Massachusetts Senate passed bill re: filling Kennedy's seat

[No Elephants]

Source: MSNBC

The Massachusetts Senate passed a bill empowering Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint someone to fill Senator Kennedy's vacant seat until a special election can be held. The bill will now go back to the Massachusetts House for a procedural vote. It is expected to pass.

No matter what, a special election will be held in January, so the appointee will serve only until then. Senator Kennedy had hoped the appointee would not run in the special election, but would serve only as a "place holder." Of course, that is not enforceable, even if the appointee should promise not to run.

No link yet.

---

This is great news. The Massachusetts Senate President had hinted at a much longer timetable, one that would run into January, in fact, rendering the new law meaningless, at least this time around. That, however, was before Obama and the entire Massachusetts delegation weighed in, although initial reactions were that the rest of the country should mind its own business.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Call the Duke!

[graywarrior]

2. Mike! ! ! ! !

No wait...Vicky or Ted Jr!

[frebrd]

3. Great news! K&R

[Eric J in MN]

4. They should have made it a requirement of accepting the interim appointment...

...not to run in the next election for the office.

That way the long-term Senator would be chosen by the people with no one getting a huge advantage through a governor's appointment.

[No Elephants]

14. You simply cannot do that. It's not enforceable. But, the time that the appointee will be an

incumbent is so short that I don't think the advantage of the appointment will be all that huge. The special election is January 18, I believe.

[Eric J in MN]

20. They could have required the appointee to make a videotaped statement...

...that he or she won't run before accepting the appointment.

[karynnj]

21. They have an agreement that he/she won't

There was concern that adding that would make it unconstitutional. Senator Kerry told the MA legislature that he would commit to campaigning against him/her if it happened - and suggested that other high profile Democrats in the state would as well.

[hughee99]

5. That's what I love about MA

the Dems here aren't deterred by the hypocrisy of it all, they're going to do what they want to do and the repukes can go to hell. I wish we had more of this in Washington.

[NYC Democrat]

8. well to be fair Republicans barely exist in MA.

[George II]

9. Make that barely exist in New England...and we love it that way...

...right now east of NYS there are NO republcian members of the House and except for two moderates in Maine, there are NO republican senators.

[Tesha]

10. You forgot Judd "the Dudd" Gregg from NH.

He's leaving next year, of course, but we can't guarantee
he won't be replaced by another Republican.

Tesha

[George II]

24. Yes, you're right, I forgot about him, but then I do try to forget about NH sometimes...

...after all, it's the home of the John Sununu, too. Oh well, MOST of New England is normal.

[No Elephants]

16. There is no hypocrisy whatever. The Massachusetts legislature is doing what all

politicians do about vacancies. They make choices based on politics. People who wrote the United States Constitution knew that. So did the people who wrote and/or ratified the 17th amendment.

[hughee99]

22. You don't see a little hypocrisy here?

The law they're trying to pass now was the law a few years ago. In 2004, when it looked like Kerry might become president, they didn't want the repuke governor to appoint a repuke to replace him, so they changed the law to prevent this. A Repuke would never get elected to the Senate, but one could get appointed by the governor to fill out a term. Now, there's a Dem governor, so they no longer need this law to block the repukes, so they're changing it back. Had they not changed this law just a few years ago, I don't think there would be any issue doing it now, but since some see what they're doing as "gaming the system", public opinion is mixed in what is otherwise a VERY blue state.

[No Elephants]

36. You are describing political motive. That is not the same as hypocrisy or the same as "gaming the

system."

Legislatures are peopled by politicians and politicians make political choices when filling vacancies. Legislatures also change and amend laws from time to time. And changes to laws governing vacancies are highly likely to be motivated by political considerations. The people who wrote the Constitution of the US and the 17th amendment thereto understood all that.

If the Constitution intended for these decisions to be politically motivated AND to change from time to time, how is this either hypocrisy OR gaming anything?

What if I put out a platter of munchies with a sign saying "Free munchies. Help yourself to all you can eat." And then, someone took a couple of handfuls and left. Would you accuse that person of hypocrisy and gaming the system?

You might also look at some of the previous threads here on the subject of Kennedy's request to change the law to fill the vacancy in his seat. All the points you raised have been addressed over and over.

