PDA

View Full Version : The Truth About Massachusetts Senatorial Vacancies



ljb5
08-30-2009, 01:57 PM
According to the right-wing talking points, it has now become accepted fact that Ted Kennedy changed the law in 2004 to prevent Mitt Romney (R) from appointing a replacement for Kerry in the senate....

...and they now believe that Kennedy tried to change the law back to the way it was so that Deval Patrick (D) could appoint a replacement.

Of course, like so many Right Wing talking points, this isn't quite true.... and really is not a fair presentation of what actually happened.

Prior to 2004, the law allowed the governor to appoint a Senator for a term of up to two years -- until the next scheduled biennial election. It also did nothing to prevent the appointee from seeking the office full time at the next election. A lot of people felt this was inappropriate because it would give an appointed candidate a 2-year head start running for office.

The law was changed in 2004 when a super-majority of the State Legislature over-rode Romney's veto. (Ted Kennedy was not in the State Legislature).

The new law allowed the seat to sit vacant for 145-160 days, until a special election could be held.

Just before his death, Ted Kennedy asked that the law be changed to allow the Governor to appoint a temporary senator for this 145-160 day period (not two years, like the original law). Kennedy also requested that the person appointed would not seek the office permanently.

These are two major difference between the pre-2004 law and the modifications that Kennedy suggested.

It is simple not correct to say that Kennedy wanted to change the law back to the way it was.

I sincerely hope that right-wingers will stop lying about this.

C. Ross
08-30-2009, 02:09 PM
Sorry, try again. Here's a snip from Thursday's editorial in the Boston Globe.


Some state lawmakers fear they will look like hypocrites if they change the law to allow for such an appointment. In fact, they will. The shift in 2004 was indeed a naked effort to block former governor Romney from appointing a fellow Republican if Senator John Kerry were to win the presidency. Kennedy himself played a behind-the-scenes role in the political sleight of hand. A Globe editorial in March 2004 took Romney’s side and urged the legislative leadership “to scuttle this undeniably partisan bill.’’ The bill passed, and its dispiriting effects are now in full force.

The law passed by Democrats in 2004 was a bad bill, so it's a good thing they are overturning it.

I agree with the Boston Globe, and I sincerely hope that left-wingers will stop being hypocritical. And lying about it.

ljb5
08-30-2009, 02:16 PM
It's certainly true that the 2004 was an effort to prevent Romney from appointing a senator for two years.

But it's not correct to suggest that the current proposal would put that back into effect.

It's absolutely incorrect to say "they are overturning" the 2004 change.

The current proposal would allow the governor to appoint a senator for 145-160 days (not 700 or more days).... and would prevent that appointed Senator from seeking the office full-time.

I object to your use of the word "overturning" which is not factually correct and is not a fair representation of the situation.

C. Ross
08-30-2009, 02:23 PM
Baloney.

The law was intended exclusively to block a Republican governor from appointing a Republican senator. Go back and read the press coverage from the time.

Tell us why the Massachusetts legislature didn't make exactly the same change in 2004, allowing Romney to appoint a successor for 145 days until a general election could be held? Because the legislature wanted to remove the Governor's right to appoint a Republican successor of any kind.

Art Read
08-30-2009, 02:29 PM
You're funny. Did you type that with a straight face? Oh, well... Some things never change.:rolleyes:

__________________________________________________ __

From the NY Times:

August 29, 2009, 8:28 AM
Democrats Seem Forgetful on Senate Appointments
By PETER BAKER
WASHINGTON – The Democratic National Committee wasted no time Friday slamming Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida for installing a Republican crony in the Senate as a seat warmer until Mr. Crist can run for the post himself next year.

Within hours of Mr. Crist’s appointment of his former chief of staff, George LeMieux, to fill a vacant seat until next year’s election, the D.N.C. sent reporters an e-mail message highlighting a St. Petersburg Times editorial assailing the decision under the headline, “Crist Serves Himself, Not Florida, With Appointment.”

“Gov. Charlie Crist could have appointed a former congressman, a former legislator, a former Jacksonville mayor, a former state attorney general, or even a former U.S.attorney to the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Mel Martinez,” the editorial said. “Instead, the governor chose his alter ego to keep the seat warm for 16 months as he campaigns for it.”

As questionable as that may be, it might seem like a strange thing for the D.N.C. to complain about at the very moment Democrats around the country were mourning the death of their spiritual leader, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts. After all, Mr. Kennedy got to the Senate through circumstances pretty much like those that the D.N.C. now disdains in Florida.

When John F. Kennedy won the presidency in 1960, Ted Kennedy was still too young to take his older brother’s empty Senate seat immediately. So the Kennedys arranged for a family friend named Benjamin A. Smith II to be appointed to the seat for two years until a special election when Ted Kennedy would be old enough to run and win it himself. Sound familiar?

And for that matter, it does not take a long look back at history to find another case of a Democrat getting his “alter ego” appointed as a seat warmer. Less than eight months ago, Joseph R. Biden Jr., as he prepared to be sworn in as vice president, supported the choice of his own former chief of staff, Ted Kaufman, who was appointed to fill his vacated Senate seat from Delaware until a special election can be held in 2010 when many expect Mr. Biden’s son, Joseph R. “Beau” Biden III, to run for the post.

The D.N.C. never sent out any statements denouncing that as self serving.

ljb5
08-30-2009, 02:32 PM
The law was intended exclusively to block a Republican governor from appointing a Republican senator.

The law was intended exclusively to block a Republican governor from appointing a Republican senator for a two-year period with the possibility that they would use that temporary appointment to launch a campaign.

Since the current proposal does not restore the law to the way it was before 2004, you cannot refer to it as "overturning" the law.


Because the legislature wanted to remove the Governor's right to appoint a Republican successor of any kind.

No doubt, that's one possibility. Considering the state is overwhelmingly Democratic (both Senators and all Congressmen), it kinda makes sense that they wouldn't want an appointed Republican.

However, I reiterate: since the current proposal does not revert the law to how it was before 2004, it cannot be considered overturning it. The new proposal is very narrowly tailored to the 145-160 day period before the special election that was created in 2004.

Paul Pless
08-30-2009, 02:34 PM
You actually believe your own spin don't you lj?:rolleyes:

ljb5
08-30-2009, 02:35 PM
...Joseph R. Biden Jr., as he prepared to be sworn in as vice president, supported the choice of his own former chief of staff, Ted Kaufman, who was appointed to fill his vacated Senate seat from Delaware until a special election can be held in 2010 when many expect Mr. Biden’s son, Joseph R. “Beau” Biden III, to run for the post.

Did you notice that they didn't appoint Joe Biden III directly to the Senate?

If he wins the seat, it will be through an open election where he is not the incumbent.

ljb5
08-30-2009, 02:38 PM
You actually believe your own spin don't you lj?:rolleyes:

I'm just relaying the facts of the law before 2004, the changes that were implemented in 2004 and suggestions Kennedy made before he died.

These are all matters of public record which you are invited to look at for yourself, if you don't believe me.

Art Read
08-30-2009, 02:40 PM
You ever heard of "the smell test"? Guess what? This don't pass it!:D

(Not that that they won't get away with this travesty. Business as usual for them I'm afraid...)

ljb5
08-30-2009, 02:46 PM
You ever heard of "the smell test"? Guess what? This don't pass it!:

Hmm, let's see... a temporary appointment of someone who will not seek the position permanently, followed by a special, open election in 150 days?

That smells a lot better than what Governor Crist just did in Florida. He just gave out an open-ended appointment for more than a year!

Compared to what the Republicans just did in Florida, the Massachusetts proposal smells much better!

Would you prefer that Massachusetts used the same law that Crist just used?

Wow, the Republicans really look like a bunch of flaming hypocrites on this one! And you really don't pass the smell test.

Art Read
08-30-2009, 02:47 PM
Oh, yeah... You DO know that there is no legal way to prevent whoever is appointed from running don't you? We'll just have to "trust" 'em on that...:rolleyes:

Art Read
08-30-2009, 02:50 PM
"Wow, the Republicans really look like a bunch of flaming hypocrites on this one!"

