Punditry Aplenty Podcast

Friend, raconteur and wit John Galligan joined us (Mike at least) today. He blogs at The Chimes at Midnight, which blends politics, culture, historical and literary allusions and more.

Lynne had business and Ryan was at the casino hearing at the State House. Check Ryan’s Take for his commentary and expect some observations at Left Ahead! Note that next week we are moving our show from the regular Tuesday to Wednesday, November 4th, to allow comment on the election results.

Listen in below as we plough the state and city fields. With his couple of political-science degrees, John put the Boston councilor and mayor races, as well as the special-election for U.S. Senate, in perspective. He describes the different criteria voters use for candidates for each office.

He has, however, been surprised by U.S. Rep. Mike Capuano’s weak showing in the one debate among Senate candidates. He’s seen him do better. He also was disappointed in Martha Coakley’s performance.

John also suggests that we get accustomed to instant candidates like Steve Pagliuca and Alan Khazei.  From Howard Dean for President and Deval Patrick for our governor, successful online fund-raising and political organizing means we are certain to see more. That means harder choices for voters among candidates who have sidestepped the usual progression in office.

He also offers a perspective on the commonwealth attorney general’s office. It’s the enemies an AG makes in performing duties that keeps her in the office and from moving above and beyond. He figures Martha Coakley is smart to try to get out now.

There was more, including John’s hope that the casino-gambling effort translates into a ballot initiative. He thinks as long as it stays in the State House, it remains below the public view and comment. When it is up for vote, the sides can make their arguments.

We covered quite a bit and had a good time of it. I hope you do too.

icon for podpress  Punditry Aplenty [60:05m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

1 Comment »

  1. Ryan Said,

    October 30, 2009 @ 7:43 pm

    Sorry John and Mike for missing this, but the chimes don’t stop at the podcast. Wished I could have debated that point on casinos. A ballot initiative would get millions of dollars from the casino camp and maybe a couple thousand on the anti casino side. We just don’t have the money to wage a fair fight. We don’t have the money or resources to create an effective ground movement, either, when casinos can just call up the unions and instantly get a ground game.

    If casinos pass, it will go on the ballot after, because the opponents of casinos will then put it on the ballot. I dare say opposition will get more funding that way, because restaurants and other local businesses will stop being so vacant on this issue and finally get involved — but it would still be an uphill climb and would have to be done fast, with many disparate parties. And, of course, casinos would spend even more money that way, because then they’d be fighting to keep slots legal — which is a much safer investment for them to spend millions and millions in a campaign, compared to the ~$750,000 or so they’re spending on lobbyists a year for the past two years.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment