Lisa Field and Larry Quintal to compete for Taunton state rep seat. Who are they.
TAUNTON — The race to fill the state representative seat left vacant by Carol Doherty's passing will be between Lisa Field, a Democrat, and Larry Quintal, a Republican.
Three candidates — Field, Quintal, and Taunton City Councilor Chris Coute — pulled papers to express interest in running for the seat. However, Coute is no longer running for state representative, he told the Gazette, clearing the way for Quintal to run unopposed as a Republican.
Both Quintal and Field appear to have collected more than 150 signatures ahead of an April 1 deadline to submit paperwork to the local elections office. By April 8, the two candidates must submit additional paperwork to the Secretary of State's office before they can appear on the ballot.
A primary election for the 3rd Bristol District seat will be held on Tuesday, May 13, before the general election on Tuesday, June 10.
Doherty, a Taunton Democrat who died on Feb. 15 of pancreatic cancer, represented the 3rd Bristol District, which consists of part of Taunton and part of Easton. Specifically, the district consists of Precincts 4A, 5, and 6 in the south-west part of Easton, and Ward 1 Precincts A, B, Ward 2, Ward 5, Ward 7 and Ward 8 in the west side of Taunton. A special election to fill the seat was announced on March 10.
Quintal, a Republican, is a Taunton City Councilor and co-owner of Silva Funeral Home.
Holly Robichaud, a campaign spokesperson for Quintal, sent the Gazette a written statement describing the issues he would raise on the campaign trail.
"Our state is facing many serious challenges including soaring energy bills, a costly migrant influx, the need for more aid for communities, and a lower tax burden," Quintal said in the written statement. "Taunton and Easton need a State Representative who will fight for them, not the special interests. Having served on the Taunton City Council and being a small business owner, I have the proven track record people know that they can trust."
"Right now, families are being clobbered by soaring energy costs. We need more natural gas in Massachusetts. I will work to make that happen," Quintal said. "Our state has spent over $2 billion to house the migrants and now MassHealth is starting to surge to pay for the migrants. I will support amending the Right to Shelter law to limit taxpayer funded benefits to our legal residents. I believe the money spent on the migrant crisis would have been better spent by sending more local aid back to the communities to lower the property tax burden."
Field is a Taunton Democrat who works for the Massachusetts Nurses Association as an associate director.
Italo Fini, a consultant for Field, sent the Gazette a written statement regarding Field.
"My dear friend Carol Doherty was a true public servant. She left behind a legacy for us to build upon and I plan to do exactly that," Field said in a written statement.
"I know what families in Taunton and Easton are going through because I've lived it: family and friends struggling with substance-use, and the crushing weight of rising costs of living — even losing my home," Field said. "My faith, family, and close friends are what got me through it and I know that together we can overcome anything."
"While many politicians are in it for personal gain, I'm running for State Representative to make sure everyday families have someone in their corner," she said.
With reporting by Daniel Schemer.
