TPMDC

Massachusetts State Senate Passes Appointment Bill For Kennedy's Seat

Eric Kleefeld | September 22, 2009, 2:52PM

The Late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA)

Read More

Deval Patrick, MA-SEN, Mike Dukakis, Ted Kennedy

Share

Fark

Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

The Massachusetts state Senate has passed the bill to provide for a temporary appointment to Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, voting by a 24-16 margin. Gov. Deval Patrick is expected to name an appointee by the end of the week, putting Democrats back at 60 seats.

Until 2004, state law had provided for a gubernatorial appointee who would hold the office until the next regular Congressional election. State Democrats changed the process to a special election with no appointment in 2004, when John Kerry was running for president and Republican Mitt Romney was governor.

The new law, which was requested by Kennedy shortly before his death, will provide for an appointee of the same party as the departing Senator, who will be expected to not run in the expedited special election. Former Gov. Mike Dukakis, the 1988 Democratic nominee for president, is widely viewed as the favorite for the appointment.

Other Stories Featured at TPMDC

The Salahi-Obama Meeting

Friends In High Places: The Salahis And The Famous People They Take Pictures With

From Dollars To Death Panels: How Republicans Distorted Debates On Capitol Hill

Top 10 Wild And Wacky Political Voices -- For Whom We're All Very Thankful

Join the Conversation!

71 comments

Recommend Recommend (2)

September 22, 2009 2:55 PM

I know Democrats think this is a good development, but in terms of democracy as a whole, it stinks. Whimsical legislation is not healthy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

September 22, 2009 2:59 PM in reply to Schmed

The fact of partisan motivation does not automatically make this a bad thing. Of all the possible ways to fill Senate vacancies, this is probably the best - a temporary appointment followed by a special election as soon as practical.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 3:07 PM in reply to mans_best_friend

I don't see how partisan motivation makes it a good thing. It's a naked power grab wrapped up in temporal exigencies. This could have been done honestly and forthrightly when the law was changed when Kerry ran for president. Now that it suits the Democrats, it becomes "the right thing to do."

Questionable motives contaminate the end result.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

LarsThorwald

September 22, 2009 3:22 PM in reply to Schmed

It is not a power grab if you already have the power.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 4:51 PM in reply to LarsThorwald

It's a grab if you perceive it slipping from your grasp.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 3:25 PM in reply to Schmed

Power "Grab??"

I don't think so. Just look at the ratio of Dems to Repubs in the state of Massachusetts at all levels.

Ma Gov, Lt Gov(elected seperatly): Both Dems
Atty Gen: Dem
Stae Treasurer: Dem
MA state house: 141 Dems, 19 Repubs
Ma state senate: 35 Dems, 5 Repubs
MA US senators: Both elected Dem (We'll miss you Teddy)
MA US congress: All 10 Dems

a power Grab? Seems to me like its the clear will of the voters to represented in washington by Democrats.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 4:57 PM in reply to _jonny_5_

If everything is hunky dory, there was no need to change the law at the last minute.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 5:15 PM in reply to Schmed

Being down a senator at a pivotal time in the legislative process regarding healthcare is not "Hunky dory".

All that the legislature did in 2004 as well as now in 2009 is exacly what the residents and voters of MA wanted then and now, to be represented in washington (at full force) by democrats.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jason everett miller

September 23, 2009 6:42 AM in reply to _jonny_5_

Changing the laws to suit partisan needs is not just, regardless of which party does it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 23, 2009 8:41 AM in reply to jason everett miller

Would subverting the will of the voters be just?
Their preferences in MA are compellingly clear.
(Compelling = 100% D representation in Congress - not simply a vast majority)

This, of course, elides the possibility that there are constitutional issues with the legislation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jason everett miller

September 23, 2009 5:03 PM in reply to kenga

All I am saying is that the law was changed to its current form when it suited the democratic party in Massachusetts and will now be changed back now that it is inconvenient.

It may be perfectly legal while still leaving them open to charges of hypocrisy. Look at it his way, if the situation were reversed and happening in a red state, democrats would be screaming bloody hell.

