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

Person #2: 4040 Posts

Recommended: 469 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. I had exactly the same thought this morning. (3 Replies)

    Endorsing a guy who probably won’t win the primary, and in the process setting out all the reasons why Coakley isn’t a good candidate, sets them up perfectly to endorse Baker in the general. I’d say the odds are better than even that they’ll do just that, if Coakley wins the primary.

  2. As you will no doubt recall, (1 Reply)

    the LG positions on the casino repeal were first (I think) set out here on BMG three months ago!

  3. Yeah, actually, it was the Healey campaign (0 Replies)

    that sent out the Walz email. So I stand corrected. This is the text:

    Dear Friends,

    “Unbecoming.” It means unattractive, indecorous. It’s not a word you hear men on Beacon Hill use about each other.

    But that’s the word Warren Tolman used during today’s Boston Globe debate when Maura asked him to shed light on his hedge fund work, his online gambling company, and his work as a lobbyist.

    Rather than answer the question, he said, “Maura, it’s just unbecoming.”

    That’s right. “Unbecoming.”

    As a prosecutor and a civil rights attorney, Maura understands that tough questions are how you get at the truth.

    Can you join me in making a donation to keep Maura’s fight going?

    Calling a woman “unbecoming” just because she’s asking tough questions is demeaning, sexist, and certainly no way to celebrate Women’s Equality Day.

    I, for one, won’t stand for that. I hope you won’t either!


    Marty Walz
    President, Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts

  4. The fundraising email you reference (2 Replies)

    came, I believe, from EMILY’s List, not from the Healey campaign. I thought it was a bit over the top, but I’m not going to post every annoying third-party email – I’d never get to post anything else!

  5. I'm no fan of Brown or Palin, (1 Reply)

    but there’s no denying that they’ve both won a bunch of elections, and that a lot of people like them.

    The point of a campaign is to win. There are lots of theories as to how best to do that, but the ultimate goal has to be to win. If it’s not, there is no point in going through the exercise. Healey has made the judgment that her basketball background will help her win, and I think she’s right. So it’s very hard for me to fault her for talking about it.

  6. I disagree. (1 Reply)

    I think it’s very smart politics. Bear in mind that most people seeing this ad on TV probably have no idea who either she or Warren Tolman is. It’s a relatively small part of the 30-second ad, but it’s also a cool part of her story, and I can’t see why she would shy away from it.

  7. Everything sent out under his name (0 Replies)

    reflects on him, IMHO. So if I’m an undecided, or just-tuning-in voter, and I see something like this, it makes me wonder whether he’s really someone I should support. That’s why I care. (In addition to the fact that I resent the pollution of my inbox.)

  8. It's true ... and yet, (1 Reply)

    this Tierney one really is in a class by itself. I couldn’t even do it full justice because I couldn’t get the gigantic font for “NO WAY” and “ASTRONOMICAL” and “WOW” to reproduce on the blog.

  9. Just to clarify, (1 Reply)

    I believe the contract in question was between Mohegan Sun and the landowner in Palmer, who was a private entity (not the town of Palmer itself, or the Commonwealth). But I do agree that if MH was in breach, any harm would have been to the non-breaching party.

  10. Unduly harsh, IMHO. (2 Replies)

    I know you’re a strong Tolman backer, but your anti-Healeyism is getting a little shrill. Of course the Governor’s bully pulpit and ability to influence the legislature is bigger; that doesn’t mean the AG shouldn’t use the pulpit that’s available – indeed, a big part of Tolman’s campaign is that he’d be better at doing exactly that. And the charge that Healey “flip flopped” on casinos, simply because Coakley favors them, is AFAIK baseless. While Healey was working for Coakley, it would obviously have been inappropriate for her to take a public position on the issue, especially one at odds with the one Coakley’s office had taken.

    I agree that the issues relating to Ferguson give both candidates an opportunity to stand out. A big question, to me, is whether either of them is willing to piss off the police unions by seriously questioning over-militarization. No strong indication yet from either candidate that they are, though Healey’s statement that she backs Obama’s review of the issue is a small step in that direction.

  11. Huh? (1 Reply)

    What does irreparable harm have to do with whether or not MH breached its contractual obligations? Sure, MH might have lost out on a nice opportunity by sticking to the contract’s terms, but a contract’s a contract. The unexpected appearance of a more lucrative option doesn’t excuse contract performance. At least, not where I’m from.

    Damages are a different and more interesting question. Apparently, the Palmer guy’s accusations include MH’s running an intentionally lousy referendum campaign, which might go to a “best efforts” clause that the contract might (or might not – I haven’t read it) contain. Again, I assume the courts will sort this out.

  12. The City of Everett isn't a private party. (1 Reply)

    DeMaria was proposing to use the city’s eminent domain power to take the parcel, and then essentially resell it to Wynn. To avoid a Kelo-type problem, he’d have to do it under the guise of “urban renewal” or some such charade. Stranger things have happened.

  13. I suppose the courts will decide that. (1 Reply)

    But the vote was very close, and winning a recount was not out of the question. So “impossibility” strikes me as a weak argument.

  14. Hardly. (2 Replies)

    Casinos are the biggest public policy issue separating the Democratic candidates for Governor and Attorney General. Irrelevant? Nonsense. No, the AG doesn’t have authority over whether or not we have casinos here. But the Governor has no direct authority over, for example, whether the state Constitution should be amended to bar same-sex marriage, yet I can’t imagine you’d deem that “irrelevant” to your decision as to whom to support.

    As for Ferguson, I agree that I’d like to hear a few more specifics from Healey. And I’d like to hear anything at all on that subject from Tolman – I sent exactly the same invitation to him, via Twitter and email, that I sent to Healey, but have heard nothing back.

  15. I would just like to nominate (1 Reply)

    “lefislarure” as perhaps the finest typo ever to appear on BMG. :D

  16. "He isn’t afraid to go after anyone who is abusing their power or exploiting the vulnerable." (1 Reply)

    So ironic that he nonetheless opposes repealing the casino law… just sayin’.

  17. Agreed. (0 Replies)

    If 2014 starts looking anything like 2010, the media will go insane, and she’ll have a hard time containing the frenzy.

  18. Yeah, but consider the context. (5 Replies)

    Bill Weld won in 1990 against the worst Democratic candidate for Governor in modern times (John Silber), with the help of many Democrats who voted for the guy who wasn’t Silber. Weld won again in 1994 against a sacrificial lamb. And Paul Cellucci, by then effectively the incumbent after Weld bailed, won in 1998 against a lackluster campaign by Scott Harshbarger who (like so many others) failed to make the AG-to-Governor transition. Romney/O’Brien was closer to a fair fight, but even that race seemed determined more by O’Brien’s unfortunate commentary on minors and abortion than a statewide devotion to tax cuts. Though I suppose the last point is evidence for the proposition that a single debate can dramatically change the tenor of a race!