Do you want Ted Kennedy's seat replaced now or later...for health care reform?

[Dawgs]

The argument for doing it is to obviously keep that additional Democratic vote.

The argument against it is for making reconciliation easier. Republicans can't complain as much if Democrats don't have the numbers to stop a filibuster.

I personally think reconciliation is necessary anyway, but this way might help with the argument for it.

[Pirate Smile]

1. What is the specific question we are supposed to answer yes or no to?

[Dawgs]

6. Sorry. It's updated now.

:hi:

[kentuck]

2. Just as a political strategy, I would prefer to put it off 'til later...

and first, try to get a couple of Republicans on board, who might be more likely to join the Democrats if they were not the "6oth" vote. Then, once they agreed to join us, then appoint another vote to push it over the top. Just as a political strategy...:-)

[Kansas Wyatt]

3. Other

I vote for reconciliation, especially since there are Democratic Senators guarding Corporate America's interests over the needs of the people.

[Kaleva]

4. Mass. law requires a special election be held

[bluescribbler]

5. I vote yes

As a Massachusetts citizen, I need a second voice in the Senate. Not only for this particular bill, but also for any other important bill which comes up.

A person's last wishes are considered to be sacred in our culture. Ted's last wish was that Massachusetts law be amended to allow the Governor to appoint an interim Seantor to hold the seat until the special election can be held. His wish should be granted.

[Kaleva]

7. It would make Dems look bad

The Dem controlled legislature changed the law to prevent then gov. Mitt Romney from picking a replacement for Kerry's seat if he were to win the 2004 election.

[sharesunited]

10. Right there is an argument for a "later" vote not offered above. Consistency! Integrity!

As opposed to political expediency.

[emilyg]

11. +1

[tekisui]

13. So?

It's not like Dems are at risk in MA. And, the pukes across the country are going to hate Dems no matter what. I say get a replacement ASAP. The MA legislature is within its rights to change the law.

[bluescribbler]

16. "A foolish consistency"

"is the hobgoblin of little minds" Ralph Waldo Emerson

The Democrats in the Massachusetts House and Senate looked bad when they passed the law in 2004. If they make it right now, they can undo some of the damage they did back then. It takes a wise man to admit a mistake and to work to correct it. Didn't we all howl in 2004 when B*sh couldn't think of any mistakes he had made? Aren't we better than he was? I certainly hope so. Fear of a charge of hypocrisy is no reason to fail to do the right thing now.

[bighart]

17. Problem is it won't look like undoing damage done.

It looks like changing the law to suit the situation so they control the outcome.

[bluescribbler]

18. I don't care what it looks like.

I care about the result. A mistake will be corrected. Repukes care what the things do will look like. That's why they can't admit their mistakes. That's why they keep making the same mistakes over and over again. We're better than that.

[brendan120678]

8. Did you support the change to the current law...

back in 2004?

[bluescribbler]

12. No, I did not.

I felt then, as I do now, that it was a naked power grab, and that Massachusetts could ill afford a vacant Senate seat for any longer than absolutely necessary. There could have been a safeguard built in, such as requiring any appointee to affirm no interest in running for the office when election time came up, or requiring Executive Council approval, as is the case with judicial appointments, or perhaps legislative approval, as is the case with Presidential appointments.

[tekisui]

14. Political moves are power grabs, by nature.

When Dems are grabbing power, I support it.

[Bombero1956]

9. Now

I too am a Massachusetts resident and want Gov. Patrick to fill the seat asap. Who cares what the Repugs think, they certainly haven't cared what we Dems thought and went ahead and did what they wanted.

[WeDidIt]

15. If the situation was reversed

and the GOP needed one more vote to hit sixty in order to decrease taxes to next to nothing for people making over a million dollars per year, they'd do it.

[pipi_k]

19. I voted other because I would like to see

someone appointed NOW, temporarily, to cast a vote if needed.


Then I want a special election so we can vote on his permanent replacement.

[me b zola]

20. Now

Teddy wanted it, his wishes should be respected.