Personally, I don't care because I don't live there and think health care reform of some sort will pass regardless of a senator being appointed to fill that seat.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

September 22, 2009 4:01 PM in reply to Schmed

It's the best way of filling Senate vacancies. Period. Good or bad motives don't change that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 4:54 PM in reply to mans_best_friend

"Best" until something "better" (i.e. more advantageous) comes along. Motivation has some legal weight (according to the lawyers I know, at least).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

September 22, 2009 5:28 PM in reply to Schmed

Actually, I suspect the lawyers you know might tell you that motivation is relevant to some issues, but is rather beside the point when the matter at hand is a political question committed to the political branches of government.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 7:32 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

I suspect that motive is pretty relevant when it comes to playing games with the state constitution.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 23, 2009 1:59 AM in reply to Schmed

Democrats should take the high road, cause the goopers did it in Minnesota with Franken. This is politics, not beanbag.
At least the Dems have a good excuse. Their guy died and there really IS critical legislation that will die without this anti-filibuster vote.
Goopers are just grave robbing, here.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 23, 2009 12:22 PM in reply to peterboy

Two wrongs make a right, of course.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Walter Mitty

September 22, 2009 3:02 PM in reply to Schmed

I agree. Not that is dislike the end result as it seems more fair than the typical Governor appointee. I believe this mirrors the Texas set-up. This is much more democratic, in that there is a special election within months, and in the interim the Senate isn't missing a vote, which is often key these days. I'd like to see this set-up used in all States really.

It's an improvement, but the motivation behind it is sketchy as hell.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

September 22, 2009 6:03 PM in reply to Walter Mitty

Jesus H. Christ people, enough with the Moral Purity Policing. The Founders recognized that politicians were going to do things that were rawly political and basically devoted all their efforts to creating a system where doing that would be okay.

All this concern over the motives behind this bill is like saying we ought to take the partisanship out of the Electoral College vote.

We're looking at an imminent vote on the most important piece of domestic legislation since the Reagan tax cuts and, indeed, quite possibly since the the passage of Medicare, or even the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. The Constitution grants the states the power to decide when and how Senate vacancies are filled. Period. If a state predominately controlled by one party decides to change its mind about how it does that in order to ensure that the political wishes of of the overwhelming majority of voters are fully represented on that vote, there's nothing wrong with that, even if it means changing a law that had already recently been changed to accomplish a different political purpose.

If the Massachusetts legislature failed a Rightousness of Motive test, it was when they changed the law to prevent Mitt Romney from being able to fill President John Kerry's vacant Senate seat. You can't turn the rather low minded partisanship that drove that decision into high mindedness by refusing to fix it, particularly when failing to do so risks having one of the state's senate seats vacant at a critical moment in history.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

September 22, 2009 3:11 PM in reply to Schmed

The thing is the original legislation was just as whimsical as this. If whimsical legislation is bad, then it would also be bad to force Massachusetts/America to be stuck with bad whimsical legislation from 2004. The 2004 legislation shouldn't have been passed in the first place.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 3:13 PM in reply to Schmed

"Whimsical legislation is not healthy"

100% agreed... That said, I think the "Whimsical legislation" came in 2004.

The Mass Dems thought they would have a great representation in Washington in 2004 w/ a President Kerry. So on a "whim" they changed the rules to keep the solidly Democratic seat from being filled with a republican(likely Romney himself, being the ambitious fellow he is) even if it was to be empty for 4 months. This rule took care of the issue at hand (keeping Romney from usurping the voters will to send only Dems to washington) but was short sighted.

The new rules are the rules that should have been passed in 2004. Clearly as legislators it is their duty to continually improve the laws as the imperfections contained within them show themselves.

I would have no problem if this was to be the law in any state as it is the only way to be fair to the voters who sent an individual of a certain party to washington. To appoint someone of another party is definitly subverting their will.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 3:25 PM in reply to Schmed

"Whimsical"? Cute word, but absurd in this context. This is in order to pass healthcare reform for a huge majority of the population. Whimsical? That?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 4:56 PM in reply to Rader

Playing fast and loose when you can't be restrained is whimsical. And the best of intentions are the devil's paving stones.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

September 22, 2009 6:06 PM in reply to Schmed

I think "capricious" is actually the word you're looking for--that's the legal term of art for your gripe, anyway.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 7:36 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

They're synonyms, if that makes you feel any better.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 11:52 PM in reply to Schmed

"know Democrats think this is a good development, but in terms of democracy as a whole, it stinks."