This article originally appeared on The Taunton Daily Gazette: Lisa Field, Larry Quintal to compete for Carol Doherty's state rep seat
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump ropes Fed into debt fight as GOP faces fiscal mess
President Trump is pushing the Federal Reserve to go beyond its legal mandate and help him manage the national debt as Republicans face growing pressure over the nation's finances. In a series of remarks and social media posts, Trump has ripped Fed Chair Jerome Powell for refusing to lower interest rates, insisting he should help the White House manage the costs of servicing more than $36 trillion in national debt. ''Too Late' Jerome Powell is costing our Country Hundreds of Billions of Dollars. He is truly one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government, and the Fed Board is complicit,' Trump wrote Thursday on Truth Social, a day after the Fed held rates steady. While Trump has spent most of his two White House stints berating Powell to cut rates, only recently has he tied those demands to the country's deteriorating fiscal health. 'We're beginning to see what I think are the early warning signs that the Fed is going to be increasingly called upon to keep the government solvent,' said David Beckworth, senior research fellow and monetary policy director at the Mercatus Center, a libertarian-leaning think tank at George Mason University. 'When you begin to see this type of rhetoric, it's a clear sign that people are beginning to get nervous,' Beckworth explained. 'And how else can we save money? Well, let's turn into the Fed and put pressure on them.' Trump's escalating pressure on Powell over the national debt comes as he and Republicans stand to add trillions of dollars to it through a major tax-cut bill. Republican lawmakers are attempting to find common ground on what Trump has called his 'big, beautiful bill.' The legislation features an extension of his 2017 tax cuts, additional cuts the president proposed during the 2024 campaign, and steep cuts to social safety net programs. While GOP lawmakers claim the bill would help solve the country's fiscal woes, a range of ideologically diverse analysts forecast the bill to add anywhere between $2 trillion to nearly $4 trillion to the national debt. At the same time, Trump is attempting to secure GOP support to raise the debt ceiling before the Treasury Department runs out of ways to avoid a default — a deadline that could come as soon as August. Trump is 'kind of speaking out of both sides of his mouth,' said Dan Alpert, managing partner at investment firm Westwood Capital 'He's got this enormous, $3.5 trillion dollar continuation of a tax cut from his first term that he wants to get across the line,' Alpert added. Republican lawmakers have argued that such estimates don't take into account the economic growth unlocked by lower tax rates, which they say would help narrow deficits over time. But the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that even when accounting for growth impacts, the bill would still add $3.3 trillion to the debt over the next ten years — more than the CBO projected without considering the preferred GOP scoring. 'The fundamental issue is we have a Congress and a president who cannot bring the budget deficit under control,' Beckworth said. While both Republicans and Democrats are to blame, he added, 'for a party that has claimed historically it is concerned about their debt burden, it is going to blow things up even more.' Trump's efforts to push the Fed into managing the debt mark a significant break from more than 70 years of federal economic policy. During World War I and II, the Fed yielded to pressure from presidential administrations to keep interest rates low and ease the burden of the rising debt. While that practice extended for nearly a decade after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Fed and Treasury eventually reached an agreement in 1951, setting the stage for the next seven decades of economic management. 'The purpose of the 'accord' was to make Treasury manage its debt, rather than expecting the Fed to 'monetize' it. In turn, the Fed asserted its control of monetary policy via the setting of interest rates to meet congressional mandates for price stability and maximizing employment,' said Sarah Binder, political science professor at George Washington University and co-author of 'The Myth of Independence: How Congress Governs the Federal Reserve.' The Fed has since avoided anything that could be considered financing the federal debt while sticking to its 'dual mandate' of balancing unemployment and inflation. And while several presidents have verbally pressured the Fed to keep rates low since 1951, none has made a formal move to limit its legal authority over monetary policy. 'Based on most concepts of 'independent' monetary policy, the central bank shouldn't be monetizing the debt. That is, it shouldn't be taking the administration's financing needs into account when it aims to meet its mandates,' Binder said. 'Those mandates are price stability and strong labor markets,' she added. 'Congress has not given the Fed an additional mandate to make it easier for the Treasury to finance its debt.' But Trump could be laying the groundwork for a shift toward a 'fiscal dominance' regime, Beckworth warned, in which the Fed would be forced to clean up the government's fiscal mess and abandon the bank's legal obligation to keep prices stable and unemployment low. 'Maybe we're not there yet, but we're getting close,' Beckworth said. 'If they push, push, push, and then at some point, the Fed loses independence … and it's no longer able to control inflation.' Trump griped Wednesday, hours before the Fed's latest hold, that he was unable to sway Powell into making major interest rate reductions. 'He's not a smart person,' Trump said of Powell. 'I think he hates me, but that's OK, you know, he should. He should. I call him every name in the book to get him to do something.' Powell brushed off several questions Wednesday about Trump's attacks and the potential debt impact of the president's agenda, but has implored the White House and Congress throughout his time as Fed chief to get the nation's finances on a sustainable track. Trump will be able to add 'former Chair' to his list of names for Powell come 2026, when his four-year term leading the Fed board lapses. Whomever Trump nominates to succeed Powell will almost certainly be more aligned with the president's thinking and face an easy path to confirmation in a GOP-controlled Senate. Even so, Powell is but one of 12 Fed officials on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) who vote to set interest rates — all of whom voted to keep borrowing costs steady Wednesday. 'Even if you got rid of Powell, you'd have to remake the FOMC with yes-men,' Beckworth said. Powell could also choose to stay on as a member of the Fed board through 2028. That would be an usual move for a former Fed chair, but Powell has not ruled it out. 'Powell has not budged, and the FOMC has not budged despite Trump's incessant ranting and pressure and whatever else he can throw at them,' Beckworth said. 'They're still sticking to their guns.'
Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
Trump Got This One Right
'Why are the wrong people doing the right thing?' Henry Kissinger is supposed to have once asked, in a moment of statesman-like perplexity. That question recurred as Donald Trump, backed by a visibly perturbed vice president and two uneasy Cabinet secretaries, announced that the United States had just bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. It is a matter of consternation for all the right people, who, as Kissinger well knew, are often enough dead wrong. The brute fact is that Trump, more than any other president, Republican or Democrat, has taken decisive action against one of the two most dangerous nuclear programs in the world (the other being North Korea's). The Iranian government has for a generation not only spewed hatred at the United States and Israel, and at the West generally, but committed and abetted terrorism throughout the Middle East and as far as Europe and Latin America. Every day, its drones deliver death to Ukrainian cities. The Iranian government is a deeply hostile regime that has brought misery to many. A nuclear-armed Iran might very well have used a nuclear weapon against Israel, which is, as one former Iranian president repeatedly declared, 'a one-bomb country.' Because Israel might well have attempted to forestall such a blow with a preemptive nuclear strike of its own, the question is more likely when an Iranian bomb would have triggered the use of nuclear weapons, not whether it would have done so. But even without that apocalyptic possibility, a nuclear-armed Iran would have its own umbrella of deterrence to continue the terror and subversion with which it has persecuted its neighbors. There is no reason to think the regime has any desire to moderate those tendencies. In his address to the nation on Saturday night, Trump was right to speak—and to speak with what sounded like unfeigned fury—about the American servicemen and servicewomen maimed and killed by Iranian IEDs in Iraq. It was no less than the truth. Shame on his predecessors for not being willing to say so publicly. When someone is killing your men and women, a commander in chief is supposed to say—and, more important, do—something about it. Trump was also right in making this a precise, limited use of force while holding more in reserve. Israel has done the heavy lifting here, but he has contributed an essential element—and no more. He was right as well (for the strikes were indeed an act of war) to threaten far worse punishment if Iran attempts to retaliate. The rush in many quarters—including right-wing isolationists and anguished progressives—to conjure up prospects of a war that will engulf the Middle East reflected their emotions rather than any analytic judgment. Iran, it cannot be said often enough, is a weak state. Its air defenses no longer exist. Its security apparatus has been thoroughly penetrated by Israeli, American, and other intelligence agencies. Its finances are a wreck and its people are hostile to their rulers. For that matter, anyone who has served in uniform in the Middle East during the past few decades knows that Iran has consistently conducted low-level war against the United States through its proxies. Could Iran attempt to attack shipping in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz? Yes—and members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy would die in large numbers in their speedboats or in their bases as they prepared to do so. The United States and its allies have prepared for that scenario for a long time, and Iranian sailors' desire for martyrdom has been overstated. Could Iran try to launch terror attacks abroad? Yes, but the idea that there is a broad silent network of Iranian terrorists just waiting for the signal to strike is chimerical. And remember, Iran's nuclear fangs have been pulled. True enough, not permanently, as many of the president's critics have already earnestly pointed out on television. But so much of that kind of commentary is pseudo-sophistication: Almost no strategic problem gets solved permanently, unless you are Rome dealing with Carthage in the Third Punic War, destroying the city, slaughtering its inhabitants, and sowing the furrows with salt. For some period—five years, maybe 10—Iran will not have a nuclear option. Its key facilities are smashed and its key scientists dead or living in fear of their lives. Similar complaints were made about the Israeli strike on the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981. The Israelis expected to delay the Iraqi program by no more than a year or two—but instead, the program was deferred indefinitely. As things go, crushing the facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, following a sustained Israeli campaign against similar targets, was a major achievement, and a problem deferred for five years may be deferred forever. As for Iran, in 1988 Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini agreed to 'drink from the poisoned chalice' and accept a cease-fire with Iraq. He did so because the