I hereby nominate House minority leader Brad Jones’s op-ed in the Globe for the “most confusing position” award.
Five years ago, I led legislative Republicans in making the argument that, by not providing the governor with an opportunity to appoint an interim replacement, the people of Massachusetts would not effectively be represented in the US Senate. We advanced that argument numerous times and offered amendments that would allow for both interim representation and a special election…. I continue to see merit in allowing for an interim appointment to fill a vacancy until a special election
Great! So we’re all set, right? The legislature, with Rep. Jones’s backing, should change the law to allow an interim appointment, so that MA will have two Senators between now and the special election in January.
Do not change the rules in the middle of the game…. We should not compound that mess by again changing the rules for personal, philosophical, or partisan interest.
Oh. Uh, OK, then, when would it be OK to change to what you yourself believe is a better system?
I continue to see merit in allowing for an interim appointment to fill a vacancy until a special election – but only when we do so without consideration of who is in the corner office, the balance of power in Washington, or the issue of the day in Congress.
Aha. That would be “never.”
Come on, Brad. Changes like this cannot be made “without consideration” of political factors — you, as a politician, should know that better than anyone. The question should be a very simple one: is giving the Governor an interim appointment the right thing to do on the merits, or is it not? If it is a better system for the Governor to make an interim appointment until the special election, then change the law. If it’s not, then don’t. But for God’s sake, stop bellyaching about how terrible it would be to change the rules at this particular moment. That’s just making a political point at the expense of good policy — exactly the opposite of what you claim to be doing.
And, for the record, I hereby reiterate my suggestion: change the law so that the Governor has an interim appointment, but the appointee is ineligible to participate in the special election. No harm to democracy; no gap in representation.
<
p>I apologize if you’ve already addressed the question in an earlier thread, but doesn’t your proposal raise serious constitutional issues? Specifically the notion that states cannot add qualifications for federal offices stricter than what the Constitution allows (see specifically Powell v. McCormack and U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton).
So when does David’s solution work?
<
p>
but incorrect.
Change the law to allow Deval Patrick to appoint himself to the Senate. Then find a gubernatorial candidate with better poll numbers.
However, there is no way of resolving them — it’s a complicated constitutional issue, and until the US Supreme Court addresses it, we won’t really know. So the law might be constitutional, and it might not. In that circumstance, it seems to me that the correct thing to do is enact the proposal that, on the merits, works best, which I humbly submit is my proposal. There is a creditable argument for constitutionality (specifically, that the 17th amendment (which confers specific authority on the state legislatures in this area) post-dates the parts of the Constitution on which Powell and US Term Limits rely), so the lege should rely on that argument, do the right thing, and then see what happens.
You’ve gotten into a discussion about this elsewhere in this thread, but I would note that while some argument exists for your proposal given that Thornton does not directly control this situation, I have a hard time believing that the language of the 17th Amendment cancels out other constitutional rights already stated by the Court (in this case, that there can be no bar to holding office if specified criteria for office-holding are met).
<
p>Simply that an amendment “post-dates” another does not seem to be warrant to override constitutional rights inherent in the Constitution, at least not without a clear statement (see, for example, Granholm v. Heald, holding that the 21st Amendment’s language giving states control over liquor importation did not override the dormant commerce clause).
<
p>Given this major constitutional problem, I’m not sure why such a proposal is necessary or even the good thing to do. If the legislature does change the law, it shouldn’t place any limitation on who can run in the special election. I’m not sure why limiting the rights of people to vote for whom they choose enhances democracy.
The constitutional issue only exists if an attempt is made to write it into law that the interim appointee is ineligible to run, as noted above.
<
p>As noted here by Yvonne Abraham in yesterday’s globe, Mike Dukakis would have no interest in running for the office after serving in the interim, and if asked to pledge to it, would, and would honor that pledge.
<
p>I say Dukakis, then Joe Kennedy.
I’m over 30, legally a resident of MA, but I already have an apartment in Alexandria, the lease for which it happens is up just about the time that the special election victor would be seated. There’s no way I could mount a credible campaign for election in my own right in just a few months. I was appointed to a vacancy in my university’s student senate so I even have experience back-dooring my way into a legislative body to which I was not elected!