__________________________________________________ ___

Keep pitching there, Bucko! SOMEBODY might buy your crap... Hell, even the liberal "talking heads" are snickering about this one!:D

ljb5
08-30-2009, 02:53 PM
Oh, yeah... You DO know that there is no legal way to prevent whoever is appointed from running don't you? We'll just have to "trust" 'em on that...:rolleyes:

I have a hard time believing that a person would lie about whether or not they're running for office.

Usually, politicians don't start breaking promises until they're in office (when it's tough to vote them out). It would be damn difficult to get away with a lie like that during the campaign.

Anyway, I think I made my point. Compared to what the Reps did in Florida (an open-ended appointment of more than one year), the Massachusetts proposal is far superior.

You're a bunch of hypocrites.

Art Read
08-30-2009, 03:00 PM
Ummm... Nobody in Florida had to go, hat in hand, to their rubber stamp legislature to CHANGE the law! I think it's hilarious that Teddy realized his mistake too late and left apologists like you trying like hell to polish this turd! (BTW... If leaving Massachusetts w/o a senator for a few months is such an injustice, why didn't the law they passed to keep Romney from appointing a senator allow for your temporary "stand-in"? Inquiring minds want to know!:D)

ljb5
08-30-2009, 03:16 PM
Ummm... Nobody in Florida had to go, hat in hand, to their rubber stamp legislature to CHANGE the law!

Of course not... they already have the most permissive, hypocritical law around... allowing the Governor unrestricted power to make an open-ended multi-year appointment.

If they'd been decent folks, they would have reformed it back in 2004 when Mass did.



why didn't the law they passed to keep Romney from appointing a senator allow for your temporary "stand-in"?

It's not uncommon to make incremental changes to laws. Just understand that an incremental change is not "overturning" the law (as Cris said).

But at least now you understand the difference between an open-ended two year appointment and a temporary, 145-day appointment.

That's a major step forward for right wingers. Hopefully, you will now be able to discuss the subject with a little more honesty and understanding.

:)

Art Read
08-30-2009, 03:42 PM
Kinda hard to put your heart in this one ain't it? Your "slip" is showing...:p

Captain Blight
08-30-2009, 03:46 PM
Wait a minute, wait a minute.

Are you-all intimating that a Kennedy was involved in shady politics and a back-room deal?


Heavens, what things you tell me.

Bob Adams
08-30-2009, 04:06 PM
You actually believe your own spin don't you lj?:rolleyes:

Yes, he does. Amazing isn't it?

ljb5
08-30-2009, 04:46 PM
Are you-all intimating that a Kennedy was involved in shady politics and a back-room deal?

Oh don't be silly.

There's nothing shady or back-room about this. It's all out in the open for anyone to see.

If you want to talk about shady, look at what Blagoevich or Crist did.

Massachusetts's policy is among the most proper and appropriate in the nation.

If you can't figure out the difference between a temporary 145 day appointment and an open-ended 2 year appointment, you're not equipped to participate in this discussion.

Captain Blight
08-30-2009, 04:48 PM
Massachusetts's policy is among the most proper and appropriate in the nation.
I find we disagree. Well, that'll happen from time to time.

ljb5
08-30-2009, 05:12 PM
I find we disagree. Well, that'll happen from time to time.

Indeed.

I feel that it would be appropriate for you to present some type of logial basis for your position.

Perhaps you could make a comparison between the system used in Mass and that used in other states to show why you feel that way.

I find it interesting to note that no one here seems aware of (or is willing to discuss) the actual wording of the law and changes that were made in 2004 or proposed in 2009. Believe it or not, the details do matter.

Cris said the current proposal would "overturn" the 2004 law. That's obviously incorrect. Funny he didn't know that.

Milo Christensen
08-30-2009, 06:34 PM
What would Blagovich do?

Abort this deletion, elljay, there's no way you can possibly appear competent claiming one political party is superior to another when it comes time to appoint a Senator to fill a vacancy. Blood running in cloakrooms and money flowing like water.

Ian McColgin
08-30-2009, 08:11 PM
At the time our General Court was making its ill-written effort to keep Romney from appointing himself if Kerry won, even the Herold could not find Ted's hand in the deed.

Which makes sense. Ted held federal, not state, office and was always careful not to tread across the line.

But that does not prevent the right wing liars from making stuff up now or from their brain dead followers from repeating it.

C. Ross
08-30-2009, 09:19 PM
Still flogging this horse?


Cris said the current proposal would "overturn" the 2004 law. That's obviously incorrect. Funny he didn't know that.

Perhaps you prefer "reversed"? "annulled"? "rescinded"? "countermanded"? "belayed"? Funny, I knew exactly what I was writing.

The operative phrase is from the 17th amendment is:


...the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

In every instance there must be a special election. OF COURSE the Massachusetts legislature is going to modify the duration of the appointment when they overturn the law. That's how power politics works - a plausible rationale is provided to cover inconsistency.

The Boston Globe calls it "hypocritical" "dispiriting" and "embarrassing". At least the editorial board is consistent - they opposed the bad law in the first place.

But let's check in on noted Republican rag the New York Times, on Saturday (including an interesting history lesson that I had forgotten.)



Democrats Seem Forgetful on Senate Appointments

By Peter Baker (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/author/peter-baker/)
WASHINGTON – The Democratic National Committee wasted no time Friday slamming Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida for installing a Republican crony in the Senate (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/crist-names-ally-as-senate-replacement-for-martinez/)as a seat warmer until Mr. Crist can run for the post himself next year.
Within hours of Mr. Crist’s appointment of his former chief of staff, George LeMieux, to fill a vacant seat until next year’s election, the D.N.C. sent reporters an e-mail message highlighting a St. Petersburg Times editorial assailing the decision under the headline, “Crist Serves Himself, Not Florida, With Appointment.”
“Gov. Charlie Crist could have appointed a former congressman, a former legislator, a former Jacksonville mayor, a former state attorney general, or even a former U.S.attorney to the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Mel Martinez,” the editorial said. “Instead, the governor chose his alter ego to keep the seat warm for 16 months as he campaigns for it.”
As questionable as that may be, it might seem like a strange thing for the D.N.C. to complain about at the very moment Democrats around the country were mourning the death of their spiritual leader, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts. After all, Mr. Kennedy got to the Senate through circumstances pretty much like those that the D.N.C. now disdains in Florida.
When John F. Kennedy won the presidency in 1960, Ted Kennedy was still too young to take his older brother’s empty Senate seat immediately. So the Kennedys arranged for a family friend named Benjamin A. Smith II to be appointed to the seat for two years until a special election when Ted Kennedy would be old enough to run and win it himself. Sound familiar?

And for that matter, it does not take a long look back at history to find another case of a Democrat getting his “alter ego” appointed as a seat warmer. Less than eight months ago, Joseph R. Biden Jr., as he prepared to be sworn in as vice president, supported the choice of his own former chief of staff, Ted Kaufman, who was appointed to fill his vacated Senate seat from Delaware until a special election can be held in 2010 when many expect Mr. Biden’s son, Joseph R. “Beau” Biden III, to run for the post.
The D.N.C. never sent out any statements denouncing that as self serving.

Politics isn't patty-cake and this kind of hypocrisy is sometimes swallowed in order to govern. Read the press - the Governor and the legislature know that.

Whining about being called on it is weak.

ljb5
08-30-2009, 09:27 PM
Wow, you're really striking out today.


Perhaps you prefer "reversed"? "annulled"? "rescinded"? "countermanded"? "belayed"? Funny, I knew exactly what I was writing.

The more correct term would be "amend." "Rescind," "reverse" and "overrule" have specific meanings. It is wrong to suggest that the legislature is reverting to the law as it was before Romney in 2004 because that is definitely not what has been suggested.


In every instance there must be a special election.

Not true. In some cases, they hold off until the next scheduled election which may be years in the future.


OF COURSE the Massachusetts legislature is going to modify the duration of the appointment when they overturn the law.

There has been no suggestion that this would happen and this is explicitly at odds with Kennedy's suggestion.

Kennedy suggested very short term appointment with a firm commitment to not seek the office full-time. If the state legislature passes a different law, it won't be Kennedy's fault.

