Capital observations

Time is short this morning, so just a couple of quick observations from today’s Globe’s “Capital” section:

• The section includes a “roundup” of chit-chat from various observers about the People’s Pledge, including quotes from Globe columnist Joanna Weiss and from my initial response to her column.  Always nice to know that people are reading.
• In a little feature called “Decoder,” there’s a big graphic of a quote from the SJC’s casino opinion with the words “wholly inconsistent” circled in red, and the item itself is entitled “Wholly inconsistent.”  The “translation,” by Alan Wirzbicki, explains that the Court used that phrase (among others) to deliver a “smackdown” to Attorney General Martha Coakley’s position.  Problem: it didn’t.  The “wholly inconsistent” language appears in a section of the opinion rejecting an argument that Coakley’s office also rejected (the argument was raised by private parties who intervened in the case).  It is true, as Wirzbicki notes, that other, fairly strong language (such as “fundamentally flawed” and “departure from common sense”) was used to describe Coakley’s position, and “smackdown” might fairly be applied there as well.  But reporters pulling short phrases out of court opinions – itself always risky business – ought to take more care that they’re at least pulling the phrases from the right section of the opinion.
• This morning’s weekly poll (kudos, again, to the Globe for investing in so much polling) again shows Martha Coakley with a commanding lead in the primary (she’s still got an absolutely majority at 52%, distantly followed by Steve Grossman at 19% and Berwick at 8%, with 21% undecided; MOE=+/-4.9%).  It seems reasonably clear at this point that there has been no convention “bump” of any real significance for either Grossman or Berwick (which does not surprise me at all), and that the hill they have to climb to get within striking distance of Coakley is steep indeed.
• The polling on the Olympics finds support for a Boston Olympics barely in positive territory (47/43), but support for using tax dollars to pay for it extremely unpopular (25/64).  So, there you have it.
• In the print version, this full-page ad appears on p. D3 (click for larger).  A wise use of campaign resources?  You make the call.
• Finally, this isn’t specifically from the Capital section, but I couldn’t help noticing that the same Joanna Weiss who opposes People’s Pledges and instead prefers “a rollicking, multi-way conversation, where everyone has a voice,” and who generally “support[s] more speech/discourse, not less,” apparently doesn’t think those principles apply outside abortion clinics.  Of course, the two situations are not precisely analogous, and I’m not saying they are.  But I am saying that people who take close-to-absolute positions when it comes to the regulation of political speech need to realize that that general position has consequences in other arenas where they may not like the results.

Please share widely!

0

0