Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 08:41 am
Ok, so when Kerry ran for President, the Democrats had the law in Mass changed so that then Republican Gov. Romney could not appoint a replacement Senator who would most likely be a Republican. They demanded a special election and it was passed.

Now, Mass. has Democrat Gov. Patrick and an open Senate seat with the passing of Sen. Kennedy and the Dems want to again change the law to allow the Gov to be able to appoint a senator...

Does this sit ok with you guys on the left?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 13 • Views: 5,123 • Replies: 82

 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 08:48 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
Does this sit ok with you guys on the left?

I'm not on the left or the right, and I don't live in Massachusetts any more (even though I live close enough to the border to throw a rock from my house into Mass), but if I was a voter in Mass I would be annoyed enough with this whole behavior to think about electing different leaders (on the other hand, I always think that way anyway... so maybe nothing's changed).
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  11  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 09:03 am
@McGentrix,
Through many Republican gubernatorial administrations, the Illinois GOP was completely silent on the issue of changing the way the governor appoints replacements to fill unexpired senatorial terms. When Obama resigned his seat in 2008, however, the Republicans suddenly discovered that they favored a special election to fill senate vacancies. And, I would hasten to add, the Democratic lieutenant governor who soon would take over from our much-beloved Rod Blagojevich, and who, throughout his political career, had favored special elections to fill senatorial vacancies, suddenly discovered, when he became governor, that he really liked the idea of the governor appointing a replacement.

In other words, politics as usual.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 09:12 am
@McGentrix,
The majority of the people in Massachusetts seem to be satisfied with it.

Why do you hate America?
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 09:50 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
Why do you hate America?


Du-uh . . . because he's conservative . . .
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 10:39 am
@McGentrix,
I am an independent in MA and this does not sit right for me.

I guess it is "politics at its best" huh....? I detest this sort of politics - doing what is best for the party - it should be what is best for the people of MA those that they represent.

I wonder how much this could back fire in a sense. It is so blatently obvious what is one party is doing that it cause a backlash.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 10:43 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Ok, so when Kerry ran for President, the Democrats had the law in Mass changed so that then Republican Gov. Romney could not appoint a replacement Senator who would most likely be a Republican. They demanded a special election and it was passed.

Now, Mass. has Democrat Gov. Patrick and an open Senate seat with the passing of Sen. Kennedy and the Dems want to again change the law to allow the Gov to be able to appoint a senator...

Does this sit ok with you guys on the left?


Politics as usual for sure.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 10:55 am
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:

I am an independent in MA and this does not sit right for me.

I guess it is "politics at its best" huh....? I detest this sort of politics - doing what is best for the party - it should be what is best for the people of MA those that they represent.

I wonder how much this could back fire in a sense. It is so blatently obvious what is one party is doing that it cause a backlash.


Politics can be ugly when parties do these kinds of moves. I know that the NYS government is in shambles. We even have a movement ongoing to replace the whole bunch started by the guy the used to be our mayor. I know I would be upset with my party if they tried these shenanigans.

Arcuri, my congressman, decided to vote against the Joe Wilson thing as he saw it as a waste of congress's time. That was definitely a plus vote for him. I am waiting to get an idea about how he is planning to vote on healthcare. He is in the bluedog democrat camp so far.
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 10:59 am
@McGentrix,
The question is what is best for the people of Massachusetts.

I happen to be a person of Massachusetts. We overwhelmingly vote Democrat in any national election. We strongly support a health care reform bill that includes a strong public option. How can anyone argue that appointing an interim Senator to vote on a piece of crucial legislation that the majority of us want is not the best thing for the people of Massachusetts?

The people of Massachusetts have lost a vote in the Senate at an important time.

The best thing for us is to have two votes to represent us, same as any other state.

McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 11:13 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

The question is what is best for the people of Massachusetts.

I happen to be a person of Massachusetts. We overwhelmingly vote Democrat in any national election. We strongly support a health care reform bill that includes a strong public option. How can anyone argue that appointing an interim Senator to vote on a piece of crucial legislation that the majority of us want is not the best thing for the people of Massachusetts?

The people of Massachusetts have lost a vote in the Senate at an important time.

The best thing for us is to have two votes to represent us, same as any other state.




snarky answer 1: Wouldn't the same have been true on 04 when the party decided to change it so a Republican Gov could not appoint the new Sen? What's changed since then... Oh, I know, a Dem Gov.

It's fine to admit that the Democrat party in Mass is corrupt, unethical and mentally challenged. We all know it already...

