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

Person #2: 4050 Posts

Recommended: 471 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. "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.

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

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

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. "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!

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. "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.

  11. "may have scared someone else off" (2 Replies)

    Who? Seriously, who could the Mass. GOP plausibly have run for that seat? Furthermore, it doesn’t make any sense that the GOP wouldn’t run this hypothetical strong candidate just because Markey has a few bucks in his account. As a partial-term incumbent up for a full term for the first time, he’ll never be more vulnerable than he is right now. And Elizabeth Warren obviously isn’t going anywhere until she wants to.

    There’s a difference between “taking your race for granted” and “not annoying your most reliable supporters by filling their inboxes daily with scary tales of Republican takeovers in Massachusetts that in reality are not going to happen.”

  12. Images (1 Reply)

    Yeah we have a technical problem with the images going on. For now, I’d suggest using another image host – flickr or something like that – and then linking them from there. Sorry for the inconvenience.

  13. It would indeed open the door. (1 Reply)

    The federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) gives federally-recognized tribes the right to set up casinos in states that allow casino gambling. So the state can pass a law authorizing only one commercial casino in Springfield, but once it does so, it cannot prevent additional casinos from springing up under IGRA. There are additional complications such as getting the land taken into trust – the system is anything but straightforward. But, basically, once slot machines are allowed anywhere in Massachusetts, we can look forward to years of litigation relating to the building of tribal casinos.

  14. Well, (2 Replies)

    in the legal sense, once the repeal happens the legislature would have to enact a law rolling back the repeal and authorizing a casino in Springfield. Presumably Coakley or Baker would sign it; presumably Healey would oppose the enactment of that law, but if it were to happen, she’d have no choice but to enforce it, unless she could find some basis for saying it’s unconstitutional.

    In the political sense, time will tell…

  15. "Given another week or two, I think Grossman would have taken it" (2 Replies)

    I doubt it. IMHO Grossman started closing the gap because it was the last week; people started paying attention; and a bunch of undecideds broke Grossman’s way. If the primary cycle were a couple of weeks longer, the same thing would have happened a couple of weeks later. IMHO.

  16. If all committed and leaning Berwick voters instead (5 Replies)

    voted for Grossman, you’re still looking at Coakley ahead 47-38, per the latest Globe poll. And, of course, that is not what would happen. At least some Berwick voters would vote for Coakley, and others would stay home.

    Vote for the candidate you like best on Tuesday. Don’t try to strategize around what other voters might or might not do. That’s a recipe for disappointment.

  17. The "Springfield only" idea (0 Replies)

    has been around for a while from Charlie Baker. Not sure exactly when Coakley first latched onto it. But I have not gotten the impression from anyone that, if the people vote to repeal, restoring Springfield and, say, a Boston-area casino would be on the table.

  18. It would be easier to dismiss that "caricature" (0 Replies)

    if he didn’t, you know, behave the way the caricature would predict…