Nonsense. MA elected a Democratic senator for six years. They are entitled to get one for six years.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Hussein Stemper

September 22, 2009 3:03 PM

Wait for GOPers who heartily supported Tom Delay's Texas re-districting plan from 5 years ago to cry foul in 3, 2, 1 ...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 3:09 PM in reply to Hussein Stemper

"Even a broken clock is right twice a day."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 3:21 PM in reply to Schmed

...or a broken moral compass...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 3:27 PM in reply to goethean

as if they ever had a moral compass...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 4:58 PM in reply to goethean

Compasses don't tell time and not all metaphors mix well.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Subliminability

September 22, 2009 3:14 PM

I have great affection and admiration for Michael Dukakis, but it seems that Bob Reich (health care expertise) or Vicki Kennedy (mantle-bearer) might be better choices to serve for these three months.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Walter Mitty

September 22, 2009 3:21 PM in reply to Subliminability

I don't think the interim Senator will be looked to anything more than a sure vote. I don't think senators will pay them any mind otherwise.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Subliminability

September 22, 2009 3:28 PM in reply to Walter Mitty

Probably so ... But that might be a reason to appoint a person who brings something beyond the sure vote to the table -- such as recognized expertise or a connection to perhaps the leading exponent of health care reform.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 3:33 PM in reply to Subliminability

Agreed... But Bob Reich is a professor at UC Berkely (CA) and would need to move back to the bay state and Vicki stated she is not interested.

I think Joe Kennedy could be convinced to take a Leave of absence from Citizen for Energy for a few months to be said "mantle-bearer" as well as use his experience as a congressman to be a little more than a "sure-Vote".

Besides, I think that the value and experiance of Sen. Kennedy's staff can not be understated and it would be a shame to send them home with so much left undone.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cool Blue Reason

September 22, 2009 3:53 PM in reply to _jonny_5_

Exactly -- keeping Ted Kennedy's staff in the game is not at all unimportant.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Subliminability

September 22, 2009 3:57 PM in reply to Cool Blue Reason

How about appointing Teddy's chief of staff or LD -- would send the message this appointment is about getting this done right, and with TK's influence. I'll bet Gov. Patrick is eagerly scanning these comments for ideas this very minute.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 4:10 PM in reply to Subliminability

COS is a fine idea as well... (perhaps my favorite idea behind Joe Kennedy)

I'm kind of against Dukakis, not that he wouldn't do a fine job, it's just I'd prefer to not to have Massachusetts repesented by two losing presidential aspirants(both losing to a Bush, no less). The GOP is too good at getting the MSM in a tizzy with their non-sensical arguments (a la Tea bagging etc). They would have a very distracting feild day w/ Dukakis.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Subliminability

September 22, 2009 4:14 PM in reply to _jonny_5_

Agreed. On the other hand, it's a nice, well-deserved honor for somebody nearing the end of his life who has always been a serious, grown-up public servant interested in making sound public policy, not in demogoguery, or being adored, or frills.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 4:42 PM in reply to Subliminability

Fair point... I not against Dukakis on substance...

I just think that upon appointment the story becomes about "Failed Presidential candidate this... Cronyism that... Washed up politician the other"

Instead of "Carrying on Sen Kennedy's agenda on healthcare" which is what the appointment is and should be about.

Now I understand that Repubs are going to b*tch and moan no matter who is appointed but Dukakis comes with a little more baggage than is helpful right now.

(please note that I am from Mass, so my viewpoint comes from my perception of the political landscape in the area as well as how I think this plays natioanlly)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 5:16 PM in reply to _jonny_5_

If Massachusetts voters had wanted Mitt Romney to fill a Senate seat, we would have voted him into it in 1994, when he ran against Kennedy.

The law was changed while Kerry was running for President in 2004.
At that time, Massachusetts Republicans were doing marginally better than today - they had the Governor and Lt Governor seats, and a hopelessly outnumbered minority delegation in the State House. (That delegation is smaller today, and the Executive offices are now filled by Democrats.)

There was considerable and justified concern that Gov. Romney would proceed to install a Republican into Kerry's Senate seat, should he win the Presidential election. Kerry won every single Congressional District in that election, and the lowest % of vote in a district for Kerry was 56%(highest was nearly 80%.)
Commonwealth voters at the time had repeatedly indicated that they wanted Democratic US Senators, and that the state leaned heavily Democratic.
Had Gov. Romney committed to appointing a Democrat to the seat, this would never have come up.
He did not, in keeping with his outspoken support of President Bush and his entire agenda.