C. Ross
08-30-2009, 09:41 PM
Why always with the name-calling?

Assuming you are correct, why didn't the Massachusetts legislature amend the law in 2004 to allow a short duration appointment? Let me guess...it didn't occur to them?

Neither facts nor opinion are on your side, but if you want to keep spinning have at it. It's amusing.

Milo Christensen
08-30-2009, 09:53 PM
. . . Neither facts nor opinion are on your side, but if you want to keep spinning have at it. It's amusing.

Amusing? You find the contestants of the Political Special Olympics amusing? No, you have to applaud them for their efforts considering their handicaps.

ljb5
08-30-2009, 10:05 PM
Assuming you are correct...

There's no reason to assume that. It's a matter of public record. Feel free to look it up.


...why didn't the Massachusetts legislature amend the law in 2004 to allow a short duration appointment? Let me guess...it didn't occur to them?

Apparently not.

But now you're changing the subject. At first you said they were going to "overturn" it. Now you recognize that they will amend it.

It does make a big difference.

George Jung
08-30-2009, 10:20 PM
I've decided to save this thread, on the off chance 'someone' might think better of it, and decide to delete the evidence. Perhaps a first - not a single person supporting Lil' in his assertions (well, there was Mr. McColgin, but I considered his endorsement only as a further indictment) - perhaps a first? Competency trumped by partisanship. Not coincidentally what I've been saying all along.

Mr. Ross, good history lesson, and well done.

Milo Christensen
08-30-2009, 10:25 PM
. . . At first you said they were going to "overturn" it. Now you recognize that they will amend it.

It does make a big difference.

I get it now, Chris, you're just making elljay feel good. Duhhhhh, you got a word wrong and that automatically means elljay wins, not on substance or the initial debate, but on the fact that you got a word wrong. Stand up on the podium, elljay, wipe the drool off your chin, wave to the other contestants in the Special Olympics (don't forget to say HI! MOM! real loud) and wear that medal with pride.

Milo Christensen
08-30-2009, 10:55 PM
Run, elljay, run.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f170/ericdamasca/funny20retard.jpg

C. Ross
08-30-2009, 11:04 PM
Ouch. Not very nice, sir.

Milo Christensen
08-30-2009, 11:10 PM
No. It's not nice. I don't play nice with elljay any more.

ljb5
08-30-2009, 11:24 PM
I've decided to save this thread, on the off chance 'someone' might think better of it, and decide to delete the evidence.

I've never deleted a thread and doubt I ever will.

The facts bear me out, why should I delete it?


Competency trumped by partisanship.

Your partisanship is certainly attempting to combat competence, but so far, hasn't managed.

The facts of the existing law and previous versions are a matter of public record... so are the facts of the change Kennedy suggested.

It's not a simple error in word choice that Cris said they would "overturn" the law. It's a completely different meaning.

Cris got caught out in his first post and has only made his error worse.

This comment deserve particular attention:


OF COURSE the Massachusetts legislature is going to modify the duration of the appointment when they overturn the law.

Cris, (who apparently understand nothing of previous or current law) makes a bold prediction about the future law.... and that prediction is completely at odds with the actual proposals.

If the Mass legislature does modify the duration of the appointment, it will be against Mr. Kennedy's explicit wishes.

Phillip Allen
08-30-2009, 11:36 PM
No. It's not nice. I don't play nice with elljay any more.

ell-jay is very foolish...

elf
08-31-2009, 12:13 AM
Testosterone again. Great substitute for thinking.

C. Ross
08-31-2009, 12:50 AM
Oh dear. More insults from ljb5.

The Los Angeles Times is satisfied with the term "overturn".



The ailing Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) has asked (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-kennedy21-2009aug21%2C0%2C3138980.story) the Legislature of his home state to overturn a 5-year-old law under which the voters, not the governor, will choose a successor if Kennedy can't complete his term. ... It's ironic that Kennedy now seeks to reinstate a practice Democrats dismantled for short-term partisan advantage, and that his proposal likely will collapse under the weight of that contradiction.


Legislative leaders understand that it's controversial

Boston Globe, August 26th (http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/08/mass_governor_s.html)



Publicly, neither [Senate President] Murray nor [House Speaker] DeLeo endorsed Kennedy's request. Murray would not comment on her position when she made a public appearance in Hyannis. DeLeo, at a press gathering at the State House, spoke warmly of the late senator but declined to take a strong position on the issue.
“I’m still gathering information,” he said. "I'm still listening to folks ... I feel that after the proper period of time, I’m going to sit down, talk to members, and talk to advocates."
DeLeo said his office has been getting emails from across the country, pro and con. DeLeo also faces some opposition from some of his members, who are already feeling the political heat after the Legislature approved a series of tax increases this summer.


Governor Patrick knows he needs cover


Patrick, asked about the critique of hypocrisy, said he was not in office in 2004.

I reiterate: neither the facts nor opinion are on your side.

Now, as to what I understand or don't understand... I've actually drafted legislation as a congressional aide, worked in the executive branch of federal and state governments, served on a gubernatorial transition team, and served on federal advisory committees. My wife was a state supreme court law clerk. Oh, and just anecdotally I've had business which led to me to actually have discussions with Governor Patrick and Senate President Murray.

By comparison, how qualified are you to interpret things, sir?

Phillip Allen
08-31-2009, 07:00 AM
Testosterone again. Great substitute for thinking.

I think yours is a good point...(although it's hard to think of ell-jay as having much of it)

Phillip Allen
08-31-2009, 07:04 AM
Oh dear. More insults from ljb5.

The Los Angeles Times is satisfied with the term "overturn".



Legislative leaders understand that it's controversial

Boston Globe, August 26th (http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/08/mass_governor_s.html)



Governor Patrick knows he needs cover



I reiterate: neither the facts nor opinion are on your side.

Now, as to what I understand or don't understand... I've actually drafted legislation as a congressional aide, worked in the executive branch of federal and state governments, served on a gubernatorial transition team, and served on federal advisory committees. My wife was a state supreme court law clerk. Oh, and just anecdotally I've had business which led to me to actually have discussions with Governor Patrick and Senate President Murray.

By comparison, how qualified are you to interpret things, sir?

the answer to your question resides at Cornell

elf
08-31-2009, 07:33 AM
I think yours is a good point...(although it's hard to think of ell-jay as having much of it)

Yup. Wrong on the parenthetical comment, however.

brad9798
08-31-2009, 07:55 AM
The most amazing thing in this thread so far:

Lj hasn't blamed this on Bush/Cheney ... yet!

:rolleyes:

BrianW
08-31-2009, 08:11 AM
Well I see the 'faithful' have chimed in to support their golden boy.

The reasonable on the left have been noticeably quiet.

Ian McColgin
08-31-2009, 08:24 AM
It's actually really simple.

Did Ted have anything to do with the legislated change to prevent Romney from appointing a senator if Kerry won? I do not recall even the hint of that at the time and have been unable to find a contemporary news reference that cites any evidence of such. Just not there.

brad9798
08-31-2009, 08:28 AM
Competency trumped by partisanship

By George ... I believe you just coined a new signature for lj!

ROTFL!
___________________

Out of curiousity, where was this Democratic study performed by lj during the Blago stuff ... afterall, the IL stuff was pretty important too!

Obviously, I missed that thread.

Just curious, what are your thoughts on the IL 'version' of the MA happenings? (I'm sure it leads back to a Rip somehow, somewhere).



You are to the Dem cause was guys like Al Sharpton are to the Black cause ... an hindrance ... a set-back as it were. ;)

Ian McColgin
08-31-2009, 08:35 AM
This may be a double post as I was writing a reply and it appears to have been lost.

I don't recall Ted's hand in the original change, back when the Legislature made the succession change to prevent Romney from making an appointment if Kerry won the presidency. I have not found any news sourse contemporary to that bit that made a credable connection between Ted, a federal office holder, and any state legislation, much less that one.

The change clearly has the flaw of no interim at all, leaving the Massachusetts delegation down one. I personally think that Ted should have maintained silence on the point but it's clear that as he felt death approaching and saw his dream of health care fading, he felt compelled to write.

