What a disappointment!
Gov and AG candidates take their stands on casinos (or don’t)
david | Mon,
May 19, 2014 12:02 AM
EST
The candidates for Governor and Attorney General are all over the place on
the possibility of a ballot question to undo the casino law this fall. As
today’s helpful
Globe story outlining some of the positions puts it,
*In her capacity as Attorney General, Coakley has already issued a ruling that the question cannot legally be on the ballot; that ruling is on appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court. The usual disclosure: I am part of the legal team challenging her ruling.
**The Globe reports: “Democrat Warren Tolman initially declined to say where he stands on placing the question on the ballot, instead issuing a statement that spoke to his general philosophy on ballot questions. Pressed again for an answer, an aide said Tolman would vote against a repeal but ‘hopes it does get on the ballot.’”
Frankly, I cannot see any plausible reason why any candidate should decline to take a position on either question. Tough to see how the mantle of “bold and gutsy truth-teller” applies to anyone who wouldn’t take a stand.
http://bluemassgroup.com/2014/05/gov-and-ag-candidates-take-their-stands-on-casinos-or-dont/?utm_source=14%2F05%2F19+%28SEIU+509+%2B+Rappaport%29&utm_campaign=20140519ML&utm_medium=email
They position themselves as bold and gutsy truth-tellers. But when asked about the thorny issue of casinos and whether they believe voters should be allowed to repeal the state gambling law, some candidates running for governor and attorney general resort to sidestepping and evasion.In light of this, we thought a visual aid might be helpful. Herewith, a guide to where the candidates stand (at least as of today). On the ballot question, a “yes” vote is a vote to undo the casino law; a “no” vote leaves things as they are now.
The refusal of several candidates of both parties to say whether they support placing a repeal referendum on the ballot in November and how they would vote on that question underscores how fraught the politics of casinos have become in Massachusetts, three years after lawmakers opened the state to Las Vegas-style gambling.
| Candidate | Question should be on the ballot? | How would you vote? |
| Avellone | Yes | No |
| Berwick | Yes | Yes |
| Coakley | No* | No |
| Grossman | ??? | No |
| Kayyem | Yes | No |
| Baker | Yes | ??? |
| Fisher | Yes | Yes |
| Falchuk | Yes | No |
| McCormick | Yes | Yes |
| Healey | Yes | Yes |
| Tolman | Yes-ish** | No |
| Miller | Yes | ??? |
*In her capacity as Attorney General, Coakley has already issued a ruling that the question cannot legally be on the ballot; that ruling is on appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court. The usual disclosure: I am part of the legal team challenging her ruling.
**The Globe reports: “Democrat Warren Tolman initially declined to say where he stands on placing the question on the ballot, instead issuing a statement that spoke to his general philosophy on ballot questions. Pressed again for an answer, an aide said Tolman would vote against a repeal but ‘hopes it does get on the ballot.’”
Frankly, I cannot see any plausible reason why any candidate should decline to take a position on either question. Tough to see how the mantle of “bold and gutsy truth-teller” applies to anyone who wouldn’t take a stand.
http://bluemassgroup.com/2014/05/gov-and-ag-candidates-take-their-stands-on-casinos-or-dont/?utm_source=14%2F05%2F19+%28SEIU+509+%2B+Rappaport%29&utm_campaign=20140519ML&utm_medium=email
No comments:
Post a Comment