[hughee99]

47. How about this...

If you made the case to the host that the munchies should be free "for the good of the guests", took a few handfuls, and then argued that they should not be free, because the money charged can be used to order pizza (also, for the good of the guests), would you call this hypocrisy? You have every right to argue either or both points, but the perception is going to be that you are being a hypocrite.

A few years ago, the Dems made a compelling case to the people as to why it was important that the people, not the governor, pick the replacement, and that in the meantime, the governor NOT be allowed to appoint someone before that election takes place. They argued that this was the best way to ensure that the will of the people is being represented. Coincidentally, the Dems at the time had a 1 seat majority in the Senate, and the governor was a repuke. Now they're making the argument that MA must have representation before the election takes place, because again, it's the best way to ensure the will of the people is being represented. Coincidentally, the Dems are now 1 seat from the 60 members they need and the governor is a Dem. I live in MA, and I see people every day, DEMOCRATS, who feel that all of this stinks. Had they not just made the opposite case a few years ago, I don't think anyone would care.

Personally, the law that they are proposing now SHOULD HAVE been the law they proposed 5 years ago. When they passed the law in 2004, I wondered if it would come back and bite us in the ass. I didn't think it would be so soon, though.

As to the constitution allowing for the changing of the law, it absolutely does, but just because something is constitutional doesn't mean it can't be hypocritical too. As far as "political motive" goes, it is quite common for that to be hypocritical.

[No Elephants]

50. Your analogy does not hold. The Constitution of the US is the equivalent

of my free munchie sign. So, the free munchies--take all you want as many time as you want--invitation to state legislatures has not changed since the early 1900's.

Again, I invite you to do some actual research and to consider thoughtfully why the Framers and why the later 17th amendment trusted so much power in this matter to the legislatures. This is not about Democrat vs. Republican, though. The Framers had good reasons for leaving the power to state legislatures (not the Governor and not the people and not the state Constitution, which is difficult to change, either, but the legislatures. Think about why.)


As far as things political also always being hypocritical, I disagree. Hypocrisy has an element of deceit. The Constitution not only allows, but expects and wants state legislatures to be political around this issue AND on an ad hoc basis. That is one of the reasons the Constitution left it to them, rather to the State Constitution, which is more difficult to change from time to time than a simple bill. So, if legislatures do make political decisions around this issue, absolutely nothing is wrong or deceitful about it. That is what our nation expected them to do about filling vacant Senate seats.

If they had not changed the law back in 2004, do you think Romney's appointment would not have been political? Would he have appointed a Democrat, knowing how very blue the majority of voters in Massachusetts are, and how many years it has been since Mass. sent a Republican to the US Senate? No, he would have appointed a Republican for purely political reasons--and everyone in the state would have expected him to do that. Filling a vacant Senate seat is political. Yet, if the legislature acts poliically about filling a vacant Senator, the legislature gets called out--and by Democrats, no less, even though acting politically is exactly what the Constitution expects them to do.


As far as the arguments, I don't know what argument was made in 2004 or now. But, the argument is NOT the opposite of you say it was 4 yours ago. Four years ago, they went from a Governor appointing someone for the balance of the term to a speedy special election, because it was important for the people to choose the person who would serve between the tie of the special election and the next regular election. That has not changed one bit. The people will still make that exact same choice.

The only difference now is that, instead of leaving the seat empty until the special election can be held, it will be filled until the special election can be held. Are there very good reasons to make that change, even apart from the Constitution? YES. We are battling over the most important legislation since the voting rights act of 1964 now and nothing like that was going on in 2004 or, indeed, since 1964. (Declarations of war aside.)

We also don't have a Governor now, regardless of party, who ran on one platform to get elected, then did a 180 degree turn on issues fundamental to the voters of Massachusetts, like choice, equality for women, GLBT rights, gun control, etc. etc. ad infinitum. Think: if the seat emptied in 2004, it would have been bc Kerry, whom Massachusetts has sent to DC every 6 years for decades, got elected President, based on having views opposite to what Romney finally outed his to be.