Finally, I am really offended at Jung's crack about deleted threads or posts. Especially in a post otherwise devoid of content, it's remarkably tasteless, boorish, and serves only as an attempt to distract forum members from the fact that he advances no actual argument.

ljb5
08-31-2009, 09:44 AM
Now, as to what I understand or don't understand... I've actually drafted legislation as a congressional aide, worked in the executive branch of federal and state governments, served on a gubernatorial transition team, and served on federal advisory committees. My wife was a state supreme court law clerk. Oh, and just anecdotally I've had business which led to me to actually have discussions with Governor Patrick and Senate President Murray.

Your backgrounds story is interesting, but irrelevant.

The details of the law and the changes to it are a matter of public record. You misrepresented them.

(The fact that you found a newspaper column where someone else also misrepresented them does not buttress your argument.)

Phillip Allen
08-31-2009, 09:52 AM
Ross...now you can join the ranks (and ranks) of us other irrelevant folks :)


releventcy matters (but not spelling)

ljb5
08-31-2009, 09:58 AM
Ross...now you can join the ranks (and ranks) of us other irrelevant folks :)

Don't be silly. Cris has a long way to go until he's as stupid and irrelevant as you are. :D

To his credit, he at least makes a tiny effort to address the facts of the subject.... something which you haven't even attempted yet. :rolleyes:

You've posted four times on this thread -- each one an insult to me --- and not once have you mentioned Kennedy, Romney, Patrick, Massachusetts, voting laws or anything actually related to the topic. :eek:

Do you even know what the topic of the thread is..... or do you just think every thread is about me? :rolleyes:

Ian McColgin
08-31-2009, 10:00 AM
Just an aside, I'd not quarrel whether one calls the notion in Kennedy's letter as "overturning" or "changing". Frankly, it's a distinction without a difference to me.

I did read the Globe editorial, not news story, remarking on Kennedy's "behind the scenes" role in 2004. This looks like a bit of revisionism to my eye. Had Ted any role, he and his staff would have pushed for a far better bill than what the General Court did to spite Romney.

An interim appointment with the commitment that the appointed person not run is one pretty good idea. It's actually impeeded by the complication that Ted wrote it in a letter and and more impeeded because he did not address the letter to Sen Murrey. The fractious pettiness of the Massachussetts general court has been infamous from the start and it matters naught whether that's the current Democratic multi-party or the former Republican dragons. Or go reread your handy bio of any of the Adams family to see that it was ever thus. Must be in the water.

C. Ross
08-31-2009, 10:03 AM
Your backgrounds story is interesting, but irrelevant.

The details of the law and the changes to it are a matter of public record. You misrepresented them.

(The fact that you found a newspaper column where someone else also misrepresented them does not buttress your argument.)

OK, pal. Find one source that backs your position.

ljb5
08-31-2009, 10:11 AM
OK, pal. Find one source that backs your position.

I told you already, it's a matter of public record.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/07/31/romney_veto_overridden/


Under the Democratic plan for filling Kerry's seat, the post would remain vacant until a special election is held between 145 and 160 days after he is elected president. The proposal scraps the current system, which gives the governor the power to appoint an interim senator until the next biennial election, which would be in 2006 if Kerry wins this November.

Phillip Allen
08-31-2009, 10:13 AM
Don't be silly. Cris has a long way to go until he's as stupid and irrelevant as you are. :D

To his credit, he at least makes a tiny effort to address the facts of the subject.... something which you haven't even attempted yet. :rolleyes:

You've posted four times on this thread -- each one an insult to me --- and not once have you mentioned Kennedy, Romney, Patrick, Massachusetts, voting laws or anything actually related to the topic. :eek:

Do you even know what the topic of the thread is..... or do you just think every thread is about me? :rolleyes:

You are an insult to your parents...assuming that they knew one another

ljb5
08-31-2009, 10:16 AM
You are an insult to your parents...assuming that they knew one another

Are you in third grade?

How about you just cool it with the silly insults and try to discuss the subject like an adult?

Phillip Allen
08-31-2009, 10:18 AM
Are you in third grade?

How about you just cool it with the silly insults and try to discuss the subject like an adult?

I'll make a deal...no insults outa you either...what do you say?

ljb5
08-31-2009, 10:24 AM
I'll make a deal...no insults outa you either...what do you say?

When you act stupid, I will tell you that you are acting stupid.

How about you try to discuss the subject in an intelligent way?

You still haven't said anything on topic yet.

C. Ross
08-31-2009, 10:32 AM
I told you already, it's a matter of public record.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/07/31/romney_veto_overridden/

And you either don't understand or are misinterpreting the public record, which I have clearly documented.

If not, feel free to cite any other source who agrees with you, or describe what professional or personal experiences you have to come to this conclusion.

Remember, you started this thread accuing people of lying, and followed it up by insulting me and others. Right now, those accusations and insults are resting only on your opinion, and no other basis.

Phillip Allen
08-31-2009, 10:32 AM
see what he's like folks? (he says he's married...I wonder how long she will put up with such a pimpily attitude?)

ljb5
08-31-2009, 10:39 AM
And you either don't understand or are misinterpreting the public record, which I have clearly documented.

I've already explained it to you.

Prior to 2004, the law allowed the governor to appoint a Senator until the next biennial election (up to 2 years).

In 2004, the law was changed to leave the seat vacant until a special election in 145-160 days.

Recently, Kennedy proposed a temporary appointment for 145-160 days, followed by a special election.

The change Kennedy proposed does not revert the law to how it was prior to the 2004 change.

That's all there is to it. Plain and simple.

C. Ross
08-31-2009, 10:45 AM
You may bask in whatever self-reflected glory you can extract from that brilliant riposte, Mr. 5. Good luck.

Paul Pless
08-31-2009, 10:49 AM
ljb5, what's your opinion of reactionary legislation? (just in general)

ljb5
08-31-2009, 11:01 AM
You may bask in whatever self-reflected glory you can extract from that brilliant riposte, Mr. 5. Good luck.

Thanks. I always find satisfaction in truthfully discussing the facts of the situation.

I must confess, it's not really clear to me what benefit you've found arguing your losing side of the argument.

I'm still curious about this statement:


OF COURSE the Massachusetts legislature is going to modify the duration of the appointment when they overturn the law.

Can you explain what you meant by that?

In what way will they modify the duration? What is the current duration? What will the new duration be?

Will they do this in accordance with Kennedy's wishes, or against them?

How do you know?

Ian McColgin
08-31-2009, 11:13 AM
The thread started with a simple statement of Republican talking points.

No one has claimed that these are not Republican talking points.

A few have tried to assert they are actually true and the first “documentation” of that in post #2 quotes an editorial that speculates (no actual evidence) that ”Some state lawmakers fear they will look like hypocrites . . “ It’s just speculation and for our General Court, well they may fear looking like hypocrites but that never stopped them from being hypocrites.

The remark in the quoted editorial about Kennedy’s “behind-the-scenes role in the political sleight of hand” is remains unsupported by any contemporary evidence from 2004. I remember the argument of 2004 and the Globe’s principled stand against the change as proposed back then I recall no one tarring Kennedy with that bit of local vengeance.

I have looked in vain for “the public record, which I have clearly documented” [#57] for anything supporting the notion that Kennedy caused the 2004 change. An unsupported editorial is documentation of exactly nothing. I have looked especially in posts 25, 27, 33, 38,51 . . .

If someone can find contemporary (2004) evidence of Kennedy proposing the change, bring it forward.

I think this argument would have evolved better if critics recalled post #6 where ljb5 agreed that the 2004 change was a bit of highly partisan politics - it was after all and that was recognized by all, both for and against the change, at the time.

Back to ljb5’s point in starting the thread: That the Republican talking points about the change proposed in Kennedy’s letter - a change, by the way, mooted on Beacon Hill well before the letter right after that first seizure (does everyone remember this or need I document it?) - are untrue.

To this point no one has even attempted to document the “truth” of the Republican talking points. Rather, it’s been a bit like a Beacon Hill debate of diversion and insult instead of actual response to the claims (with which I agree) made by ljb5 in the opening of the thread.

