Opera singer, blogger, lawyer. You can reach me by email at david [at] bluemassgroup [dot] com.

Person #2: 4053 Posts

Recommended: 474 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. And another thing: (0 Replies)

    the number is $145,000, not $145,OOO. WTF.

  2. "If any of these resort casinos fail, it won’t be taxpayers who pay the tab, it will be the business owners." (0 Replies)

    That probably won’t turn out to be true. Businesses – at least businesses the size of these casinos – don’t just fail. They struggle; they fail to meet expectations; they ask for help from the state; a strapped state, anxious about revenue targets and not sure what else to do, obliges; lather, rinse, repeat; then finally the business fails, after consuming a bunch of futile taxpayer-funded bailouts of various kinds.

  3. It's definitely in the top 2 or 3. (2 Replies)

    And it might be the longest ever. Unfortunately there is no way to check.

  4. Yeah, I understand that. (0 Replies)

    Perhaps my verbiage was a tad imprecise. My point is that if both polls are an exact reflection of where the entire electorate is over the stated polling days, then there’s been a big swing in the electorate in a very few days. And that seems unlikely – much more likely is that the difference reflects different pollsters and different methodologies, as you have observed.

  5. Unlikely - (0 Replies)

    that incident happened after these polls were completed. If it had any impact, we should see it in next week’s polling.

  6. Edited to comply with fair use. (0 Replies)

    The full piece is available at the link.

  7. This is why context matters so much, MG. (4 Replies)

    In your exact hypothetical, no, I think probably no offense would be taken. But if the coach says to that one kid, “go get ‘em, boy,” it’s much more dangerous territory – especially if, contrary to Christopher’s assumption, we’re dealing with adults.

    Similarly with “sweetheart.” Obviously, “sweetheart” is not an inherently derogatory term like the n-word or the b- or c-word. But when used in the wrong context (as it was by Baker), it takes on a whole lot of baggage.

    It was a very stupid mistake by Baker – as the national attention his gaffe has received clearly shows – and one that you’d think someone who has already run a statewide campaign would know how to avoid. Apparently not.

  8. Not in the legislative branch. (0 Replies)

    AFAIK, the legislature relies on the House and Senate Ways and Means Committees to do that sort of thing. As I recall, the Gov’s office has a budget bureau within A&F that carries out functions similar to some of what OMB does.

  9. "unless Coakley can spin this one answer into a series of compelling attack ads, it’s unlikely." (1 Reply)

    You might well be right about that. Imagine, however, that Goodell actually does end up resigning or being fired before election day. Then the ad writes itself, and could be quite powerful.

  10. Not expecting more than that from politicians (0 Replies)

    is what gets us to the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in today.

  11. Furthermore, (1 Reply)

    a lot of Americans do have an opinion on this topic.

    Per an @NBC poll, Americans disapprove 2-to-1 of the way @NFL has handled domestic violence incidents involving its players

    Regardless of how well-founded the average American’s opinion is, there’s no way a candidate for statewide office can try to beg off this one the way Baker did.

  12. It's his job (0 Replies)

    as a candidate for major statewide office to speak intelligently about hot topics in the news that plausibly relate to any major public policy issue, and this NFL business without question falls into that category. Politics ain’t beanbag, and running for Governor is hard work.

  13. "has nothing to do with the office he seeks" (1 Reply)

    All due respect, Christopher, that is dead wrong. When Paul Cellucci was Governor, he made domestic violence a priority, and he did a lot to raise awareness and also changed some laws for the better (full disclosure: I was involved in some of those efforts as his Deputy Legal Counsel). And asking a candidate for a major statewide office about a story that has been extensively reported in the press for the last couple of weeks is hardly a “gotcha.”

    Running for Governor is different from running for Treasurer or Attorney General. The portfolio is extremely broad; almost no public policy issue “has nothing to do with the office he seeks,” and there is no excuse for a candidate for that kind office to take a “no comment” attitude on issues like Ray Rice and the NFL. Especially because Baker is a self-professed football fan!

  14. Can anyone recall (1 Reply)

    the Globe turning over its op-ed page to anyone for a 5-part series before? And if not … so, really, Alan Dershowitz was the first person in history whose stuff to say was so important that he needed 5 Globe op-eds to say it?

    Methinks not.

  15. Well, (1 Reply)

    one of the relatively few times BMG has actually broken news was when we reported during the 2009 Senate primary that Coakley fully reaffirmed her long-held position on the Amirault saga. “I, as Middlesex District Attorney, opposed his commutation, and I stand by that decision to this day.”

    Coakley owns the Amirault business – no getting around that.

  16. Citizens United (1 Reply)

    applies here just like it applies to the rest of the country, which means that states can no longer prevent SuperPACs from freely operating in state elections. They still can’t give directly to campaigns, but there is assuredly a lot more money sloshing around this time than in the past.

  17. To further clarify, (2 Replies)

    both Berwick and Steve Grossman endorsed Coakley at a Democratic unity event immediately after the primary. That was pretty much required – if Berwick or Grossman hadn’t shown up at that, it would have sent a strong signal. But to my knowledge, Grossman hasn’t send anything to his email list about Coakley yet; Berwick just did. And Grossman is certainly more of a party guy than Berwick is.

  18. "Mr. Berwick is forced to perform the same uncomfortable acts after a primary loss" (1 Reply)

    This is what I don’t understand. Like I said, I doubt Berwick is running for anything in the near future. So how can he be “forced” to back a candidate he doesn’t genuinely support? What could the party possibly hold over him, if he’s not interested in running again?

    I mean, maybe I’m wrong and he’s planning to run for state Senate next year. But I have to say, I seriously doubt it.