Why in God's name would anyone assume that a majority the people of liberal Massachusetts would have wanted 180 degree change Romney to appoint one of his buddies to fill President Kerry's newly vacated Senate seat in 2004? Why on earth would anyone assume that a majority of the people of an even bluer Massachusetts in 2009 would want to deny the last public wish of Senator Kennedy, AND leave one of their Senate seats vacant during the health care battle?

Moreover, if the Republicans somehow had control of the Mass legislature now--which is so unlikely as to be laughable-- and Patrick were still Governor, the Republicans would have put the law back to what it was pre-Romney--no appointment, no special election--just an empty seat for as long as possible, to keep the Democrats in the D.C. Senate from reaching 60. If you don't think they would have done that, I know of a beautiful, almost brand new bridge between Boston and Charlestown you may wish to purchase. And I bet people here would say it was understandable bc. things had changed since 2004.


And, btw, why does no one here (besides moi) seem bothered that the Republicans, who represent such a tiny proportion of this state and this legislature tried to block this, leaving Massachusetts with only one Senator as long as law prior to Kennedy's death would allow? That is every bit as political as the change in the law; and a lot more reprehensible in terms of ignoring the will of the people of Massachusetts. Yet, it does not seem to bother anyone at DU, which I find bizarre.

[hughee99]

52. Four years ago,

The currently proposed law was suggested (Gov appointment until a special election) but this was shot down. It was argued that (regardless of the currently circumstances) it would not reflect the will of the people. I remember this argument, I heard my own elected officials make it. "It's NOT because we could lose control of the Senate, we're not doing it for our own political advantage, it's because this is the best way to ensure your voice is heard." I had a conversation with one of my state reps, and this is what they told me back then. I guess that's why I see the hypocrisy in all of this...

The argument has always been this or that is the best way to ensure the will of the people, when in reality, this may not be the case, nor do I believe that they believe it either (There's your element of deception required for hypocrisy). Had they come out and argued that we need to keep the Senate in '04 (which is why they did it) or that we need the 60 votes now (which is why they're doing it) then I don't think I'd see any hypocrisy in it because at least they would be making the argument they believe. The state legislature has enough of a history of NOT listening to the will of the people in MA for us to really believe that they're top priority is making sure our voice is being heard now. As I've said, if they want to make an honest argument to the people, they should propose a law that the state legislature has 30 days (or X number of days) to decide how to replace an elected official. Wouldn't that really be the best way to do it? Then they won't have to keep changing the law. Either that or they could just write a law that only if the governor is from the same party that controls the state House and Senate can they appoint a replacement, but I'm pretty sure that would never fly.

This is why, in a heavily blue state, there's any argument over this at all. This should be as simple as passing a resolution congratulating the winner of the Boston Marathon, but it's not. The Repukes are a very tiny group, and have about as much power as the Naderites or the Larouche clowns. The only reason they're having any luck slowing down the process is because DEMOCRATS think this is fishy as well.

[No Elephants]

53. You keep asserting the same point without providing any factual or analytical support for it.

So, all I can say is, you are certainly welcome to your gut reaction that this is somehow evil, even though the Constitution of the United States and relevant facts do not support it.

As far as the Republicans slowing it down, I asked if that was political, one of several questions that you simply ignored. They had some small measure of success slowing this down simply because the procedural rules of the state senate. The vote showed overwhelming support from Deocrats, none at all from the 5--count em--5 Republican Senators in the entire Massachusetts Senate.

As for the whole 11--count 'em 11-- Democratic Senators of the Mass. Senate who voted against it, you really have no idea what they thought or why they voted as they did. Again, something is not true simply because you choose to believe it is. There could be 100 reasons, including what they may have heard from the constituents in their wards. (That is speculation, of course, but so is your assumption about their thoughts.)

However, ASSUNING they voted against it for the reasons you say, they were simply mistaken. It happens and it is not surprising. As I said in my prior post, they don't get paid a lot and, if you've ever had anything to do with them that involves complicated concepts or speaking extemporaneously, you know that most of them are far from rocket scientists. It's just great that they were in such a small minority.

