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.
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.