<
p>I’m kidding, of course; I like the Dukakis idea; I see Kennedy more as a possibility for the special election. Another person I wouldn’t mind seeing in the seat who hasn’t gotten much mention is Robert Reich.
is to change the law the day after we have our special election.
<
p>It would dodge a lot of the controversy, and show the citizens of our fair state that this means enough to them that they are willing to still change the law after the election because they are looking to the future rather than taking political advantage of the moment.
Lacking the full two votes in the Senate is a disadvantage for Massachusetts, and not just in votes, but in constituent services that Massachusetts would get from having the staff of two Senators working for the Commonwealth.
<
p>In 2006, Massachusetts voters chose Kennedy, a through and through Democrat, to represent them for six years. The Governor would no doubt select a caretaker who is a Democrat. To select a Republican would be a slap in the face to the large majority who voted for Kennedy. And for the Republicans to say now that no one should represent Massachusetts for five months is the worst mix of political opportunism with resentment against the voters for choosing Kennedy, a Democrat’s Democrat. And to call it “compromise” to disadvantage our state? That’s a terrible idea.
Massachusetts hasn’t had two senators this year. Nor did we in 2004, when every presidential candidate in the senate would skip back to DC for an important vote. Except one. John Kerry. He thought him becoming president was more important than extending unemployment benefits. It is time for labor to get off their collective fat asses and look beyond corruption and graft and start looking at candidates and not the “D” designation next to their name.
or you wouldn’t have changed the law in the first place and then left it that was for 5 years.
<
p>Unless of course, the law change was done by Skull & Bones or the Bilderbergs and it was a some big secret. Shhhh!
Jones position is to change the law to go into effect on January 6, 2011 is how I see it. That takes all politics out of the law. We don’t know who will win the election next year and then we will have the law that everybody seems to agree is the best law. Without the taint of partisan politics upon it. The funny thing is. If your side truly believe that this was the best course it would already be in place.
We have a vacancy now. MA has only half its senatorial delegation now. The question is whether we want to remedy that problem, or instead a hypothetical problem years down the road. Who cares about politics. If it’s a good idea, do it. You guys just don’t like the idea of having Deval make an appointment, just like the Dems didn’t want Romney to have one. Well, two wrongs don’t make a right.
by your rhetorical box David. If I don’t agree with your point it does not mean that I am missing it. I fully understand what your point is. I really don’t care that you are upset at a decision of the Democratic Supermajority legislature in 2004. The law could have been changed then. The clock is now running and any change at this point shows the base corruption of your party in this state.
Change in 2004 = good policy. Exactly the same change now = “base corruption.”
<
p>This is part of why Republicans are becoming a modest regional party whose reach is limited to several states in the southern U.S. They make no sense a lot of the time.
Strictly democratic partisan politics. I can’t wait for the 2010 elections. Do you really think you folks are going to unite behind your primary winner. Tom Reilly really worked his butt off for Deval in ’06 didn’t he!
Change in 2004 when clock was not running <> Change in 2009 when clock is running.
<
p>That is the correct logic.
<
p>The change is not the same because the clock is running.
That’s what no one has satisfactorily explained. What difference does it make that “the clock is running”? If Rep. Jones was right in 2004 when he said:
<
p>
<
p>then it would seem that he’s right now. It’s “just wrong” to let the state go without representation. And that’s what we’re looking at, unless the lege basically adopts what I’ve been advocating.
<
p>I’ll say it again: you just don’t want Deval to have a temporary appointment (though why you care so much is unclear to me, since we’re talking maybe 3 months tops). That’s the same craven political calculation that motivated the 2004 shenanigans. Strange bedfellows, I guess.
… struck me as odd is the distinction being made here with regard to the clock is context driven. That is, if the context of the clock running can make this either a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ law to pass, doesn’t it also make it either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in application too?
<
p>It seems to me to be a contradiction to say that the law is good on its merits while decrying that the context of its passage can make it ‘bad’. How can a law that can be made bad by such contexts be ok on merits. After all, aren’t similar contextual considerations (the clock) inevitably going to come up in the application of the law in the future? If the law is so vulnerable to such contexts, how can it be ok on the merits?
…that’s exactly the argument FOR changing it now.