[hughee99]

55. And you keep arguing that because something is constitutional

it's not hypocrisy. Politicians then (and now) have argued that the law they're proposing is the best way to ensure the will of the people, and (here's the important part) they've arguing that it's not because of the current political situation, but the current political situation is simply demonstrating why it's important to do it this way. I don't know that they believed this argument 4 years ago, but I know they don't believe it now. They're making this argument, because they believe it's more convincing than saying to the people "We need this law to keep our advantage in Washington", which is the reason they're doing it.

As to my gut reaction that this is somehow evil, can you show me anywhere I said this? Anywhere? I've said I supported it, and although I don't think they believe the argument they're making, I support their goals. I've said many other people from MA think they're doing it for strictly political reasons (none that have to do with the will of the people). I've said that I don't believe the argument they're making reflects their biggest motivation for doing it. I don't believe I've said this, but some people, Democrats included, are not comfortable rewriting political replacement laws on the fly even though it is absolutely constitutional to do so. I understand their discomfort.

As to the 11 Democratic Senators, I can only tell you why 1 of them voted the way he did. The response from his office to an email from my brother was that based on the "significant amount of support he received from his constituents on this issue" he felt it was his duty to make their voice heard in the Senate. Having talked to him in person a few weeks ago, it was is previous intention to support it.

[Recursion]

43. Oh there's a little hypocrisy here

I'm just glad our legislators had the sense to do it even though it was hypocritical.

[No Elephants]

44. Disagree. Something is not hypocritical just bc you think it is. I don't see

anyone with your position justifying it via the 17th amendment or explaining why it would have been acceptable for the people of Massachusetts to have Romney appointing their Senators after he lied to get elected.


And I refer you also to prior threads on this. (Just tired of posting the same things every other day.)

[Recursion]

45. The hypocrisy comes from just a few years ago

It's hypocritical in that Bay State Democrats are making the exact opposite argument we made just a few years ago.

[No Elephants]

51. Again, something is not hypocritical just because you post it is. Please see Reply ##'s 36 and 50

I can support my position with the history of the 17th amendent, the change in circumstances between 2004 and now, the clear intent of most of the voters of Massachusetts, etc. You position seems to be, as I said in post 50--the Democrats (who happen to be most of the people of Massachusetts, btw) are getting their way both times. That must be political. (Yes, as the Constitution intended it to be.) And therefore, it must be somehow wrong. (Nope.)

[polmaven]

6. No MSNBC link yet,

but here is a BostonChannel link:

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/21056415/detail.html

The Massachusetts Senate has approved a bill allowing the governor to name an interim replacement to fill the late Edward Kennedy's U.S. Senate seat.

The bill goes back to both chambers for a final procedural vote on Wednesday before heading to Gov. Deval Patrick, who has said he would sign the bill.

The 40-member Senate approved the measure on an 24-to-16 vote.

[No Elephants]

17. Thanks. I'd love to know which 11 jackass DINOs voted against it.

The Massachusetts Senate has only 5 Repulican Senators out of 40.

[Glenda]

23. the 11 jackass list

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/09/senate_roll_cal.html

Nay
Steven A. Baddour, D, Methuen
Stephen M. Brewer, D, Barre
Scott P. Brown, R, Wrentham
Jennifer L. Flanagan, D, Leominster
Jack Hart, D, South Boston
Robert L. Hedlund, R, Weymouth
Brian A. Joyce, D, Milton
Michael R. Knapik, R, Westfield
Michael O. Moore, D, Millbury
Richard T. Moore, D, Uxbridge
Michael W. Morrissey, D, Quincy
Steven C. Panagiotakos, D, Lowell
Bruce E. Tarr, R, Gloucester
James E. Timilty, D, Walpole
Richard R. Tisei, R, Wakefield
Susan C. Tucker, D, Andover

Yea
Frederick E. Berry, D, Peabody
Stephen J. Buoniconti, D, Springfield
Gale D. Candaras, D, Wilbraham
Harriette L. Chandler, D, Worcester
Sonia Chang-Diaz, D, Boston
Cynthia Stone Creem, D, Newton
Kenneth J. Donnelly, D, Arlington
Benjamin B. Downing, D, Pittsfield
James B. Eldridge, D, Middlesex
Susan C. Fargo, D, Lincoln
Anthony D. Galluccio, D, Cambridge
Patricia D. Jehlen, D, Somerville
Thomas P. Kennedy, D, Brockton
Thomas M. McGee, D, Lynn
Joan M. Menard, D, Somerset
Mark C. Montigny, D, New Bedford
Senate President Therese Murray, D, Plymouth
Robert A. O'Leary, D, Barnstable
Marc R. Pacheco, D, Taunton
Anthony Petruccelli, D, East Boston
Stanley C. Rosenberg, D, Amherst
Karen E. Spilka, D, Framingham
James E. Timilty, D, Walpole
Steven A. Tolman, D, Brighton
Marian Walsh, D, West Roxbury

