over the rising number of individuals in the state that are being priced out of the housing market. Progressive candidates at the debate shifted the focus away from the federal level and spoke to solutions within the state: “It’s quite simple to me,” said Andres-Beck. “We need to build more housing. Other candidates rightfully point out that capitalism is the problem but plan to solve it with more capitalism.”

Fellow progressive Belsito resumed focus on the federal government and the misuse of American tax dollars: “You cannot try and tell me we don’t have the money we need for our towns while our country spends billions in wars overseas.”

Candidates spent significant time discussing international conflict as the war in Iran loomed in the background. Yet again, stark lines were drawn between candidates. Beccia resounded that: “The Trump approach is the largest issue on the international stage. We are laughing stocks currently. How the administration has handled international affairs without congressional consent.”

Beccia went on to strike a moderate tone on international issues: “I believe that Israel is an important ally to the US, but I believe in a two-state solution, and that there is a true humanitarian crisis in Gaza. I believe we need to prevent Iran from having access to nuclear weapons, but our action needs to be approved by congress. We cannot continue to be governed by executive order.”

Other candidates struck a different tone: “We must reestablish our leadership on the international stage,” said Lancaster. “Both Biden and Trump have been found to be in gross violation of the Leahy Laws by continuing to fund Israel’s human rights abuses. We must revoke the 2002 authorization made under the Bush administration, which this funding of atrocity is built upon.”

“As an American and as a mother I am embarrassed,” said Belsito. “We are watching a genocide play out in live time on our Instagram feeds. I am done with conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. To the Jewish people in our community, you have an ally in me, and I will protect you, just as I will protect our Muslim neighbors and our Christian neighbors.”

Andres-Beck realigned the conversation: “We aren’t even talking about how we are blocking oil from entering Cuba and essentially cut off electricity to those in the country, because it is the third major world conflict we are embroiled in.”

Rep. Nguyen reinforced her fellow candidates points about the need to recognize the conflict in Gaza as a genocide and the US Government’s complicity in human rights abuses across the globe adding, “Congress is not using all the tools at its disposal to combat this administration.”

This led to the candidates debating the role bipartisanship should play in their platform. Koh reasserted his position as an “aggressive and ambitious” fighter against the Trump agenda, while stressing the need for bipartisanship in said fight: “I am willing to work with anyone who is willing to work with me,” he said.

This brought the debate to its most pointed criticism as Belsito commented on the funding of Koh’s campaign by his father, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health, Howard Koh.

Koh deflected this criticism by stating that attacking his family was “far over the line.”

All candidates agreed that representation in government was affected by the hurdles of wealth and resources. Progressive candidates Belsito, Lancaster and Nguyen utilized this distinction in funding to set themselves apart from candidates Koh and Beccia, who represented a class of political candidates alienated from the middle class.

Lancaster continued to differentiate herself from the other candidates, citing her experience as a Congressional aide, stating that, as the only candidate with congressional experience, she has the tools to build a coalition as a freshman representative; a claim that was disputed by Koh who served as a White House aide in the Biden administration.

“Democrats are angry. They have every right to be, but we need to move beyond the message of just fighting Trump,” said Beccia, stating the need to reach across the aisle in order to deliver for American people.

Andres-Beck concluded the conversation on bipartisanship by speaking to their experience as a transgender American, citing how trans people’s existence has become a political positioning tool: “We believe people when they tell us who they are,” they said. “We believe in redemption but we also believe in accountability.”

Andres-Beck priority on accountability came into focus during the lightning round of the debate; when asked if ICE should continue to exist they gave the simple answer: “No, and they should be prosecuted.”

The lightning round concluded the night, bringing levity to the evening, as all six candidates attempted to resonate with voters on less controversial issues like best Massachusetts sports team and best place to eat in the district.

After 90 minutes of debate, the candidates were given an enthusiastic round of applause as their campaigns will continue, leading up to the primary in September.

Full article here