The law was changed to accommodate and protect the electoral will(democratically expressed) of the Commonwealth.
So what's the problem?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 5:21 PM in reply to kenga

And of course that reply is in the wrong place.

Mostly because I wanted to reply to you, about Dukakis.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 5:26 PM in reply to _jonny_5_

I like Dukakis on substantive grounds. I'm not quite as concerned about the whole "failed Democratic Presidential candidate" thing, mostly because I remember that election, and how it went down.

Don't you think that this is a very good time to talk about

Willie Horton???

Or is this a bad time to drag Republican race-baiting out into the light?

Might also be a decent time to reflect on this, and how it came to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Miracle

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 5:38 PM in reply to kenga

I remember the context as well and you point regarding Willie Horton is well put and reasoned individuals would agree as well.

However, my concern is that the GOP, with their craziness rules the news coverage of politics because scandal sells ad time on Cable as well as local news.

So the Horton thing could play badly for the Repubs but the thinly veiled racism of the teabagger movement should have played far worse in the media than it did.
So, since the MSM will undoubtably let us down, I am against the distraction that I'm afraid Dukakis will be.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 4:33 PM

They won't have 60 votes, even with this process being hastily changed, because Robert Byrd is getting frailer and frailer by the day. Anyone know what the system is in WV when a Senate seat goes vacant?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

September 22, 2009 4:44 PM in reply to CT Voter

Governor appointment with an election held not less than 2 1/2 years after vacancy occurs.

I'm not sure Byrd can hold out until 2013.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 5:13 PM in reply to mans_best_friend

After seeing him at the gathering on the steps for Teddy, I'm not sure he could hold out until 2010. I'm not a big fan of Senator Byrd, but it made me teary-eyed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

September 22, 2009 6:13 PM in reply to CT Voter

IRight there with you on that. I had the exact same feelings.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 5:16 PM in reply to CT Voter

From my brief look at the West Virginia laws, it looks like a straight up appointment by the governor (who is currently a Democrat) immediately after the vacancy occurs. Unfortunately, it will be more advantageous in some ways if Senator Byrd passes away because then he will be quickly replaced by a presumably healthy Democrat to fill out the rest of his term.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 5:00 PM

Boss Tweed woulda been so proud of Massachusetts.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Minne sconsin

September 22, 2009 5:24 PM in reply to Schmed

You already made your point. Repeatedly. Now you're starting to descend into trolldom.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 5:29 PM in reply to Minne sconsin

Point? Where?
Schmed has repeatedly suggested that Romney should have been permitted to subvert the desires of the Massachusetts electorate to be represented in the US Senate by two Democrats. The legislature disagreed - along, it should be pointed out, with a vast majority of their constituents.

It was bullshit the first time he made the assetion, and it remains bullshit.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Minne sconsin

September 22, 2009 5:38 PM in reply to kenga

I was trying to be generous.

And here I thought someone would call me on "starting", as in "starting to descend into trolldom". ;-)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 7:12 PM in reply to Minne sconsin

Spare me your niggardly "generosity." The allusion to Boss Tweed is apt insofar as he looked out soley for himself, much like today's Democratic reps and senators of MA.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 10:26 PM in reply to Schmed

Spare me the use of the word niggardly, I am sure it is as racist and derogatory as it sounds. You are devoid of common sense and now simple politeness. There are issues in your personal life that I am sure explain this assbackward thinking, but I really don't care what. Just shut the f..... up!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 23, 2009 11:45 AM in reply to hollywood

This was meant to respond to Hollywood.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 23, 2009 12:25 PM in reply to hollywood

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 5:50 PM in reply to kenga

and Romneys unveiled ambition would have lead to appointing himself...

Clearly the residents of Mass shot that down once before...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 23, 2009 11:43 AM in reply to _jonny_5_

Spare me the use of the word niggardly, I am sure it is as racist and derogatory as it sounds.

Your ignorance is almost as pathetic as your vocabulary. A simple trip to the dictionary would cure at least part of your ills.

You are devoid of common sense and now simple politeness.

