White House Lobbies for Interim Kennedy Seat Appointment

[bomelia]

First of all, is this type of activity legal? Second, wasn't the law changed from appointment to popular election when Romney was governor to keep him from appointing a republican under similar circumstances?

This is blatant hypocrisy.

Mike

[Jamo]

Yes, yes and assolutely.

[VRM]

So we now have Californians who complain about out-of-staters commenting on California politics commenting on MA politics? Typical...

Mike, in answer to your question, yes, yes, and asso-bloody-lutely.

Steve

[Jamo]

Bite me.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Bite me.

Thanks, but I'll pass...you Armenian types are just too fuzzy.

Mike,
I actually had round two of this argument last week with a friend of mine who was against a Governor appointment before he was for it. It is turning into a pretty big deal in MA, and the nightly news usually has some 'new development' in who wants the seat, and how they are going to get it.

Steve

[Jamo]

The Greek tankdriver?

[bomelia]

Anybody ever notice that Dukakis' head is almost as wide as his shoulders?

Mike

[clayfoushee]

Originally Posted by bomelia

First of all, is this type of activity legal? Second, wasn't the law changed from appointment to popular election when Romney was governor to keep him from appointing a republican under similar circumstances?

This is blatant hypocrisy.

Mike

It's funny how the complete story of this legislation is never presented in right-oriented blogs and media outlets, especially considering they are the first to accuse the other side of media domination and bias. That also sounds like hypocrisy to me, as Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh, et. al, are only reporting one side of this story. It's the same bias the right is so fond of whining about.

The complete facts are:

1) The law was previously changed in 2004 to change the previous law where a permanent appointment to a vacant Senate seat is appointed by a Mass Governor. It happened when Sen. Kerry was running for President in 2004, and if he had been elected President, under the previous law, Gov. Romney (R) would have appointed a replacement who would have served until January 2009 (4 years which was the remaining time on Kerry's term). It could have also been an appointment to a full 6-year term if a new MA Senator died the day after being sworn in. The law was changed to require a special election by the people to decide a successor.

2) The new legislation under consideration now is an amendment to allow the Governor to appoint a temporary replacement for 4 months, until a special election can be held to elect a permanent replacement by the people. That temporary replacement is ineligible to run in the special election to select a permanent replacement. The intent of the original law remains exactly the same.

3) It is regarded to be a minor change that will allow Massachusetts to have full representation in the Senate for that 4-month period, and obviously there are some major items on the agenda during the period between Sen. Kennedy's death and the date of the special election in January 2010.

4) It is the elected representatives, of the people, who will make the choice, which is the way our system works. Laws are introduced and amended routinely to correct unforeseen circumstances or oversights as standard practice in our system of government. I suspect no one had previously considered that a 4-month vacancy would be as critical as it is during this 4-month period.

I fail to see the hypocrisy, as the intent of the original law remains. I also fail to see how a vacancy for any period serves the will of the people. A permanent replacement will still be selected by the people, not appointed by a Governor, either D or R.

Who are the hypocrites here?

[purespeed]

Where the conflict comes in is the fact that Massachusetts had a law on the books to handle the situation of selecting a replacement Senator in 2004.

The law was changed that such the decision was taken out of the Republican governor's hands in 2004.

Now the desire is to change the law where the Democratic governor can insure a democratic replacement for Obama's Senate.

Get the difference... Republican governor - remove appointment from his hands.
Democratic governor - put the appointment in his hands.

I have to ask the question...and this is the important issue:

If the governor were Republican, would Obama make the same request? The answer is certainly no.

[Jamo]

I suspect no one had previously considered that a 4-month vacancy would be as critical as it is during this 4-month period.

You're cute when you're niave.

[clayfoushee]

Originally Posted by purespeed

Where the conflict comes in is the fact that Massachusetts had a law on the books to handle the situation of selecting a replacement Senator in 2004.

The law was changed that such the decision was taken out of the Republican governor's hands in 2004.

