District Attorney Dan Conley has never played the political game and that’s why we’ve always liked him. He has stood as his own man since being elected a decade ago and his mayoral campaign was shaping up to be cut from the same cloth.
Until this week.
Conley decided, perhaps against the advice of some his political supporters here, to take a position on the casino debate.
Conley went on the record in support of a citywide referendum vote on a casino at Suffolk Downs instead of standing with the community here and its elected officials to support a ward only, Eastie only referendum.
We don’t know who is advising Conley but they should know–for or against a casino, everyone over here on this side of the tunnel wants Eastie and only Eastie’s voice heard on the issue.
Conley’s waited a long time for his shot at mayor. He knows he needs more than just Eastie to win this thing. He has nearly $1M in his campaign war chest. He’s a hard campaigner and he’s a respected man in many circles and in this community.
However, many East Boston residents are disappointed with his decision to pander to the progressive left, to seem more liberal and to the editorial board at the Boston Globe to gain a possible endorsement.
He’s never pandered and he’s never apologized for not being an uber-liberal.
So why start now?
And why do it at the expense of Eastie and the people that support him here?
Conley’s decision may have more to do with realizing in a crowded field he doesn’t need the community to win and needs bigger voting blocks like Jamaica Plain or West Roxbury to pull out a win.
It’s just a shame Eastie was sacrificed.
View Comments (2)
How is it uber-liberal to think that the same city that receives the money from the casino and has to pay for the burden of the casino should get to vote on the casino? That sounds pretty conservative to me. Letting the city affected vote is the American way. You forgot to mention that Conley said that Eastie should only have a casino if they want it AND the city wants it. Eastie still gets a say, but the city should too. The City of Boston has to provide the policing, fix the roads, take care of the addicts, and the city of Boston gets all of the mitigation payments from the casino too, so why don't they get a choice?
As a proud East Boston resident, I disagree completely with this article. I am glad that Conley is asking for a citywide vote. Requiring two votes,and that both votes must be in favor for a casino to be built, will reduce the chance of a casino being built, and for that reason, I am fully in favor of having two votes. The best thing for East Boston will be not to have a casino. Casinos bring crime, traffic (and resulting pollution and difficulty navigating our own streets), addiction, and other problems. East Boston is a great neighborhood for families, and I'd like it to stay that way--without a casino. I am an East Boston resident--and Conley's declaration made me much more excited about his campaign.