Comments on: Casino gambling and the Senate race

By: Newshound

Newshound — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:31:24 +0000

Present AG takes a stand for one thing and one thing only: herself. Whatever it is for her own gain.

By: O-FISH-L

O-FISH-L — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:42:58 +0000

Our next US Senator might have to vote on the Dorgan bill, but Khazei doesn’t have to worry about voting on anything in the Senate.

At least his father was a doctor, you know. Nexxxxt.

By: Nial Liszt

Nial Liszt — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:25:16 +0000

**Let’s not forget that the internet gambling bill will probably come up for a vote.**

So it’s not just casino slots that you busybodies want to control? You are also concerned with online wagering on racing (specifically legal in Mass.) and Barney’s efforts on internet poker and sports?

By: Middleboro Remembers

Middleboro Remembers — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:07:57 +0000

Let’s not forget that the internet gambling bill will probably come up for a vote.

What stands out is that our current AG, unlike her predecessors, has failed to take a stand.

By: Newshound

Newshound — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:43:18 +0000

There goes Middleboro because of its short sightedness.

By: Neil

Neil — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:31:14 +0000

“Massachusetts’ next senator could very well have to vote on such legislation.”

Good move by Kaz! The rest will follow, except where union endorsements create a conflict.

By: Newshound

Newshound — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:29:29 +0000

Unlike the Court, politicians prostitute what should be their principles.

By: Gladys Kravitz

Gladys Kravitz — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:52:32 +0000

Not only may a new MA senator be required to consider the Dorgan bill to overturn the Supreme Court’s Carcieri decision, but some senators have been known to take a great deal of money from gambling interests. (I know, you’re shocked.) So, to deny that expanded gambling isn’t a senatorial issue, or to not take a public stand is, as usual, a cop out.