Snarky answer 2: Bullshit. It's what's good for the Democrats. "what is best for the people of Massachusetts".... Laughing Laughing Laughing

Good one ebrown. You almost sounded like you believed it for a moment.

Reasoned response: Then you would agree that the party making the change in 04 was done for no other reason then for political gamesmanship? Obviously if this move is what is best for the people of Massachusetts, then the 04 move would not have been.
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 11:26 am
@McGentrix,
McG,

You are arguing that it is better for Massachusetts to have only one vote in the Senate, when we are allowed to have two.

First... yes what happened in 2004 was done only because the State legislators (themselves predominantly Democrats) didn't want a Republican governor to appoint a replacement for John Kerry should be be elected. They were able to do this because voters in Massachusetts elected predominantly Democratic legislators who had this ability. Whether this was "gamesmanship" or not is an interesting question-- but this was done by democratically (with a little d) elected officials.

It could be argued that what these democratically elected officials did in 2004 was irresponsible, but that is another question.

Right now the question is whether we Massachusetts citizens are better served with two votes in Congress, or with only one-- particularly with important national health care legislation which most of us support hanging in the balance.

The State legislature has the ability to change the rule so that we will get our full representation in the Senate. Most of the people that the State legislature serves want full representation in the Senate.

Ted Kennedy himself made a plea that his seat not go empty in this critical time. His compromise seems reasonable.

We should, as Ted Kennedy suggested, appoint an interim Senator who will not run for the seat when the election is held. This avoids an unfair advantage to the person is appointed without depriving Massachusetts of its voice in the Senate.



Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 11:32 am
@ebrown p,
Ted Kennedy, if he were more concerned about the people of Mass, should have bowed down sooner, as he was incapable of fully serving the people of Mass more recently. Thus, giving enough time to hold an election prior to his death and allowing the people of Mass to vote for whom they want in office - not give the power to one person to determine.

This is to give power to the policitians not people of Mass whom they are supposed to represent.

However, like you said, it does at least give an additional voice to Mass - but I am concerned it is the voice of the governor not the people of Mass. And it is obvious this determination was made simply for the party interests - not the people - that is why in the long run it may end up hurting some members that vote for it. (certainly will hurt the governor - not that he is well loved at the moment)
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  3  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 11:41 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

McG,

You are arguing that it is better for Massachusetts to have only one vote in the Senate, when we are allowed to have two.



Seems as though you're only allowed one - till you elect the second.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 11:45 am
@roger,
Quote:

Seems as though you're only allowed one - till you elect the second.


... or until our democratically elected legislators allow our democratically elected governor to appoint an interim Senator to represent us.

That is the point. It is in the power of the State legislature to change the rule.

Don't you think it is a good thing when the State legislature acts according to the will and interest of the people it represents?

McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 11:54 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

Don't you think it is a good thing when the State legislature acts according to the will and interest of the people it represents?


There's the million dollar question. Are they?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  4  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 11:56 am
@ebrown p,
Politicians are most apt to act when the interests of the people can be made to coincide with the interests of the politicians.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 11:57 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
Politicians are most apt to act when the interests of the people can be made to coincide with the interests of the politicians.


Yeah... and your point is? This sounds like a good description of how Democracy works.

joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 12:00 pm
@ebrown p,
That Massachusetts Democrats have apparently decided that the interests of the state, in this instance, coincide exactly with the interests of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
roger
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 12:01 pm
@ebrown p,
Sure, respond to the will and interests of the people. And if it's in the interest of the people that they don't vote, then they don't vote.

0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 12:02 pm
@joefromchicago,
And they are absolutely correct (I think even McGentrix understands this).

Of course, if they are wrong about what we want the people of Massachusetts will make them pay on election day (except everyone knows they they aren't wrong).

That's how representative democracy works.

My state legislator has heard from me-- I want him to vote to change the law to allow an interim Senator.
 

Related Topics

Who is your favorite hypocrite? - Discussion by dagmaraka
Facebook experiment - Question by FreedomEyeLove
The Forgiveness Dance - Discussion by snood
What I believed about religion as a young man. - Discussion by Alan McDougall
Obunga on Discrimination - Discussion by gungasnake
THE NEED FOR SPEED . . . - Discussion by Setanta
Moderat Molly does just curious - Question by SpawnOfGod
US Hypocrisy - A solid foundation - Discussion by JTT
Can you believe the hypocrisy? - Discussion by JTT
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Massachusetts - WTF?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/29/2020 at 08:48:07