You're clearly in no position to judge given your brazen simplemindedness. I suggest you take your own advice (STFU) and come back when your IQ surpasses your age.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 7:11 PM in reply to kenga

Schmed has repeatedly suggested that Romney should have been permitted to subvert the desires of the Massachusetts electorate to be represented in the US Senate by two Democrats

Your inferences are nowhere near the simple observation that state legislators should represent the people of the commonwealth, not the vested interests of the Democratic Party of Massachusetts. Any other interpretation you care to force into my mouth derive directly from either your misguided devotion to the Democratic party or to your haphazard imagination. In either case, "bullshit" would indeed be an appropriate description.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 23, 2009 8:30 AM in reply to Schmed

So, explain your objections without resorting to casting aspersions.

Among my objections to your assertions that MA D's are the cogs of corrupt party politics is your apparent dismissal of the history and facts surrounding the 2004 episode.

Or are you denying the simple fact that Massachusetts has been, and remains heavily Democratic?
Do you deny the fact that Massachusetts voters put a Democrat in both Senate seats, deliberately?
Do you suppose that MA voters are aware of the existence of the MA Democratic Party and its machinations, and that by voting for Democrats, they are voting for members of that party?
Do you think it unreasonable to infer that such is their democratically expressed will? (If so, please show your work.)

So, to recap:
* MA (D)Junior Senator runs for Pres.
* MA (R)Gov publicly licks his lips in anticipation of fulfilling National Republican Party masturbatory fantasy of having a (R) in the MA Senate delegation
* MA (R)Gov declines to promise to replace (D)Senator, in the event that he wins Presidency, with a (D) - in opposition to the desires of the constituency, but instead firmly in favor of (R) national party desires.
* MA (D)Legislature(not D-majority, by the way - D-dominated) changes law to prohibit intensely partisan (R)Gov from having an opportunity to screw MA voters (it wouldn't have been the first time, either.)
* MA elects (D)Senior Senator in 2006 w/ 69% of vote
* MA elects (D)Gov after successive disappointing (R)Gov terms
* MA (D)Senior Senator dies w/ 4 years remaining in term
* MA (D)dominated Legislature prepares to change law to permit interim appointment by Gov.

You can accurately say that there is inconsistency, and that the law should have been written right the first time, with possible future ramifications like this in mind - you could even call that due diligence.
And call the failure to do so in 2004 a result of poor legislating and short-term thinking.

However, you can't claim that the 2004 law subverted democracy.
The facts and demographics show that it -prevented- the democratically expressed will of the voters from being subverted.

I'd agree with you that the 2004 law was poorly thought out.
I'll go further and advocate that whatever else this new law does, it should stipulate that open Congressional seats be filled by a member of the party of the person elected to it. I'd like some caveat to prohibit seats being filled by someone who changes party solely to be eligible.

But pretending that taking the appointment out of Romney's hands is somehow a subversion of democracy, is bullshit. Piss-poor reasoning.
You'd have had a case if you had expounded on rule of law instead.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 23, 2009 12:12 PM in reply to kenga

Much as I'm tempted to enter into your syllogistic extravaganza replete with red herrings and more words in my mouth than I can swallow, I must resist and offer this in reply.

I don't know where you live, but I'm currently stuck in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and get to sample daily the fruits of governmental incompetence and corruption. Roads where I live haven't been repaved in decades, although my taxes are annually appropriated for such maintenance. I have to send my kids to private schools because there are insufficent funds to keep the local public schools standing, let alone effective at education. These Yankees (and Lord knows how they hate that term when it comes to baseball) pride themselves on there time-honored town meetings that happen so frequently that they barely have time to get the minutes out before the next one occurs -- yet, precious little beyond the allocation of taxes for local pet projects is accomplished.

For all the machinations of state and local government in this state, the citizeny is shafted on a regular basis. Yes, the Democrats dominate, but only because less than 20% of eligible voters actually give enough of a damn to get out and vote, so incumbency is pretty much a lock. Republicans and Independents hardly ever make a showing on the semi-annual ballots, so one party rule is de facto, and accountability to the public is a laugh.

However, had the politicians bothered to check the pulse of the people on this one issue, they would have noted (as had the Globe) that there was nowhere near concensus on changing the law yet again. In fact, public support for the revision has been dropping on a daily basis, which is why the legislature is pushing to get it done asap. Yet, these pols (who make no pretense at why they're gaming the system -- "get real, this is POLITICS" was the response of one of the reps on the radio last night) know that by the time the next (re)election comes around, apathy/amnesia/ignorance will be their cover and their loyal patrons will vote them back in because that's what they always do.