C. Ross
08-31-2009, 11:34 AM
Thanks. I always find satisfaction in truthfully discussing the facts of the situation.

I must confess, it's not really clear to me what benefit you've found arguing your losing side of the argument.

I knew you were hopelessly arrogant, but until now wasn't aware you were delusional.


I'm still curious about this statement:

OF COURSE the Massachusetts legislature is going to modify the duration of the appointment when they overturn the law.

Can you explain what you meant by that?

In what way will they modify the duration? What is the current duration? What will the new duration be?

Will they do this in accordance with Kennedy's wishes, or against them?

How do you know?

If the law gives power of appointment back to the Governor, it is proposed to be shortened from a period not exceeding 2 years (730 days) to a period of 145 to 160 days. The proposal, whether made by Senator Kennedy or anyone else, must have some reasoning behind the different time period. The difference in time obviously means a lot to you, ljb5, but no one else can discern a difference. If anyone else sees things as you do, go ahead and post a link. I think you know how to do that.

Ian, I don't care whether Senator Kennedy was involved in the 2004 change. Your newspaper of record says that he was, but it's mroe or less irrelevant to me. The issue is the hypocrisy of your legislature.

I do care about the accusation that "Republican talking points" are "lies" which is demonstrably untrue. The only authoritative sources quoted in this thread came from me, and a link to a 2004 article by ljb5. As you say, Ian, all of them describe this as pure power politics. Republicans have pointed this out, which is their right. Democrats are whining about it, which they can do at their peril.

Cowboy up, boys, if you want to govern.

Ian McColgin
08-31-2009, 11:37 AM
Thank you Donn. I had not recalled that Ted lent his support to a bill that was stalled in the General Court. This is a long way from his writing the bill but is far more involvement than I had recalled.

ljb5
08-31-2009, 11:44 AM
If the law gives power of appointment back to the Governor, it is proposed to be shortened from a period not exceeding 2 years (730 days) to a period of 145 to 160 days.

Wrong again.

The duration has already been change from 2 years to a mere 145-160 days.

This change was made back in 2004.

The current proposal would not change the duration, but rather would allow an interim senator to serve during this duration.

If Kennedy requested (or the current state legislature proposed) resetting the interim period to 2 years, I would certainly agree with you.

However, this has not been requested or proposed, so you've reached the end of your argument.

C. Ross
08-31-2009, 11:52 AM
Sorry friend.

Law pre-2004: Governor appoints, interim Senator serves for up to 730 days until special election.

Current law: Governor does not appoint, seat open until special election in 145-160 days.

Proposed law: Governor appoints, interim Senator serves for up to 145-160 days until special election.

On Sesame Street, they used to ask kids, which of these three is not like the others?

Every sensible person understands that the key difference here is "governor appoints". You believe that they key difference is 730 days versus 145-160 days.

No one sees it the way you do. If you disagree, cite some other source.

And I'll let you know when I've come to the end of my argument.

Ian McColgin
08-31-2009, 11:59 AM
C.Ross, I agree with your summary except that all three processes are profoundly different.

The point of the 2004 change was to prevent Romney from appointing anyone. At the time no one seems to have thought that a relativly short vacancy might also be a problem.

A short appointment with the appointee barred by law from running meets both the problem of a governor using the appointment to give an edge to whomever and to ensuring no gap in the Commonwealth's representation.

ljb5
08-31-2009, 12:04 PM
Law pre-2004: Governor appoints, interim Senator serves for up to 730 days until special election.

Current law: Governor does not appoint, seat open until special election in 145-160 days.

Proposed law: Governor appoints, interim Senator serves for up to 145-160 days until special election.

Yes, I've explained that to you several times already. I'm glad you now understand it. :)


Every sensible person understands that the key difference here is "governor appoints". You believe that they key difference is 730 days versus 145-160 days.

I believe both are key differences. In reality, a 145 day term is really very, very short.... especially if the person is barred from running for a full term.

The law has been changed incrementally over the last several years. You said it was being "overturned" but you now post to show that the new changes do not put it back to the way it was, therefore it cannot be considered "overturned."

I consider both changes to be positive steps forward (neither is a step back.) In hindsight, it would have been nice if they could have made all the changes at once.... but alas, hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it?

C. Ross
08-31-2009, 12:48 PM
Yes, I've explained that to you several times already. I'm glad you now understand it. :)

I don't think the misunderstanding is on my side. Exactly what experience do you have in government and politics that justifies such arrogance and condescension?


I believe both are key differences.
...
In hindsight, it would have been nice if they could have made all the changes at once.... but alas, hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it?

Oh, hindsight is not required. On both "key differences" the legislature has been reliably partisan. If you check the record, the legislature did consider allowing an interim appointment during the 145-160 day period, but rejected it on a party-line vote.

New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/us/massachusetts-politicians-fight-over-a-kerry-victory.html?pagewanted=all)



So, on Wednesday, the State Senate voted, almost entirely on party lines, to change the nearly century-old electoral rules and call for a special election to a Senate seat that would take place from 145 to 160 days after an incumbent senator decides to step down. In Mr. Kerry's case, should he win the presidency, that would mean an election would be held for his seat in March or April 2005, instead of in November 2006 under the current system. Mr. Kerry's term actually expires in 2008.
The Senate also voted that the governor could not make an interim appointment.

George Jung
08-31-2009, 01:35 PM
Lets' see.... C. Ross is still trying to nail Lil' down .... does their exchange remind anyone else of a Monty Python skit?

And Ian has taken the time to toss a lil' 'doo' in my direction. Thanks, Ian! But just an aside - it'll work better for you if you're not tossing into a headwind.... you know how that one works out. :p

Amazing, actually, and pretty illuminating - the amount of effort partisans will put into defending the indefensible, trying to keep 'the shine' on their politics. But polishing a turd..... it doesn't work so well.
As far as 'adding nothing to the conversation', that may be true. Yet what I've added, as opposed to your contributions, is at least true!

Paul Pless
08-31-2009, 01:38 PM
Yet what I've added, as opposed to your contributions, is at least true!Can I add a bit of worthless truth to the conversation as well?

ljb5 is a dork...


Thanks, I feel better now.

elf
08-31-2009, 01:41 PM
I don't hear anyone here polishing any turds except those they're lobbing at each other.

The fact of the matter is that Teddy should have kept his trap shut last week and there's noone in MA who doesn't know that, including Ian, who has clearly stated his understanding.

Sometimes Teddy was politic. Sometimes he wasn't.

People see with wildly varying clarity as they approach the end of their lives.

ljb5
08-31-2009, 01:45 PM
Exactly what experience do you have in government and politics that justifies such arrogance and condescension?

I never claimed to have any, other than to be able to look up facts and read plain English.

Despite your extensive political experience (or perhaps because of it :eek:), it wasn't until post #68 that you were able to understand the changes to the law, even though I had already posted them in post #1, 3, 52 and 59.

In post #25, you used the terms "reversed" "overturned" "annulled" and "rescinded."

In light of your post #68 (and the multiple times I explained it to you), it should be obvious even to you that none of those words are applicable.

Honestly, Cris, I think you made a tactical error in your post #68. You admitted that you understand the changes to the law, but then said you are selective about which changes you care about.

The details do matter. There is a difference between 730 days and 150 days. When you deliberately ignore this significant difference, you damage your own credibility.

elf
08-31-2009, 01:56 PM
IIRC, he didn't have much to say last week.

Curious. Do you know what he said about anything except this particular matter? If not, how can you assert the above?

cbcc
08-31-2009, 02:02 PM
Where's Norm when we need him?

Ian McColgin
08-31-2009, 02:12 PM
The specific charge we’ve seen mooted about that Kennedy had authored the 2004 change is false. Given Kennedy’s promotion of the idea - something I’d not realized or paid attention to or somehow missed at the time and about which I remained wrong till Donn’s useful cite - I think it a bit intemperate, to say the least, to call it a “lie”.

As I made clear after Donn’s post, I regret the factual errors and incompleteness of my post [24]. I also apologize for the intemperate vigor of my last remarks in that post. I should have addressed the Republican talking point errors in a more factual manner.
The problem of a long vacancy at this key time versus the likely string of suits and generally merry pranksterism the Beacon Hill Republican leadership has promiced in opposition to any change just now is a close call.