Now the desire is to change the law where the Democratic governor can insure a democratic replacement for Obama's Senate.

Get the difference... Republican governor - remove appointment from his hands.
Democratic governor - put the appointment in his hands.

I have to ask the question...and this is the important issue:

If the governor were Republican, would Obama make the same request? The answer is certainly no.

Yes, there is a minor difference as I acknowledged. But, under the amended law if it becomes law, the Governor (whether D or R) cannot appoint a permanent replacement, which previously was the law, only a replacement for 4 months. And yes, obviously the President would like to have another vote in the Senate for this crucial 4-month period. That's politics, and both sides play the same game--I acknowledged that.

My point was the intent of the original law remains. The will of the people is not served by a vacancy of any length, unless you think denial of a vote serves the will of the people. Do you see the difference?

I would prefer this law be changed in every state, such that a Gov can only appoint a short-term temporary replacement, and every state would have a special election for a vacancy. In most states, the Gov. has the power to appoint a permanent replacement for the remainder of the term, whether 6 years or 1 day. I prefer that the people decide these things directly.

[Jamo]

Laws should not be enslaved by short-termed needs. Who decides when something is crucial? You're opening it up to political whims.

Politics is what led to the change in Mass. law in the first place...nothing more. If the Democrats had risen above politics and acted from the lofty logic you present, they would have adopted the current limitation for appointed terms at that time...they made damn sure they didn't.

Now, they're making damn sure they do.

Unethical as only Kennedy-led liberal politcs can be. At least the Illinois Democratic leadership tried to get some money for their unethical appraoch.

[purespeed]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Laws should not be enslaved by short-termed needs. Who decides when something is crucial? You're opening it up to political whims.

Politics is what led to the change in Mass. law in the first place...nothing more. If the Democrats had risen above politics and acted from the lofty logic you present, they would have adopted the current limitation for appointed terms at that time...they made damn sure they didn't.

Now, they're making damn sure they do.

Unethical as only Kennedy-led liberal politcs can be. At least the Illinois Democratic leadership tried to get some money for their unethical appraoch.

That 100% true.

[clayfoushee]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Laws should not be enslaved by short-termed needs. Who decides when something is crucial? You're opening it up to political whims.

Politics is what led to the change in Mass. law in the first place...nothing more. If the Democrats had risen above politics and acted from the lofty logic you present, they would have adopted the current limitation for appointed terms at that time...they made damn sure they didn't.

Now, they're making damn sure they do.

Unethical as only Kennedy-led liberal politcs can be. At least the Illinois Democratic leadership tried to get some money for their unethical appraoch.

Oh really . . . what about the laws passed very quickly in reaction to the 9/11/01 attacks?

And to answer your question, "who decides" is the body of duly-elected representatives of the people, just as is happening in MA, currently. This decision is not being made by a dictator.

EDIT: Thanks for the lob, buddy.

[Jamo]

Laws passed to preserve the security of these United States are not what one would consider a short-term need deemed crucial by one political family.

Regardless of the importance one political school of thought places on universal healthcare, a four-month timespan is not all that important unless you find yourself sitting in the Oval Office with your rock star status seriously damaged. When one is hampered by an inability to withstand scrutiny, one's positions are no better able to do so.

Ahem...the acorn does not fall far from the tree.

[clayfoushee]

Blah, blah, blah.

[Jamo]

Hehehe...my blah's better than yours.

Been missing you, buddy.

[clayfoushee]

Yeah, too bad we don't have an intelligent place to have discussions more often.

[Jamo]

Stick around...the Lounge is getting a makeover.

[tfalk]

Originally Posted by clayfoushee

Oh really . . . what about the laws passed very quickly in reaction to the 9/11/01 attacks?

I'd rather have laws enacted quickly to protect the PHYSICAL security of the country than laws enacted hastily to protect the FINANCIAL security of corporations like banks, UAW, etc. Oh wait, that's right, they didn't exact laws, they just took over the companies in question... they are allowed to do that by law, right?