Be careful with how broadly you cast your aspersions, please. Personally, I think the earlier GOP suggestions for an appointment followed by a special election in as short a period as practicable — subject to a prohibition on the appointee running for office — was a good approach. Moreover, many BMG readers are independents.
The last tax hike turned me Republican.
<
p>So, to recap, because he’s considered who is in the corner office, the balance in power in Washington, and the issue of the day in Congress… he’s against the very proposal he championed a few years ago and is willing to champion again, just as soon as there’s change in at least one of: who is in the corner office, the balance of power in Washington, or the issue of the day in Congress.
<
p>Got it.
That voted against the proposal in 2004. That seems to be where your anger should lie.
The question on the table here is whether the Republicans have the integrity to stick with what they thought was the right idea five years ago, now that a Democrat is in the corner office. So far, not looking promising.
They are irrelevant to any and all proposed legislation in this state. Why is this different?
<
p>If changing the law is the right thing to do (which it is IMO) then do it.
Everything is wonderful in Blueland. But please substitute “the right thing to do” to “enhancing democratic party dominance” You know: Richard Nixon fell this way too.
…his basic position is spiteful. Because I did not get my way when Romney was in office and I could have had the job…you can’t change the law now. My mighty 16 members will go in a corner and sulk.
tries to explain itself the more they sound like fools.
<
p>Keep it up!
Let’s sleep in it.
I’m a pretty frugal guy, but even I change my sheets every now and then and may even buy new ones when the old starts to wear out.
“If NOT having an interim appointment is a good idea, it’s a good idea, right?”
… is detailed in the very cases cited by Hoyapaul below.
<
p>Making anyone (even an l appointed Senator) ineligible to run in a special election for Senator is almost certainly unconstitutional. As the Supreme Court said in U.S Term Limits v. Thornton (and citing Powell v. McCormack):
<
p>
<
p>Though about term limits, most lawyers (I assume) would agree with me that the principle of federal control over qualifications for congressional service is clearly stated here and almost certainly prohibits the kind of restrictions you would have the State Legislature impose on the upcoming special election. This isn’t especially “unusual,” “complex” or inconvenient. It’s simply the case where the practical and convenient thing to do is inconsistent with the careful structure of our Constitutional democracy.
Why can’t you understand this, David?!? Your position that the Legislature ought to just change the law anyway and ignore their obligation to bear truth faith and allegiance to the Constitution is indefensible. I beg you to move on so that your advocacy in favor of a temporary replacement doesn’t ring so hollow.
I’ll agree that my position isn’t a slam-dunk, but yours isn’t either.
<
p>Here’s the relevant part of the 17th amendment.
<
p>
<
p>That is a pretty broad grant of authority to the state legislatures — “as the legislature may direct” has no constraints on it. And, importantly, the 17th amendment post-dates the portions of the Constitution on which US Term Limits and Powell relied, so to the extent they are inconsistent, the 17th amendment controls. Indeed, the 17th amendment appears to have done exactly what your quote from US Term Limits said had to be done:
<
p>
<
p>Well, in the specific context of temporary gubernatorial appointments to fill vacant senate seats, that text was amended. QED.
<
p>There’s your argument. Perfectly defensible. Might well be a winner.
I continue to disagree that this is a standard by which the legislature should consider a proposed new law of this scope.
<
p>The problem, I keep trying to explain to you, isn’t the temporary appointment. It is the unique state rules that would govern the subsequent special election (i.e. that a certain person would be legal barred from running for U.S. Senate despite meeting the basic federal entry rules).
<
p>Maybe it would help if we switched to an analogous hypothetical. What if (instead of a prohibition on a single temporary appointee), the Legislature decided it wanted to enact other or different prohibitions on those who can run in the special election?
<
p>Your position is that the 17th Amendment “might well” be interpreted to allow the legislature to enact any new law in this area “with no constraints on it”? That they could pass a law that said no one who has ever served in any elected office can run in the special election? How about no one over 75 years old or no one who wasn’t born in Massachusetts?
<
p>These, just like a prohibition on the temporary appointee, would all be indefensible from a constitutional law perspective. Passage of any of these laws would be the wrong thing to do in the long run.
Please, I understand exactly what you’re saying. I just happen to disagree with you that it’s a simple issue. It is not “indefensible” — I just outlined a pretty good defense. Your hypotheticals prove nothing, as is often the case with “parade of horribles” hypotheticals. The question is simply whether the 17th amendment, having been enacted after the original document, extends special authority to the state legislatures with respect to interim appointees to vacant Senate seats. I think the argument is pretty good that it does. So far, I haven’t seen anything to make me think otherwise.
That the legislature is allowed to “direct” only how and when the appointment is made and when the election to fill the vacancy will be held. But I can’t see a court deciding that the power to “direct” an election to fill a vacancy trumps the restriction that states cannot add qualifications to be a Senator beyond those in the US Constitution. I don’t think your argument is laughable, but I also think it’s a long shot. And I’d like to see it developed a little more completely before the Legislature and the Governor move forward.
The 17th Amendment was clearly intended to allow for interim appointees to vacant Senate seats. So far, so go.
<
p>But it does not at all allow state’s to enact additional eligibility rules for those running in an election for U.S. Senate. Eligibility rules – common sense and the Term Limits case tells us – are to be determined y the federal government under the U.S. Constitution.
<
p>If you truly want to “see anything” top make you think otherwise, I suggest you read that case (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1456.ZO.html) for further clarification. After discussing the 17th Amendment in considerable detail, the majority writes:
<
p>
<
p>Given this precedent, it’s seems more than likely your new qualification for Senate office (that one must not have been appointed to the U.S. Senate in the interim period) would not be constitutional. Your 17th Amendment arguments are directly contradicted by the majority in Term Limits. Therefore, the Legislature should not enact such a law.
Look, it’s certainly an open Constitutional question whether the Legislature can prevent someone from running if they meet Constitutional requirements.
<
p>It is also, however, completely Constitutional and proper for the Legislature to set requirements for Gubernatorial appointments. Several states do this already. Some say the appointment must be of the same party. Wyoming goes further and has the state party submit a list of three acceptable candidates.
<
p>Therefore, it seems to me that we are looking at this issue completely backwards. Rather than putting the restriction on the appointee to not run, the restriction should be on the GOVERNOR for who he can appoint. Bar him from appointing someone who can run for reelection.
<
p>Now, how do you accomplish this? Easily. Forbid the governor from appointing someone until after signature papers are in for the special election and bar him from appointing anyone who has submitted papers. Now if the appointee wants to run in the special election, he or she will have to do so as a write-in.
<
p>Now, this means the vacancy cannot be filled immediately, but it shortens the time period considerably and completely avoids the question of whether it’s Constitutional to bar the appointee from running again.
Supported term limits. Until it was his time to step down. Yes we can say hypocrite.
A flip-flop which I supported for what it’s worth. A hypocrite would be if he continued to criticize others for not adhering to their pledges after he reneged on his, which I don’t recall him doing.
I just think you’re wrong. No point in further discussion.
It seems to be that since the constitutional power to “direct” elections is not constrained that a state legislature can “direct” the special election by applying rules that would clearly be unconstitutional if it were a general election. I think that the parade of horribles would be quite a strong argument here. If the power to “direct” the special election is so broad then could a state legislature disenfranchise blacks or womenfor purposes of the special election only? If the answer to that question is no, then why do some constitutional rules apply to the special election and some don’t?
<
p>The more I think about it the worse your argument seems. The power to “direct” the election to fill the vacancy can’t possibly trump the rest of the constitution. The rule that a state can’t create additional qualifications must apply.
“Can’t possibly” etc.
<
p>Look where it got them.
<
p>In a
concentration campinternment center for U.S. citizens. That’s where.<
p>The Court can decide whatever it wants.
<
p>Al Gore might also provide useful advice on this general line of discussion.
<
p>David’s argument isn’t obviously wrong — like suggesting that someone be appointed who is below the minimum age for the seat or something of that nature — therefore, it is obviously right. Or at least something that can be tried, if the legislature wants to do it.
<
p>The key issue is whether the legislature really wants to make sure that this position is filled by an open election, or if they want to appoint someone who will have a huge advantage over all the other candidates should they be free to run in a subsequent special election — in direct opposition to Sen. Kennedy’s wishes, I might add.