[maglatinavi]

25. Dem jackasses

All dem jackasses should be symbolically decapitated come their running time; off with their frigging heads, perks and health care insurace at the expense of constituents ... ...:kick: :kick: :kick: :nuke:

[No Elephants]

54. Heaven forbid. That would be so POLITICAL. And therefore so wrong.

Oh, wait. What on earth was I thinking?

Deciding who serves in elective offices, like the U.S. Senate, to name just one, is actually supposed to be political.







never mind.

[No Elephants]

37. Thank you.

[Arkana]

40. Steve Brewer, eh?

I know him--and I know his daughter. Guy's a prick. He used to be a good man, then he set his sights on higher state office.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. K&R!

:kick:

[lamp_shade]

11. GRRRRRRREAT!!

[goclark]

13. Yes!

Senator Kennedy would be pleased..!

I sure like his wife,she said she would not do it, right?

[lamp_shade]

33. She said no. BTW.....

Prior to joining DU I was an avid (rabid?) draftclarkdotcom devotee. It appears you were too.

[goclark]

35. Right ~ rhat's why my name is goclark ~ Clark is also my middle name

I met Gen. Clark when he was a candidate and I was really impressed and worked hard for him.

: )

[No Elephants]

38. So far, she has said no only to the interim appointment. But I do think she meant no

to running in the special election, too.


Among other things, she said she wants to live in Virginia.

[mvd]

12. Great! And if the Repukes did the same thing, I wouldn't complain

I think a state should have representation.

[S_B_Jackson]

26. You mean you weren't outraged and didnt' say a word

when the Texas legislature, controlled by Republicans, rammed mid-decade redistricting down everyone's throats? After all, a state should have the representation that it wants, right? :sarcasm: It was wrong for Hot-tub Tommy DeLay to gin the system to rethuglican advantage then, and it's wrong for Dems to do it now simply because "they can". Kudos to the 11 members of the MA state senate who had the courage to recognize this hypocrisy and the courage to resist engaging in it.

[mvd]

27. Sorry, do not see that way

It is not "gaming the system" just to fill a seat and give a state representation. There will still be a special election. Now the law should stay this way regardless of what party is in power.

[S_B_Jackson]

28. Changing the law which was just written....

because now it's more convenient to do it a different way (and because well, we've got the power to do it), IS ginning the system and it's exactly what the MA legislature is in the process of doing. Us doing it now, only serves to justify it later when the pubbies do it in some other state...and rationalize it by saying, "But Democrats did the exact same thing in Massachusetts......"

[mvd]

29. No it is not

And I explained why. If the Repukes do it in another state, I have no complaints, because it should be this way. Repukes do lots of awful stuff, but that's one thing I couldn't complain about.

[hughee99]

30. A few years ago,

when they changed the law, the state reps and senators made a very convincing case as to why the people, not the Governor, should chose our representation. Just a few years later, many of those same people are now making the opposite argument. Some people feel like they're "being played". In the end, they're not looking at the big picture, but that's how they feel.

As to the Dems who voted against it (mine was one of them) he probably did the right thing politically. They didn't need his vote (and I'm sure if they did, he would have voted differently), but he was getting too many complaints from his constituents (Democrats included) not to listen. People in "safe" seats can vote any way they want, but those on the edge can't afford not to listen to their voters, especially when their vote is not needed for passage.

While you personally may not have an issue with this, I'm sure there would be an uproar on the DU over this if it were the repukes doing it.

[mvd]

32. I understand they changed their argument

I just happen to think they have it correct right now, and that a short-term interim + special election is a good idea as I don't like vacant seats.

[hughee99]

34. And that's the thing...

the people understand that they're changing their argument, too. It doesn't really matter to many what they're changing it to, or that they are now getting it right (and I agree they are). People start to lose faith in their elected officials when they feel like they'll change their argument just to match the political winds. They start to worry about campaign promises and how much they can trust their politicians.

Mostly they remember about our "temporary tax increase". Back in the late 80's/early 90's, the state was in the red. The state legislature went to the people and asked for a raise in the state income tax. They said it would JUST BE until the state budget issues were resolved. A few years later, the state was back in the black, only the taxes never came back down. They had a couple of ballot initiatives to try to bring the taxes back down to the original level, but the state legislature kept blocking it arguing that they needed this new revenue, and that it would be a wasted opportunity if they just lowered the levels back to the original 5%. When the economy was doing well (back in 2000) the state legislature had to block the resolution passed by the people about this.

[No Elephants]

46. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...." Ralph Waldo Emerson

Full quote: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

The wise are not reluctant to change their minds, when there is reason for change.


Read the 17th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Do you not think that its authors knew that Legislatures make political choices about filling vacancies? Do you not think that they knew Legislatures change, repeal and replace laws at will? Yet, both the Constitution as originally written and the 17 th Amendment put filling vacancies in Senate seats solely in the power of the Legislature. Think they may have had good reasons? I do.

Try reading some prior threads here on this subject, too. Maybe start with this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4065482&mesg_id=4066284

Also, your example about tax raising has nothing to do with this. The Massachusetts Legislature never said they would never change the law about vacancies. In fact, if they had said that, they may have violated the U.S. Constitution, which left this issue to legislatures, knowing legislatures amend and replace laws all the time.

People need to stop looking at this through a "Democrat or Republican lens" and start thinking about why the Constitution reads as it does and what represents what the people of Massachusetts would have chosen for themselves in 2004 and what they would choose today.

[hughee99]

48. What does the Constitution have to do with hypocrisy?

I'm not arguing it's unconstitutional, just that, like it or not, there's some hypocrisy that goes along with it.

A few years ago, they made the change and told people that this was the best way to ensure the people are getting properly represented in Washington. They did it because had they not done it, it could have resulted in the Dem's losing control of the Senate. Now they're making the opposite argument, but again, the reasoning is the same, it's the best way to make sure the people are getting properly represented. They want to make sure the Dem's have 60 votes in the Senate. I supported keeping control of the Senate in 2004, and I support having 60 seats in the senate now, but I still see this for what it is. What they could just write as the law is "in the event of a vacancy, the state legislature has 30 days to decide how to replace the elected official", but no one would go for that.

You can argue about constitutional rights, the legislative process, or even call those who see this as hypocrisy "small minded" if you like, but most people, even those who support their actions, can see the hypocrisy in it.

[No Elephants]

56. We've been tilling the same ground for a few rounds of posts now.

They did something in 2004 that was right for the facts that obtained in 2004, for all the reasons I've stated in prior posts, as well as being consistent with the intent of the Constitution of the United States. 2 for 2.

They did something in 2009 that was right for the facts of 2009, also for all the reasons I've stated in prior posts, as well as being consistent with the intent of the Constitution. Again, 2 for 2.

You argue the decisions were political. I reply, "Yes, and the Constitution of the United States intended them to be political." Whereupon, you repeat, "BUT, the changed for political reasons." Whereupon, I say again, "The Constituion intends that they change and it also intends that the reasons for the change are political. Besides, there were other good reasons for the change." Then you say, "They changed for political reasons."

Sorry, I don't see the point in further repetitions of the exact same thing.

However, I did not call those who see this as hypocrisy "small minded." (You are, as I said, upthread, entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.) My point was I see no value or goodness in sticking to one position, even though the circumstances have become very different. And, if you do, IMO, that is "a foolish consistency." the kind Emerson called the hobgoblin of little minds.

When the Republicans accused Kerry of flip flopping on the Iraq War, after Kerry found out WMD had been bogus, I thought they hypocrisy and cynicism was all on the part of the Republicans trying to discredit Kerry's honest change of mind as new facts came to light.