I call this as I see it: pure political wankery to benefit the Democrats and only the Democrats. There was plenty of time to fix the law if that was really the intention. As much as I loved Ted Kennedy (and yes, I voted for him many times), it was his ego as much as the depraved political chutzpah of the Democratic legislature that kept the correct legislative product from happening and being in place before his death.

Get all high-minded about democracy if you want, but come live here for a few years first to see if principle matches practice. Then you can lecture me all you want about righting wrongs and getting the rule of law back on track.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 23, 2009 12:14 PM in reply to Schmed

Still out of place

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 5:59 PM in reply to Minne sconsin

"Trolldom"? That's a bit much. Schmedley's point isn't a crazy one, but it's been flatly dismissed as one. The system should be consistent--system for dealing with an empty Senate seat. Not the victim of whoever happens to be in the State House or the Governor's mansion.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Minne sconsin

September 22, 2009 6:31 PM in reply to CT Voter

I have some sympathy. But the Boss Tweed comment is over the top. Some history -

Tweed was convicted for stealing between $40 million and $200 million[2] (based on the inflation or devaluation rate of the dollar since 1870 of 2.7%, this is between 1.5 and 8 billion 2009 dollars) from New York City taxpayers through political corruption.

I think this is a little under the Boss Tweed bar.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 10:17 PM in reply to Schmed

Give it a rest Owly~ What guilty thing did you do yourself to get you on this self hating jag? Of coarse the good people of Mass want a Democrat to be their temporary replacement for Kennedy. The law now reflects simple common sense and was changed in 2004 to prevent Republican dirty tricks in stealing a solid Democratic seat. Why don't you fly down to Texas and keep an eye on some real crooks?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 23, 2009 12:20 PM in reply to hollywood

You really should know that wanking on a blog is almost as loathsome as doing it with the bathroom door open. You know next to nothing about me, but that doesn't stop you from jizzing up the place with rank ad hominem speculation. Take a hint: close the door and keep the discharge to yourself.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 5:00 PM

I'm not sure the Republicans could have much leverage against Dukakis if he were receive the nod from the governor, because a lot of political agita comes into play when calculations are made as to whether a vote affects a reelection bid. In the Duke's case, there will be no reelection, just a seat warmer until the replacement election scheduled for January. They can try to mock him, but it should have little political result.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 5:25 PM in reply to acf_ma

"....but it should have little political result."

I disagree, the freakshow right-wing leads the cable-news-ocracy by the nose.

The Headlines will be all about the "Presidential loser Senators From Mass" or some other nonsense instead of Healthcare or carrying on for Teddy.

I think a politically boring pick like Kennedy's senate Chief of staff would be best as to not sensationalize the appointment and just get the dems back to full strength for the healthcare fight.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 5:32 PM in reply to _jonny_5_

:-)
But we can talk for months about Willie Horton, and Republican race-baiting in the face of change.
And how high taxes lead to high standards of living.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 23, 2009 1:01 AM

temporarily filling a dem seat with a dem seems, dare I say , logical and reasonable?
especially if that person will not be running for the office come special election time.
I think the repubs could hardly complain, given the theatrical way i which they held up the process in Minnesota

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Follow us!

PollTracker

Pres '12

Obama (D) 44%, Romney (R) 44%
Nov 25 Rasmussen
Pres '12

Obama (D) 45%, Huckabee (R) 41%
Nov 25 Rasmussen
Pres '12

Obama (D) 46%, Palin (R) 43%
Nov 25 Rasmussen
Pres '12

Obama (D) 42%, Romney (R) 34%, Dobbs (I) 14%
Nov 25 Rasmussen
Pres '12

Obama (D) 42%, Huckabee (R) 36%, Dobbs (I) 12%
Nov 25 Rasmussen

Most Popular

Viewed
Rec'd
Commented
On Digg

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

TPM Top News

'Friends' In High Places
The White House Gate Crashers And The Famous People They Take Pictures With

Party Crashers Met Obama

Secret Service 'Deeply Concerned And Embarrassed' Over WH Crashers

The Top 10 Secrets Revealed In Plouffe's 'Audacity To Win'