Ed Kennedy wants Gov. to appoint his successor

[Puppycow]

The state legislature didn't seem to think it was a problem to be without a senator for a few months when they changed the law the last time. Surely the thought must have occurred to someone drafting the bill, and if it didn't that means that nobody thought it was a problem or could be a problem at the time. Now, suddenly it is vitally important. Puh-leeze.

 

[gtc]

The Globe article you linked to in post 10 says the Dems specifically rejected the proposal to allow for temporary replacements.

Democrats had pushed through the 2004 law in order to deny Republican Mitt Romney, then the governor, the power of filling a vacancy if US Senator John F. Kerry won the presidential election that year. They also at the time rejected GOP attempts to provide for a temporary appointment.

I think the optimal situation would be to have a temporary appointment until an election can be held. However, by trying to change the rules to suit their own political purposes twice in 5 years, the Dems are giving the impression that they don't really care about the best solution for either the state or for ideals of democracy.

 

[SezMe]

The state legislature didn't seem to think it was a problem to be without a senator for a few months when they changed the law the last time. Surely the thought must have occurred to someone drafting the bill, and if it didn't that means that nobody thought it was a problem or could be a problem at the time. Now, suddenly it is vitally important. Puh-leeze.

I've conceded the hypocrisy charge. My original (and continuing) point is that empowering the governor to make a caretaker appointment seems to be a good idea to me. Not just for Mass but in general.

IOW, so the Dems have been jerks. So how about getting it right this time? Especially now that the point is moot (unless the law is made retroactive, which I would be against).

 

[gtc]

Not appointing a temporary replacement now but changing the law for future cases would do a lot to overcome the charge of hypocrisy.

 

[Cicero]

The article I read said that the selectee would have to pledge not to run in the special election.

In my view this is mountain/molehill stuff. All Kennedy is suggesting is that the Governor be empowered to appoint in interim, caretaker Senator who would give the state its full two votes while the special election machinery did its thing.

What's the problem?

The last time a Kennedy was involved in deciding who should fill a Senate seat the disaster of a Senator Camelot Caroline was almost a fait accompli.

BTW: still waiting for you to point out the black man you saw in the Contessa Brewer MSNBC video with the AR-15.

 

[hgc]

Well, Minnesota had a single senator for several months after the last election. The world didn't come crumbling down. I think Massachusetts would fare similarly.

I didn't offer any judgement of the right or wrong of leaving the seat vacant. Since each state sets its own rules for filling vacant seats, they can judge for themselves how bad it is and act accordingly (and within the law).

 

[Puppycow]

The Globe article you linked to in post 10 says the Dems specifically rejected the proposal to allow for temporary replacements.



I think the optimal situation would be to have a temporary appointment until an election can be held. However, by trying to change the rules to suit their own political purposes twice in 5 years, the Dems are giving the impression that they don't really care about the best solution for either the state or for ideals of democracy.

Wow. So there really is no defense. If only they had accepted that proposal at the time (it wouldn't have mattered anyway because Kerry lost and therefore retained his seat in any event) they wouldn't be paying a price for it now. And voting to change the rule now is a frank admission that what they did in 2004 was strictly partisan (which it obviously was, whether they want to admit it or not).

I agree that letting the governor appoint a temporary replacement is a reasonable idea (although I don't agree that it is "vital") but only if it takes effect after the interim election so nobody can know who will be the governor if/when such an event happens next time.

 

[SezMe]

BTW: still waiting for you to point out the black man you saw in the Contessa Brewer MSNBC video with the AR-15.

One and only one response to this derail: I quit posting in that thread because the level of vitriol and stupidity disgusted me. Wait all you want.

 

[corplinx]

I agree that letting the governor appoint a temporary replacement is a reasonable idea (although I don't agree that it is "vital")

Remember how the senate was basically shutdown by not having a second senator from Minnesota? OF COURSE ITS VITAL. LET THE GOVERNOR PICK A PARTY CRONY OR ELSE!!!!

Edited to add: The senate has been running fine without Teddy all year. The vital argument from the partisans fails on so many levels.

 

[SezMe]

Remember how the senate was basically shutdown by not having a second senator from Minnesota? OF COURSE ITS VITAL. LET THE GOVERNOR PICK A PARTY CRONY OR ELSE!!!!

Edited to add: The senate has been running fine without Teddy all year. The vital argument from the partisans fails on so many levels.

Strawman. Nobody is arguing it is "vital". Would you like to cite where that claim was made?

 

[gtc]

Strawman. Nobody is arguing it is "vital". Would you like to cite where that claim was made?

In the letter that Kennedy sent.

The full text is here and it has been widely quoted in various other papers (including the Boston Globe article linked up this thread).

In 2004, as you know, the law was changed to provide for a special election to choose a new Senator to serve for the remainder of an unexpired term. The law now mandates that the special election be held 145 to 160 days after a Senate seat becomes vacant. I strongly support that law and the principle that the people should elect their Senator; I also believe it is vital for this Commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election.

 

[corplinx]

Well, yeah. The most vocal proponent of the "vital" argument is dead. I am not sure if anyone is carrying that torch.

My bad.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The last time a Kennedy was involved in deciding who should fill a Senate seat the disaster of a Senator Camelot Caroline was almost a fait accompli.

There is nothing more vicious I can say about that sentence then simply quoting it.

You actually said that.

Let's quote it again.

The last time a Kennedy was involved in deciding who should fill a Senate seat the disaster of a Senator Camelot Caroline was almost a fait accompli.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

One more time for luck.

The last time a Kennedy was involved in deciding who should fill a Senate seat the disaster of a Senator Camelot Caroline was almost a fait accompli.

Thanks.

 

[Cicero]

There is nothing more vicious I can say about that sentence then simply quoting it.

When you can't argue the point, that's all you can do.

 

[applecorped]

If Deval Patrick can appoint someone to fill the vacancy could he step down and have the newly elevated Lt. Gov. appoint Deval to the seat?

 

[SezMe]

Wouldn't it be easier for him to appoint himself?

 

[dudalb]

A caretaker appointment is a good idea, but I think that doing it in these circumstances is not. Change the law for future vacancies, but don't do a ex post facto with Kennedy's seat.

 

[Dr Adequate]

When you can't argue the point, that's all you can do.

Wait --- are you implying that you had a point?