Massachusetts - WTF?

@Robert Gentel,

Still not sure how that's hypocrisy.

I expect the Republicans to try to get things their way, and I expect the same from the Democrats.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

If trying to get their way includes arguing that the governor is the elected representative of the people who should make this decision when the governor is a Democrat but that a direct vote is best when the governor is a Republican it is a pretty simple and clear-cut case of hypocrisy.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Bull.

The ability to make this decision belongs solely to the legislature of the State of Massachusetts. This issue is solely between the people of Massachusetts and our legislature.

Massachusetts has long favored Democrats over Republicans. So what? The strong majority of people in Massachusetts want a Democratic Senator. This is no one else's business. In the past we may have wanted to keep a Republican governor from replacing a Democratic Senator with a Republican. This is also only the business of Massachusetts residents-- and since we are lean strongly toward this Democrats this is not surprising.

This is the Constitutional right of the State legislature-- and it is an action that is almost certainly favored by the majority of their constituents.

The idea that we should be denied a key vote in the Senate at a critical time because of the judgment of people outside of the state is ridiculous.

My state legislators should act in my interest-- and I have made it clear that I want Massachusetts to have two Democratic votes in the Senate.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

That indicates expediency to me, not hypocrisy.

Political hardball. That's the way it's done.

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

Why would you care about a health care vote? Massachusetts already has mandatory health insurance. Trying to stick your self-righteous nose into the business of the other 49?

So what if Massachusetts already has mandatory health insurance?

Having equal representation in the Senate is "sticking [their] self-righteous nose[s] into the business of the other 49 [states]?"

Sounds like McGentrix and you are sticking your noses into the business of Massachusetts.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

As they should. Massachusetts has votes that influence the country, the notion that others should butt out is silly.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

The notion that it's anyone's business but their own is silly to me.

I doubt anyone would be trying to tell Texas how their Senators should be selected....

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

If they have an opinion about it they should. Texans have a lot of control in this country. This country has a lot of control in this world.

What they shouldn't have is a vote, but the political process isn't restricted to just votes. If someone in California wants to voice an opinion in the political process that affects their world they should be able to. It's silly to shush them and more than a bit hypocritical if you comment on political issues outside your own local sphere of influence.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

You can have an opinion if you want.

But it is my Senator, not yours, who will be representing me (not you). The decision belongs to the Massachusetts State legislature (not the Texas legislature) who is responsible and accountable to me (not to Texans).

The fact is a strong majority of us in Massachusetts will be upset if the Republican party profits from the death of Ted Kennedy.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

You can have an opinion if you want.

But it is my Senator, not yours, who will be representing me (not you). The decision belongs to the Massachusetts State legislature (not the Texas legislature) who is responsible and accountable to me (not to Texans).

So what? Nobody here has said otherwise, they are criticizing the hypocrisy of the reasoning given. They are not arguing that it isn't your senator or is not a decision that belongs to the state's legislature, so what is your point? None of that changes whether or not this is hypocritical. It's just a crude effort to shush others when they call the political maneuvers hypocritical.

If you have comments and opinions about California's political process I invite you to express them (not that the lack of the invite or the "butt out" game you are playing here ever stopped you). I'm not going to tell you it's none of your business because it's not your senator. That's ridiculous.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

roger wrote:
Why would you care about a health care vote? Massachusetts already has mandatory health insurance. Trying to stick your self-righteous nose into the business of the other 49?

So what if Massachusetts already has mandatory health insurance?

Having equal representation in the Senate is "sticking [their] self-righteous nose[s] into the business of the other 49 [states]?"

Sounds like McGentrix and you are sticking your noses into the business of Massachusetts.

Sounds more like Brown wants our noses out of Massachusettes, all the while reserving the option of putting his where ever it suits.

ebrown p wrote:

And why isn't it hypocritical for people who aren't Massachusetts residents to stick their self-righteous noses in our business?

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

I guess I am questioning your use of the word "hypocrisy".

Massachusetts voters have had exclusively Democratic Senators for the past 30 years-- not a single Republican has been allowed to serve since Paul Tsongas was elected in 1979.

That's how politics works.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

I guess I am questioning your use of the word "hypocrisy".

It's pretty simple. If the governor is the elected representative of the people and is the person who should make this decision then what party holds the seat should not change that.

If the governor is not the person who should decide, and the people are best suited to decide through a direct vote then this too should be the case regardless of what party holds the seat.

Your argument pretty much boils down to MA is a Dem stronghold so Democrats should get the Senate representation no matter what. That's fine, but pick a process and stick with it regardless of what party it favors. Arguing that the governor is a legitimate representative when he's a Democrat, but not when he is Republican is cynical.

Quote:

That's how politics works.

I meant to address the similar argument that DrewDad made, about this being about political expediency. That may well be what is considered acceptable political expediency, and just a part of politics, but that doesn't mean it's not hypocritical, it just means you are willing to accept a certain amount of hypocrisy in the means to achieve the end.

This kind of political hypocrisy may well be an inevitable part of the political process, but that just doesn't make it not hypocritical.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

That's fine, but pick a process and stick with it regardless of what party it favors. Arguing that the governor is a legitimate representative when he's a Democrat, but not when he is Republican is cynical.

We have a process. The 17th amendment gives the state legislature gets to decide if the governor has the ability the appoint an interim Senator or not. Your definition of "hypocrisy" is irrelevant (and as such I suppose I won't argue with it).

This is a democratically elected body exercising power granted by the Constitution in the interest (and almost certainly the will) of its constituents.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

No, it's the democrat party in Mass hanging to power no matter what the "people" want or think. Pointing that out in no way detracts from the process or stops the Mass legislature from doing whatever it needs to to hold on to it's power. It doesn't matter how hypocritical it is, but it does need to be examined and discussed.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and you certainly have the right to state your views.

I just don't think there's an obligation for anyone in Massachusetts to care.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

yeah, kinda like the Texas Republicans redistricting.

2 Replies

Hypocritical? Maybe. But, we elected Kennedy to office for how many years? We want a democrat there. Whoever we'll get to replace him will likely be less liberal on health care than he was. Unfortunately.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Actually it is the Democratic party.

And, it represents the people of Massachusetts. This is why we continue to vote them a majority in both houses of the state legislature.

The one institution in Massachusetts the Republicans manage to control is whiny talk radio. Some people seem to equate a monopoly the Republicans have on hate radio with some sort of popular support... of course, unlike a political party, you can run a radio station with something far less than a majority supporting you.

0 Replies

@littlek,

LittleK, have you called your state legislators yet?

1 Reply

Massachusetts - WTF?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know