Us lawyers like to at least pretend what we’re doing is legitimate, that there is a rule of law that will influence a judge’s decision. You take a very cynical view of the judiciary and you might just be right. But I actually don’t think that preventing an appointee from running is that far from appointing someone who does not meet the minimum age. The more I think about it the more clearly unconstitutional it seems to do what David is proposing. And if sco is right then the Governor seems to agree.
And they win.
<
p>According to the press conference, it looks like there will be no statutory requirement that the appointee not run.
And maybe not even then.
<
p>But more to the point, since when were you appointed to the high court that you can speak with such certainty?
<
p>If everything was so clear, there wouldn’t be any need for lawsuits now would there.
<
p>With due respect, this is an absurd argument from a legal point of view. David has already outlined a very sensible case for the constitutionality of his position.
…someone could go into federal court and get it overturned in a moment after it passes…assuming the court grants the plaintiff standing.
Quite an assumption, wouldn’t you say? I can’t see anyone having standing other than the person named as the interim appointee. And if that person (Mike Dukakis, say) chooses not to sue, then we’ll have to wait ’til next time.
…a voter could have standing. The federal courts have been narrowing standing rules but this does impede people’s right to choose their elected official.
That is up to the Supreme Court. My argument all along has been that Legislators have a duty to not pass laws that might be or probably are unconstitutional. I argue that “bearing true faith and allegiance” is a high bar that isn’t met by the “it could be constitutional” standard you and David propose here. If there is greater than a very small chance the law is unconstitutional, lawmakers have an ethical, moral and legal obligation not to pass the law. All the more so when dealing with fundamental issues about election law, federalism and representative democracy.
Take it from me.
<
p>Happy?
<
p>;-)
The Legislature must be advised (by those who actually understand constitutional interpretation of the 17th Amendment and election laws) that there is greater than a very small chance.
<
p>David’s “legal reasoning” aside, I find it highly improbable that they would find many legal experts who feel there is much of a chance that it would be constitutional, even under the 17th Amendment, for a state to further limit the eligibility rules for a U.S. Senator.
<
p>Can Mississippi decide that anyone who legally married a person of the same-sex in another state is prohibited from running for Senator? Can the Hawaii and Alaska legislatures bar anyone born on the mainland U.S. from running for U.S. Senator in their states?
<
p>They should just do it, since it’s possible somebody thinks the 17th Amendment allows them do so?
<
p>I disagree completely. Legislators ought not pass legislation which is clearly unconstitutional. But, short of that, by all means… the lege writes laws, the gov signs ’em (or gets overridden), the courts determine constitutionality.
<
p>Just as the courts ought not legislate from the bench, the legislature ought not judge from the floor.
That is really your view? That Legislators can (consistent with their sworn duty to bear true faith and allegiance) pass any law that is not “clearly unconstitutional”?
<
p>That, with all due respect, is no standard at all. Virtually any significant Constitutional issues has been argued on both sides. For this reason, lawmakers (and not just judges) are required to consider the constitutionality of a proposed statute before voting on it. This is still consistent with the important principles of “judicial review” and “separation of powers.”
<
p>To me (and I guess we will continue to disagree), the meaning of the oath of office is relatively clear. If a proposed law appears even somewhat likely to violate the Constitution, the Legislature is obligated to reject it. It will never be 100% clear either way but lawmakers, in my view, have an obligation to err on the side of acting cautiously before passing questionable laws. Relying on “creative” legal opinions or misinterpretations of past court decisions is no bar to the elected officials obligations.
To me, the oath of office would be rendered virtually meaningless if we adopt your “clearly unconstitutional” standard. I posit that a “reasonable probability” standard (in other words, that it is reasonable likely the law will be upheld as constitutional) is more consistent with the ideals of our constitutional democracy.
Upstairs, you wrote
and now you write
<
p>which are quite different standards. There are certainly actions that legislators have taken which are clearly unconstitutional. That’s a no-go.
<
p>Things that aren’t so clear? I have no problem with the lege pushing them through, cognizant that they may be struck down. That’s where the balance of power lies. To not pass desired laws because they might be unconstitutional serves to make the Constitution more restrictive than it actually is — and since the legislature doesn’t have a vehicle to test constitutionality before passing the law, the only way to not expand the restrictions of the constitution in a practical sense is to pass desired laws which may or may not be deemed unconstitutional by the courts.
