• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Democrats about to get 60th senator

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,092
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Massachusetts Senate votes to fill Kennedy seat

BOSTON (Reuters) - The Massachusetts Senate voted on Tuesday to allow the governor to name an interim U.S. Senate replacement for the late Edward Kennedy and fill a key 60th seat for the Democrats during the healthcare battle.

The heavily Democratic state Senate passed the bill 24 to 16, following approval by the state House of Representatives last week. The bill will go back to both chambers on Wednesday for a final vote and then requires a signature from Governor Deval Patrick, a Democrat who backs the legislation.

Patrick is likely to name a temporary replacement for Kennedy within days and is certain to pick a Democrat. That will return the party to the 60 votes it needs in the U.S. Senate to override Republican procedural hurdles, giving President Barack Obama a boost as he tries to get healthcare reform and other contentious legislation passed this year.
Click to expand...

So now, if they have all democrats on board, they won't need a single republican vote. The problem for democrats is that they don't have very good party discipline, whereas the republicans are much better at getting all or almost all members to vote en bloc.
 
All votes are crucial and the absence of that vote from Massachusetts would hurt those who are pushing for some form of health reform," said Paul Watanabe, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts in Boston.
"Certainly all the indications are that President Obama had pushed for this," he added.

...
The bill passed on Tuesday would reverse legislation the party pushed through in 2004 when it wanted to prevent a Republican governor from naming a replacement for Democratic Senator John Kerry if he won the White House.
Click to expand...

Was Obama aware of the hypocrisy surrounding this appointment?
 
gtc said:
Was Obama aware of the hypocrisy surrounding this appointment?
Click to expand...

Probably. Bottom line is, democrats in Massachusetts control all the levers of power in the state, so they can do this. It's up to the voters to decide if they approve or not next time they are up for reelection. If the parties were reversed, would republicans have done the same thing while the democrats screamed hypocrisy? Yeah.
 
Puppycow said:
Massachusetts Senate votes to fill Kennedy seat



So now, if they have all democrats on board, they won't need a single republican vote. The problem for democrats is that they don't have very good party discipline, whereas the republicans are much better at getting all or almost all members to vote en bloc.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if a few of the blue dogs vote with the Republicans. Only a simple majority is need to pass legislation. The Democrats only need 51 votes, I think they can hold on to that many.
 
Alt+F4 said:
It doesn't matter if a few of the blue dogs vote with the Republicans. Only a simple majority is need to pass legislation. The Democrats only need 51 votes, I think they can hold on to that many.
Click to expand...
Well, I think the issue is (re)obtaining filibuster proof-ness, which is just sort of rubbing it in, imho.

Yeah, it's very hypocritical on the Massachusetts legislature. Bad form.
 
Upchurch said:
Well, I think the issue is (re)obtaining filibuster proof-ness, which is just sort of rubbing it in, imho.

Yeah, it's very hypocritical on the Massachusetts legislature. Bad form.
Click to expand...

Is it hypocrisy or just effective politics?
 
Puppycow said:
Massachusetts Senate votes to fill Kennedy seat



So now, if they have all democrats on board, they won't need a single republican vote. The problem for democrats is that they don't have very good party discipline, whereas the republicans are much better at getting all or almost all members to vote en bloc.
Click to expand...

It's a good thing no Democrat is in a state that's a swing state, having barely squeaked into the win at the last election, and has nothing to fear voting for whatever you think they no longer need to worry about voting for. :rolleyes:
 
Let's remember that's actually the Democrats' 58th senator; Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman are independents.
 
If they get 67 members they can just amend and overhaul the constitution. If 3/4 of the states agree with it at least, and since from what I've heard the republican party has effectively become a regional party...

This could seriously endanger the constitution, they could essentially pass an amendment that could repeal the first amendment, or pass one that could repeal the fourth or fifth.
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
Probably. Bottom line is, democrats in Massachusetts control all the levers of power in the state, so they can do this. It's up to the voters to decide if they approve or not next time they are up for reelection. If the parties were reversed, would republicans have done the same thing while the democrats screamed hypocrisy? Yeah.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But IIRC the Republicans actually suggested the compromise that the Governor nominate a temporary replacement. The Democrats at the time didn't like the idea of even a temporary appointment by the Republican governor so shot that idea down. Now it suits them so they have reversed their earlier position.

I would call hypocrisy whether it was the Republicans or the Democrats doing this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom