First, the reasons that I’d consider voting for Healey: Healey is the candidate that seems most likely to control state spending. That is a bit of a luke-warm compliment. Neither the current office holder nor the national party leader has demonstrated fiscal restraint. But, at least, she is in favor of rolling back the state income tax to 5%. That’s a point in her favor.

Another point in her favor is that she would mean another four years of a divided government. That appeals to me. When the government is divided new laws are put through the wringer before they are implemented. One-party rule has less questioning and leads to complacency. (Anyone who needs a reminder of this can review Rep. Stephen Lynch’s campaign website).

I approve of Healey’s 50 Points. They are substantive issues, positions that can be debated, refined, and adopted. Patrick would have done well to provide this much substance. I don’t agree with them all (campaign finance, immigration) but think there are some real winners (auto insurance reform, malpractice reform, charter schools, teachers’ merit pay). There are more that I like than I don’t like.

Some of my politically like-minded friends think this is reason enough and are voting for Healey. I gave it a lot of thought, and I can’t.

When I cast my vote, I’m not voting for a party, or even a set of positions. I’m voting for a person. I have to trust that person to be honest, both intellectually and in deed. That trust is what makes it possible for me to disagree with someone and still respect their opinion. It’s what permits reasonable people to disagree but still work together.

Healey’s campaign has not been intellectually honest. I don’t care about the La Guer stuff: Patrick made his own decisions there, and it’s reasonable to ask him to explain them. But the ad about the cop-killer was totally inappropriate. “Lawyers have the right to defend cop killers. . . Do we really want one as our governor?” This is gross pandering. It is an attempt to spread fear, unknown, and doubt without a foundation. Every time I saw that ad I got angrier. It is slime, not substance.

That kind of argument has no place in public discourse. I demand that our leaders lead, and that includes setting a standard of debate. Healey would cry foul if that type of innuendo were aimed at her; she shouldn’t stoop so low herself. She wanted to win; she was willing to try anything; she approved the ad; she showed that she lacks the intellectual honesty to debate on merit. She doesn’t get my vote.