<
p>I don’t believe legislators have an obligation to err on the side of constitutional caution. That’s why we have the courts. They shouldn’t pass clearly unconstitutional law, nor rely on creative legal opinions (a straw man you set up for me). Still, they shouldn’t expand the restrictions of the constitution by being risk averse when, in fact, the courts are designed specifically to ensure that the law doesn’t go too far.
Not really. There’s precedent. At least one state has not only created such a law, but put it into practice all the way back in 1979. No constitutional uproar.
<
p>… doesn’t seem to prohibit the temp appointee from running in the special election. Here’s a link. I didn’t see any other provision constraining the appointee, your link to a completely unreferenced wiki page notwithstanding.
<
p>http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/…
or is there an air of hypocrisy about demeaning Brad Jones for wanting it both ways while Ted Kennedy and all the other powerful Democrats on the hill are “wanting it both ways”?
<
p>Dems are against the Gov appointing a replacement Senator and now are in favor of appointing a Senator… not a problem.
<
p>Republicans are in favor of the Gov appointing a replacement Senator and now are against appointing a Senator… THAT’S A PROBLEM!
<
p>Pick a damn solution and let’s ALL live by that rule no matter who is Governor or what party controls the Senate/House.
Like you said, David, the question is whether an interim appointment is the right thing to do, or not.
<
p>In other words the question is what plan would best serve the people of Massachusetts and give them the strongest and most effective representation in the Senate.
<
p>Unfortunately, Jones seems to be focused only on what happened years ago and what would serve the best interests of his own party now.
<
p>Jones is the one playing politics here. And it’s sad.
<
p>I couldn’t agree more with your posting.
Where were you when the Republicans were pushing for this amendment to allow for special elections and a temporary replacement five years ago? Where was the outrage then?
<
p>I am sorry but while I agree Brad Jones is hypocritical it seems to me that lots of ‘progressives’ on this site want to have a special appointment just so they can get a 60th vote on cloture for health care reform. I want to have two functioning voices in the Senate.
<
p>It was irresponsible for Teddy to stay in the Senate when he knew he had a terminal condition and would be unlikely to serve. It was irresponsible for the legislature to prevent Gov. Romney from having this essential power in 2004. It was irresponsible for the entire states political class to put off this question until the day after Kennedy died.
<
p>I want to be very clear I support a final change to the law: special appointment to fill in the interim 145-160 days->to preserve our voice in the Senate. A special election to follow. If a Republican governor appoints a Republican placeholder to replace a Democratic vacancy so be it. Let us allow the rule of law, common sense, and the spirit of republican democracy to rule the day and quit playing childish partisan games.
<
p>I could easily see Sen. Kerry becoming SoS in 2012 when Clinton resigns to run for pres in 16′ and Gov. Baker appointing Bill Weld to the seat-the Leg should not suddenly overnight strip him of that power because that would make the whole process laughable.
BMG didn’t exist then. Just FYI.
But there also wasn’t a left of center coalition called ‘We Need Two’ calling for these essential reforms, there was no progressive push to call our state legislators and state senators and get them to pass this needed reform. I agree with you that there is urgency in getting this reform passed because it is simply a good idea with merit, but I am incredibly suspicious of ‘We Need Two’ and other progressives who are cloaking this in the idea that ‘we need a 60th vote for health care’, ‘the Dems need 60’, ‘we need a Dem RIGHT NOW’ because those sentiments are the exact kind of short-term partisan griping that f—ed up the process in the first place. The only way to convince the people of MA and the GOP that this is a good idea is to argue on its merits, mainly that we need two Senators, this is an efficient way to ensure continuity of representation without altering the democratic nature of the permanent replacement, etc.