The only thing about Kerry that I found worthy of criticism was (apparently)letting the bogus "flip flop" charge cow him into changing his vote back to pro-Iraq War funding, based on no new circumstances, other than having been criticized by people who deliberately and cynically ignored the valid reasons that he gave for changing.

So, I guess I am very consistent in my position on sticking to one position after surrounding circumstances change. ;-)

[hughee99]

57. I agree with a lot of what you say...

but here's where I (and many other MA residents) see the hypocrisy. And I will admit that depending on how one looks at the issue, they may not see it at all.

The some politicians argued to the people 5 years ago that the change in the law was necessary (I agree), but some further argued that it wasn't because it provided an advantage at the moment (this is where the hypocrisy comes into play, because they didn't want to appear to be doing it just because of the current situation, although they were and it is their constitutional right to do so), but that it was the best way to ensure the people's vote. They were doing it because of the current political situation. I agreed with them doing it then, but felt they just should have come out and said "Look, this is an overwhelmingly Democratic state, despite the fact that the voters elected a repuke as governor, the people don't want to give repukes control of the Senate, which is what your repuke governor will do (in 2004). That is why we need to pass this law." I believe that is what they thought, but that isn't the argument that most people heard from their elected officials. Now, they're in a similar situation. They should come out and say that they want to ensure that the Senate has it's 60 Democratic votes, but many are not doing that. In both cases, they're making a generic case as to why each way is the best, but their motivation is not for the "generic" situation, but for the specific circumstances that surround them at the moment. Many people in the state understand why they're doing this, but the rhetoric some are hearing doesn't match the real reason why they're doing it. In the end, they are trying to give the people what they want, and I applaud them for that, but the way they are making the case makes it seem hypocritical to many.

[No Elephants]

41. Please see Replies 16 and 36.

Who cares what Pubs say? And, if you don't think they have done things similar to this and will continue to do them, no matter what Dems do, then I have a bridge in which I'd like to interest you.

As just one example, what precedent on the part of Democrats did Republicans cite when they "rammed" through re-districting in Texas?

As another what precedent did they cite when they locked Democrats in Congress out of Committee meetings?

How about when they threatened lobbyists who donated to Democrats?

Two things of which you can be certain:

(1) Republicans will smear Dems, no matter what Dems do.

(2) Republicans will act in a vile manner, even if every Democrat qualified for beatification.

[No Elephants]

39. That is not how the Constitution of the US chose to address this issue, though.

[DFW]

15. Republicans are not dead in NE, not even hibernating

Rove and Gingrich can count. NE states have small populations, but get as many Senate seats as states like California.

They also watched Howard Dean's 50 state strategy, and saw what it did to them. They didn't think it would work. Now
they know differently. They may not have a chance in NE just now, but they'll sneak in under our radar if we're not
vigilant. They can't de-educate the people overnight, a factor in our favor, but they have enough money to run
disinformation campaigns from here to Timbuktu. Like hyenas, if they sense weakness, they'll attack with bared teeth,
and in numbers.

As for the interim Senate seat--DUKE DUKE DUKE!

[No Elephants]

18. I agree!

[Arkana]

42. They're not smart enough to run a 50-state strategy.

The crazies in their party have chased out anyone who doesn't toe the nutcase line.

[DFW]

49. If they have enough money

They can run enough ads to sell a refrigerator to an Eskimo who already HAS a refrigerator.

[No Elephants]

19. What liars Republicans are!

"Republican lawmakers delayed debate again Monday after first postponing action on Friday, but said they don't anticipate objecting again — paving the way for a Tuesday debate and vote. They concede backers of the bill likely have a narrow majority.

Senate President Therese Murray, a Democrat, also said she anticipated action on the bill on Tuesday.

"They're using all the tools at their disposal and they'll be out of tools tomorrow and we'll have a healthy debate," said Murray, who declined to say whether there were enough votes to pass it.

If the Senate passes the bill, it will require a final vote in both chambers Wednesday before heading to Gov. Deval Patrick. The House gave the bill initial approval last week on a 95-58 vote."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-09-21-kennedy-bill_N.htm



With the Mass. Senate consisting of 35 Democrats and 5 Republicans, the Republicans really expected a NARROW majority?

You lie!!11111!!!!

[Vidar]

31. Bravo Massachusetts!