To some extent that various debates among people both reflects and affects the debates among those people's representatives. I regret to say that my helpfulness in that has been limited.

High C
08-31-2009, 02:38 PM
...I haven't seen anyone claim he wrote the bill.

No, but I refute it anyway! I win!!! :D

Dang, that was easy. ;)

Ian McColgin
08-31-2009, 02:44 PM
I believe Donn is correct as to factually careful Republicans. A bit further off are statements like:

“Ted Kennedy and other Democrats in Massachusetts changed the law in 2004 . . . “ from http://www.hardcorepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=194669

I believe it was somewhere on this Forum that I saw a post that asserted that Kennedy had authored the 2004 law.

I don’t know if ljb5 has more explicit talking point cites in which Republicans try to hype Kennedy’s support of a state measure in 2004.

Just as I step back from calling Republicans “liars” on this matter, I disagree with C Ross on two points: the Massachusetts Beacon Hill Democratic leadership is hardly left wing and they are not lying about this.

I do agree with him, however, that “The law passed by Democrats in 2004 was a bad bill, so it's a good thing they are overturning it.” With the understanding that it’s more “amending“ than “overturning“, since what’s on the table is not like the old system.

ljb5
08-31-2009, 03:17 PM
I'd argue that, if we separate ourselves from the current partisan issues in Massachusetts, Kennedy's proposal actually is the best one of the three options.

Indeed. That has been my point all along.

If Kennedy were really as partisan as they say, he could have supported a much worse option. (Check out what Crist just did in Florida, for example.)

I'd even go so far as to ask if there is any better solution than the one Kennedy suggested.

Since we can't make it illegal for a person to die while in office, it seems we need to have a quick and sensible means to replace them.

elf
08-31-2009, 03:43 PM
Speed isn't a virtue by default, even here, in my opinion. I can think of a number of reasons why it might be nice to get on with it here, but I can't see into the future well enough here to determine whether it would be un-nice to let the time pass.

C. Ross
08-31-2009, 03:47 PM
Now, for you conservatives following along here, let's just speak hypothetically for a moment, and forget that there's an issue of party and of legislation going on. What's the best way to handle the death of a senator?

Leave the seat open until a special election?

Let the governor appoint a senator until the expiration of the term of the original senator?

Let the governor appoint a temporary senator, of the party which has just vacated the seat, who is committed to NOT run, until the special election can be held?


This thread was worthwhile if only to coax Norm from his lair. Good.

The best alternative is provided by the 17th Amendment, and 47 states allow for interim appointment followed by general election. Sen. Feingold proposed legislation to bar gubernatorial appointments because of the chaos in Illinois and lackluster actions in New York (and now Florida).

The worst alternative is for a state to change the rules brazenly midstream for partisan gain. Sure, it's part of the Massachusetts scene, but it diminshes us to make excuses or flimsy arguments to justify it.

Who in Massachusetts feels like they are being well represented, other than the most partisan Democrat? Given that most of you are, I suppose it doesn't feel to you as though the rules committee changing the race rules midcourse is a big deal, but it surely does to the minority. And it makes you look unprincipled and opportunistic.

(heh. Let's see if Norm can resist responding to THAT.)

Art Read
08-31-2009, 04:04 PM
What happened to "elections have consequences". I guess in Gov. Romney's case, not so much.... Have at it. Mob rule and laws are for little people. (...and Republicans...)

ljb5
08-31-2009, 04:13 PM
The best alternative is provided by the 17th Amendment

The 17th Amendment is quite broad and non-specific on the subject. It pretty much allows the states to do whatever they want.


The worst alternative is for a state to change the rules brazenly midstream for partisan gain.

I disagree. Even with this incredibly "partisan" and "obnoxious" turn of events, the Massachusetts system is still light years ahead of other states, such as Florida.

In the spectrum of possible outcomes, a 150 day appointment without seeking the office full-time is the least offensive option.

bobbys
08-31-2009, 04:22 PM
I thought i was stubborn !!!!

john l
08-31-2009, 04:43 PM
it seems that the people of mass have not been and are not being represented in the senate. that's a problem that mass needs to work out. not the people of other states for this is not a "federal" or "big gov" issue. it certainly wasn't in florida. there probably is only one reason those folks from other states don't wish to have another senator from mass and that is for their own political agenda. i'd say - let the people of mass decide. whatever they decide is their business.

Phillip Allen
08-31-2009, 04:47 PM
I'm coming out of retirement very briefly here..namely, for this one post, after which I plan to submerge again.

In this entire discussion, ain't NOBODY talked about the interests of the electorate. All that's been talked about is politics. OK, fine... here's MY take:

1) Yes, the 2004 law change to provide for a special election was indeed prompted by partisan politics.

2) Yes, the change suggested by Kennedy before he died was partisan politics.

3) The Republicans have played this game as well, in other states, so there's little point or value in the conservatives here being so 'shocked, SHOCKED, that politics are being played here' (in my best imitation of Claude Rains).

4) The thing nobody talks about is the interests of the voters.
Massachusetts is a VERY heavily Democratic state which has the strange characteristic of electing a Republican governor, from time to time... although there hasn't been a Republican senator in 35 years (Ed Brooke was the last), and there weren't any before him, for a long time. Brooke, for those who don't know, was a moderate Republican and an African American.

So, the real question is this: in the event of the death, or other removal, of a Senator, what is in the best interests of the electorate?

It's pretty obvious that Kennedy was heavily supported by his constituents... you don't get to be a senator for 47 years, re-elected time after time, if there's much in the way of discontent.

So, how to proceed? Calling a special election would SEEM to be best, since the vote is the best indication of the will of the electorate. However, there would be a lengthy delay until the election could be held, during which time, the state is under-represented. This is especially important, in situations like we face now, where both senatorial votes are critically needed for legislation... and especially, legislation that is clearly supported by the constituents.

Appointing a temporary senator is the other possibility. This provides for full representation by the state.... but suffers a liability: the appointment is rife with possibilities for fraud and corruption (remember Blagojevich?), gives a 'leg up', politically, for whoever is appointed, if they intend to run on their own for the seat, and finally, permits a governor to intentionally thwart the will of the people... which is most certainly what would have happened, if Romney had been permitted to name a Republican to John Kerry's seat, if he had been elected.

So, either possibility isn't good for the constituents... too many possibilities that it will work against their interests.

In the case of Massachusetts, there is simply NOTHING that can be done which wouldn't result in accusations of partisan politics, no matter which way the state goes.

So, this brings up Kennedy's suggestion: the notion that a temporary senator be appointed, one who would commit to NOT running in the special election, to fill the seat until the special election took place.

Now, for you conservatives following along here, let's just speak hypothetically for a moment, and forget that there's an issue of party and of legislation going on. What's the best way to handle the death of a senator?

Leave the seat open until a special election?

Let the governor appoint a senator until the expiration of the term of the original senator?

Let the governor appoint a temporary senator, of the party which has just vacated the seat, who is committed to NOT run, until the special election can be held?
I'd argue that, if we separate ourselves from the current partisan issues in Massachusetts, Kennedy's proposal actually is the best one of the three options.

Should the MA legislature change the rule now, to permit the Kennedy idea to take place? I'd argue the following: it would be better to do it when a specific seat and a specific issue were not at stake... but even if the seat and the issue ARE at stake, switching to a better system is still worth doing.

(In case anyone was going to argue that the commitment to not run can't be enforced, bear in mind that the commitment to vote a certain way, by the members of the College of Electors, in a Presidential election, can't be enforced, either.... but 'faithless electors' are rare as hen's teeth, throughout history).

OK, that's it.

You can all return to the sniping. I'm going back under.



I have questions Norman...