Iraq war was going badly, but also because he believed that the United States was willing to fight Iran: Operation Praying Mantis in 1988, following a mine explosion that damaged an American warship, involved the U.S. Navy sinking Iranian warships and destroying Iran's military installations. In 2003, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran reportedly paused its nuclear program. When American forces in Iraq finally picked up five elite Quds Force members in 2007, the Iranians pulled back from their activities in Iraq as well. The killing of Qassem Soleimani in 2020 elicited only one feeble spasm of violence. The bottom line is that Iran's leaders do not relish the idea of tackling the United States directly, and that is because they are not fools. The president is an easy man to hate. He has done many bad things: undermining the rule of law, sabotaging American universities, inflicting wanton cruelty on illegal immigrants, lying, and engaging in corruption. With his fractured syntax and diction (including the peculiar signature 'Thank you for your attention to this matter' at the end of his more bombastic posts on Truth Social) he is easy to dismiss as a huckster. The sycophancy and boastfulness of his subordinates, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth when briefing the attack, are distasteful. But contempt and animosity, justified in some cases, are bad ways of getting into his mind and assessing his actions. Trump has surprised both friends and critics here. The isolationist wing of the MAGA movement was smacked down, although its members probably include the vice president and top media figures such as Tucker Carlson. Trump has confounded the posters of TACO ('Trump always chickens out') memes. He has disproved the notion that he takes his marching orders directly from the Kremlin, for the strikes were not in Russia's interest. He has left prominent progressives, including a dwindling band of Israel supporters, confused, bleating about war-powers resolutions that were deemed unnecessary when the Obama administration began bombing Libya. We live in a dangerous world, and one that is going to get more so—and indeed, in other respects worsened by the president's policies. But Trump got this one right, doing what his predecessors lacked the intestinal fortitude (or, to be fair, the promising opportunity) to do. He spoke with the brutal clarity needed in dealing with a cruel and dangerous regime. The world is a better place for this action and I, for one, applaud him for it.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trump ignites debate on presidential authority with Iran strikes and wins praise from Republicans
The instant divisions in the U.S. Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president's ability to conduct such a consequential action without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. While Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to go it alone, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,' said Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Advertisement Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional, and demanded more information in a classified setting. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that he received only a 'perfunctory notification' without any details, according to a spokesperson. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in a statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity.' Advertisement House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that Trump 'misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' The quick GOP endorsements of stepped up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump publicly considered the strikes for days and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party's schism over Iran could complicate the GOP's efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350 billion national security package in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax breaks bill, which is speeding toward votes next week. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,' Wicker posted on X. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune both were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes.' Advertisement Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including some of Trump's most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America's 'forever wars.' Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that 'while President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, also posted on X that 'This is not Constitutional.' 'This is not our fight,' said Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch's constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action. Kaine said the bombings were 'horrible judgment.' 'I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,' Kaine said. Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that 'new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.' 'Then they sent other people's children to fight and die endlessly,' Casar said. 'Enough.'