If it is wrong for the party represented by the sitting (appointed) senator to have a leg-up, then why aren't ALL incumbents penalized to level the field? (I think balancing one political party against the other…preventing either from gaining too much power IS in the best interest of the people)

On thwarting the "will of the People", just how are you interpreting that? That the People wanted the dead man in office or that the People wanted the dead man's buddies in office (you sound like the man with the upside-down hat)

where do you come off saying NO ONE had the interests of the electorate in mind...the founding fathers, both state AND federal, had those interests in mind...are you suggesting they didn't?

elf
08-31-2009, 04:53 PM
Who in Massachusetts feels like they are being well represented, other than the most partisan Democrat? Given that most of you are, I suppose it doesn't feel to you as though the rules committee changing the race rules midcourse is a big deal, but it surely does to the minority. And it makes you look unprincipled and opportunistic.

Certainly, the three of us who have contributed here have expressed serious reservations about the entire process, so clearly either you have missed that or you don't want to see it, Cris. I don't experience Norm, Ian or me as unprincipled on this matter at all, thank you.

We have all spoken to the sorry manner in which the state Democrats have dealt all along, since 2004.

In actuality we would certainly love to have Massachusetts fully represented in the Senate during the next 4.5 months, but none of us is enthralled by state politics, especially in the state house and General Court, not to mention Boston. And, I believe if you look closely you will see also that, although 2 of us are pretty certainly flaming liberals, we aren't unabashed admirers of our recently deceased Senator.

Keep in mind, however, that precise words improve the possibility that thoughts can be clearly understood by the hearers.

C. Ross
08-31-2009, 05:53 PM
Certainly, the three of us who have contributed here have expressed serious reservations about the entire process, so clearly either you have missed that or you don't want to see it, Cris. I don't experience Norm, Ian or me as unprincipled on this matter at all, thank you.

We have all spoken to the sorry manner in which the state Democrats have dealt all along, since 2004.

In actuality we would certainly love to have Massachusetts fully represented in the Senate during the next 4.5 months, but none of us is enthralled by state politics, especially in the state house and General Court, not to mention Boston. And, I believe if you look closely you will see also that, although 2 of us are pretty certainly flaming liberals, we aren't unabashed admirers of our recently deceased Senator.


Oh, I quite agree about you, Ian and Norm and am happy to make that clear.

The thing I appreciate about the three of you (if I may lump you unceremoniously together!) is that you see things as they are even as you write about things the way you want them to be.

I believe you tell the truth as you see it, and I understand the sense and principle behind what you write even when I think you're completely wrong!

Ljb5 is a different sort of fellow and is entitled to the response he gets on this forum.

ljb5
08-31-2009, 06:02 PM
Changing the rules 'mid-course' is ALWAYS a 'big deal', but if you consider the interests of the constituents, it's the fairest thing to do.

Indeed, some might say mid-stream is the only time course ever gets changed.

To change course beforehand requires an unreasonable amount of clairvoyance and political capital.

To change course after the fact is pointless.

Courses get changed when the issue is hot and urgent. No one should be surprised by this.

Phillip Allen
08-31-2009, 06:13 PM
..and you can count on me to not join the conversation again, as well. This was a BIG mistake.

but you haven't answered my questions!

pefjr
08-31-2009, 06:30 PM
Suggestion to Massachusetts: Show your sense of fair play, appoint a Republican, its only temporary and you'll have representation. Fair enough?

Phillip Allen
08-31-2009, 06:33 PM
Suggestion to Massachusetts: Show your sense of fair play, appoint a Republican, its only temporary and you'll have representation. Fair enough?

fair hasn't entered the thinking of that corrupt state in most of a centruy

ljb5
08-31-2009, 07:06 PM
Suggestion to Massachusetts: Show your sense of fair play, appoint a Republican, its only temporary and you'll have representation. Fair enough?

Nothing partisan or self-serving about that totally unbiased suggestion. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Why a Republican? Why not a Socialist or a NAZI or a skinhead or a Muslim theocratist?

How did you decide it's your turn, other than you always think it's your turn to eat someone else's piece of pie?

elf
08-31-2009, 07:25 PM
Suggestion to Massachusetts: Show your sense of fair play, appoint a Republican, its only temporary and you'll have representation. Fair enough?

Fair play? To appoint someone who represents something like 22% of the registered electorate? Doesn't sound fair to me.

Now, maybe appointing a centrist Democrat would be closer to fair, but then we know from watching the last 2 months that centrist Democrats stand for being beholden to the big businesses that fund them, not to the people who elected them. If you think for a moment that that's any different in MA, think again.

In actuality, the next election may be quite an eye opener for those in the state Democratic party who have become entrenched. I see plenty of evidence that a large portion of MA suffered from the same ethical disconnect that we're seeing around the country, and that the Kennedy name may have been the only thing keeping Teddy down there.

There are a lot of people wallowing in Kennedy remorse, dating back to watching that caisson in 1963, and now they will be freed of that.

It may be tragic for the public welfare to watch the next election.

pefjr
08-31-2009, 07:50 PM
Why a Republican?

How did you decide it's your turn, other than you always think it's your turn to eat someone else's piece of pie?

Why, because you have had no honesty or integrity in that seat for 47 years and you could use the experience and taste the difference.

Your man Kennedy kinda pooped in that pie, you can have it.

It was just a suggestion, don't get upset and have a fit. We don't expect an overnight change from worship to democracy.

ljb5
08-31-2009, 08:12 PM
Why, because you have had no honesty or integrity in that seat for 47 years and you could use the experience and taste the difference.

We have an electoral system. Feel free to participate. :rolleyes:

pefjr
08-31-2009, 08:15 PM
We have an electoral system. Feel free to participate. :rolleyes:
You have an opportunity to have one, now that you are free.

ljb5
08-31-2009, 08:24 PM
You have an opportunity to have one, now that you are free.

Cool.

I'll bet you a nickel that a Republican doesn't win that seat.

Who will you blame then?

I guess that's why you wanted to just claim that seat as your own through an overt power grab. :rolleyes:

pefjr
08-31-2009, 08:28 PM
[quote=ljb5;2306106]


Who will you blame then? quote



Bush, Cheney?

Phillip Allen
08-31-2009, 08:37 PM
Fair play? To appoint someone who represents something like 22% of the registered electorate? Doesn't sound fair to me.

Now, maybe appointing a centrist Democrat would be closer to fair, but then we know from watching the last 2 months that centrist Democrats stand for being beholden to the big businesses that fund them, not to the people who elected them. If you think for a moment that that's any different in MA, think again.

In actuality, the next election may be quite an eye opener for those in the state Democratic party who have become entrenched. I see plenty of evidence that a large portion of MA suffered from the same ethical disconnect that we're seeing around the country, and that the Kennedy name may have been the only thing keeping Teddy down there.

There are a lot of people wallowing in Kennedy remorse, dating back to watching that caisson in 1963, and now they will be freed of that.

It may be tragic for the public welfare to watch the next election.



How is it fair to disenfranchise that 22% totally? Think of it every fifth person you meet is cut out of the loop…that’s how power politics has always worked and no one cares so long as his power broker is in office

Phillip Allen
08-31-2009, 08:40 PM
someone's being patently dishonest...again

ljb5
08-31-2009, 08:41 PM
Bush, Cheney?

Yep. You all will be paying for that mistake for years to come.

What was your justification for handing over Kennedy's former seat to a Republican?

You shot yourselves in the foot so damn bad that we're supposed to take pity on you?

Phillip Allen
08-31-2009, 08:45 PM
what was your justification for preventing anyone but a democrat from taking that seat?

elf
08-31-2009, 08:52 PM
How is it fair to disenfranchise that 22% totally? Think of it every fifth person you meet is cut out of the loop…that’s how power politics has always worked and no one cares so long as his power broker is in office

Of course, they're not completely cut out. They still have Representatives from certain districts in the House, Phillip. And a good Senator doesn't cut the other party out of the loop. In fact, if you paid attention this weekend to the celebration of Teddy's life you'd have heard how he carefully and deliberately didn't cut that minority out of the loop.

Perhaps you're operating from a set of assumptions that don't pertain to Massachusetts? Massachusetts isn't Arkansas.

ljb5
08-31-2009, 08:55 PM
what was your justification for preventing anyone but a democrat from taking that seat?


Don't be a crybaby.

I didn't prevent anyone from taking the seat.

The people of Massachusetts will get their say. Not yours.

Phillip Allen
08-31-2009, 08:57 PM
Of course, they're not completely cut out. They still have Representatives from certain districts in the House, Phillip. And a good Senator doesn't cut the other party out of the loop. In fact, if you paid attention this weekend to the celebration of Teddy's life you'd have heard how he carefully and deliberately didn't cut that minority out of the loop.

Perhaps you're operating from a set of assumptions that don't pertain to Massachusetts? Massachusetts isn't Arkansas.

okay...now reverse the parties and tell me again why fair play wouldn't be represented...the dems wouldn't be "completely" cut out would they?

Phillip Allen
08-31-2009, 08:58 PM
Don't be a crybaby.

I didn't prevent anyone from taking the seat.

The people of Massachusetts will get their say. Not yours.

no one said you did...are you accusing someone of blaming you personally?

ljb5
08-31-2009, 09:16 PM
no one said you did...are you accusing someone of blaming you personally?

Sorry, I was just trying to make some sense out of your incoherent post #113.

I shoulda known better than to try to decipher your ramblings.

pefjr
08-31-2009, 10:01 PM
Yep. You all will be paying for that mistake for years to come.

What was your justification for handing over Kennedy's former seat to a Republican?

You shot yourselves in the foot so damn bad that we're supposed to take pity on you?

Incoherent? You are the pot calling the kettle black. Justification? Do you need reading glasses or carrots. Shot foot??

Its the liberals like you that seem to be paying for some perceived mistake, I'm living in luxury and relaxing in a safe country. Airlines are safe, no terrorist next door, no bombing, got plenty food on the table, wine in the glasses, watching the US Open tennis on cable, communicating with the disheartened like yourself, trying to help you guys get your feet on the ground, couldn't ask for more.

pefjr
08-31-2009, 10:04 PM
If I'm a little slow posting its on account of elf patroling close by an I gotta watch my p&q's.

ljb5
08-31-2009, 10:18 PM
Its the liberals like you that seem to be paying for some perceived mistake, I'm living in luxury and relaxing in a safe country.

Yup, it's terrible.

A democrat in the Whitehouse, huge majorities of Democrats in both the House and Senate. Massachusetts will soon have a new democratic Senator. We just got a new Supreme Court justice....

The stock market is up more than 40% in the last six months.

pefjr
08-31-2009, 10:23 PM
Yup, it's terrible.

A democrat in the Whitehouse, huge majorities of Democrats in both the House and Senate. Massachusetts will still have a new democratic Senator. We just got a new Supreme Court justice....

The stock market is up more than 40% in the last six months.
Yes, I like those blue dogs. If you liberals ain't careful, those guys will turn on ya and vote Repub.

ljb5
08-31-2009, 10:32 PM
Yes, I like those blue dogs. If you liberals ain't careful, those guys will turn on ya and vote Repub.

You do realize we were talking about Massachusetts, right?

pefjr
08-31-2009, 10:46 PM
You do realize we were talking about Massachusetts, right?
Well,its a new day
in Ma.

elf
09-01-2009, 06:01 AM
Yes, I like those blue dogs. If you liberals ain't careful, those guys will turn on ya and vote Repub.

Actually, they should stop posing as Democrats. There's nothing of a Democrat about them, and if they affiliated themselves with the party they actually sympathise with we'd have a more honest picture of the tenuous situation for progressive, or even moderate legislation in Congress.

There is no Democratic majority in the Senate, nor is there in the House. There are just Congresspeople who are lying about which party they actually belong to philosophically.

pefjr
09-01-2009, 09:20 AM
[quote=elf;2306370]Actually, they should stop posing as Democrats. There's nothing of a Democrat about them, and if they affiliated themselves with the party they actually sympathise with we'd have a more honest picture of the tenuous situation for progressive, or even moderate legislation in Congress.

There is no Democratic majority in the Senate, nor is there in the House. There are just Congresspeople who are lying about which party they actually belong to philosophically.[/quote

Well, you liberals are driving on the shoulder of the road and its hard to get traction. Its safer in the middle of the road and you can switch lanes when needed. I've made a donkey out of myself more than a few times, even run clean off the road once or twice.

ccmanuals
09-01-2009, 10:16 AM
[quote=ljb5;2306106]


Who will you blame then? quote



Bush, Cheney?

I think Cheney has decided he will only emerge from his bunker on matters of National Security :p

elf
09-01-2009, 10:45 AM
Actually, they should stop posing as Democrats. There's nothing of a Democrat about them, and if they affiliated themselves with the party they actually sympathise with we'd have a more honest picture of the tenuous situation for progressive, or even moderate legislation in Congress.

There is no Democratic majority in the Senate, nor is there in the House. There are just Congresspeople who are lying about which party they actually belong to philosophically.

Well, you liberals are driving on the shoulder of the road and its hard to get traction. Its safer in the middle of the road and you can switch lanes when needed. I've made a donkey out of myself more than a few times, even run clean off the road once or twice.

The middle of the road is where nothing happens. The need to do a lot of things is urgent. Get out of the middle of the road and learn how to drive on the gravel.

C. Ross
09-01-2009, 11:37 AM
The middle of the road is where nothing happens. The need to do a lot of things is urgent. Get out of the middle of the road and learn how to drive on the gravel.

The middle is the only place where anything ever happens, but we've had that discussion before...I think even on Lefty's back porch!

The US political center of gravity is still center-right -- it has been since Nixon beat Humphrey, all the way through Carter's defeat of Kennedy and the ascendence of Clinton and the New Democrats.

As you pointed out in an earlier thread, the administration has changed but the country hasn't. Obama is left to center, but not hard left (I disagree with many of my Republican friends who call him a socialist etc.) The leadership in Congress represents Old Left because they have held gerrymandered Job For Life Democratic districts for decades (as did the Republican leadership who preceeded them).

The Blue Dogs sit right on top of the electoral center of gravity, which is why they are calling many of the shots. They hold that position only because the Republicans became indifferent to their moderate wing circa 1994, moved loony right, and created a vacuum.

I like Blue Dogs. They are reliable, steady ... a man's best friend!

ljb5
09-01-2009, 11:56 AM
The US political center of gravity is still center-right.

I'm not convinced that the US has a political center.

We have seen over and over that US voters are highly susceptible to influence -- especially by (corporate-funded) disinformation campaigns.

For decades, the Republicans have been referring to themselves as the party of small government --- but this obviously isn't true. They've called themselves the party of fiscal responsibility, but that's clearly not true either. They created the myth that they're the party of law and order, but then tell us that they're above the law. (Watergate, Iran-Contra and the lies about the Iraq war). They told us they were against "nation building," then jumped in with both feet.

They slander the Democrats as the party of "Nanny Government," but then they tell us that they're going to keep us safe by torturing people and it's really best that we just trust them on this and not ask too many questions. And they want to listen in on your phone calls too... but don't worry, because they know what's best for you.

In an environment where one party is completely dishonest about where they stand -- (and a large number of people believe them) -- it's not possible to define where the political center lies.

In the current health care debate, it seems the center of gravity is somewhere between the current system and a public option. Of course, if the right hadn't done so much lying about "death panels" and denying care to Stephen Hawking, who knows where an honest debate may have led us?

elf
09-01-2009, 12:11 PM
I like Blue Dogs. They are reliable, steady ... a man's best friend!

Only as long as you feed them.

C. Ross
09-02-2009, 03:55 PM
Criminey, they're going to have to change their minds AGAIN to stop a Republican:


Schilling expresses some interest in Kennedy seat
By GLEN JOHNSON (AP) – 8 minutes ago
BOSTON — Former Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling says he has "some interest" in running for the late Edward M. Kennedy's Senate seat.
The longtime Republican supporter wrote Wednesday on his blog that while his family and gaming company are priorities, he does have some interest in a campaign.
He says doing the required work to become a candidate would mean "many, many things would have to align themselves."
Kennedy was a Democrat. Schilling lives in suburban Boston and is a registered independent. He campaigned for President George W. Bush in 2004 and Sen. John McCain in 2008.
Kennedy died last week at age 77 of a brain tumor.


Unless Tom Brady or KG are Democrats, of course.