<
p>And to be fair David I should not have singled you out in my previous post because you have been by far the best advocate of this position on its merits out of the BMG editors. But many on this site simply want to ‘do this for Ted’ and ‘do this for healthcare’ and to be that is short sighted and actually emboldens the GOP counter argument that this is a naked power grab by the Dem supermajority. Its a line of argument by liberals that supports the politics of expediency and convenience which to me is decidedly un-progressive. Progressives are distinct from liberals because we care about transparency and openness in our government, we are essentially advocates for good process as well as good outcomes in our politics. To me advocating the change for partisan reasons, even if they are sentiments I agree with (I am a huge public option supporter fyi and want that 60th vote just as much) is ‘regressive politics’ at its core.
is easy. The Dems will still be in power so they will change the law back once again. Simple!
just get the bill to Deval’s desk. Appoint Dukakis interim senator, crackerjack on health care. Then let get down to drafting Joe Kennedy for Senate. Massachusetts and the nation need proven Kennedy passion & starpower
How about the people of MA decide before we anoint another Kennedy?
<
p>Also I would argue that Teddy was so effective because of his seniority, not because of his star power. His seniority allowed him to chair the committees influential to so much of the legislation he passed, along with personal friendships with many key Senators on both sides of the aisle. That power is irreplaceable. So IMO Joe Kennedy would be just as effective and qualified as Coakley, Lynch, Capuano, Meehan, or any other candidate who runs and wins and becomes a freshmen Senator. Basically they will be the 60th vote needed to break a filibuster against the public option (if the President can muster his own party in line) and use their bully pulpit. That’s it. I doubt Joe Kennedy would have any added clout or ability based on his last name to perform that limited role as a freshmen Senator. Maybe Vicki because she also has personal relationships with everyone Teddy was friends with, and her being his widow gains her access to those relationships, but to presume they’d be automatic with Joe is a fallacy.
because he was Ted (not because he was Kennedy, and certainly not because he was senior). He had a special combination of compassion, congeniality, wisdom, and vision. I suspect he had much of that 30 years ago too (perhaps a smidge less wisdom).
Instead of the incessant and generally incoherent (albeit amusing), bickering about history — I’ll stipulate that the G.O.P. is the “party of the past” — if the G.O.P. was sensible they would leap to endorse David’s suggestion because it is much better that the alternative: an appointee who can run in the special election.
<
p>The odds are overwhelming that Massachusetts will change the law to allow an appointee: more power for the state, more power for the Democratic Party, more power for everyone involved with the appointment. It’s not as though the G.O.P. is in any position to stand in the way. The only real question is whether than appointee will be allowed to run in the special election.
What is the problem with the appointee running in the election? Inside track? So what? It’s not like absent the appointee being able to run we have a level playing field. I guess if I’m one of the people who is in a position of power with a big campaign war chest (meaning I have the playing field slanted in my favor) I’m concerned about my unfair advantage being trumped by the appointee’s bigger advantage. Frankly I don’t think it’s something we should be concerned about. Of course, the governor could always choose to appoint someone that pledges not to run if said governor thinks this is the best route to go.
Obviously Democrats and Republicans switched sides on this because of the political circumstances of the times. Let’s call the respective hypocrisy of both sides a wash, and make the tiebreaker the wishes of the person being replaced.
The tiebreaker is not the wishes of Teddy Kennedy or liberal progressives who want to defend the public option, the tiebreaker is simply common sense legislation that preserves continuity of representation AND democratic representation while also following the rule of law. I agree with you that we should call the partisan hypocrisy by both sides a wash-but I also call your sentimentality a wash as well. Progressive politics is as much about good process as it is good outcomes, government by sentiment is not a good process.
…preserving the wishes of the populace who elected the officeholder being replaced. Is that too sentimental for you?
<
p>And process doesn’t exist in a vacuum; a process that doesn’t produce good outcomes isn’t a good process. If you believe progressive politics isn’t about outcomes, you’ve been sold a bill of goods.
<
p>I would disagree with this. Democratic elections are a good process even if they occasionally produce bad outcomes. Which is more progressive to let the people of MS elect their conservative Senators or to have a ‘progressive’ body pick ‘progressive’ senators for them?
<
p>A good outcome would’ve been a third and fourth term of Clinton instead of a first (and second) term of Bush but the process (the Constitution) prevented that good outcome from happening. I still favor two terms for the president and would call that a good process even if in that instance it delivered a bad outcome.
<
p>I would rather a good process produce a bad outcome than a good outcome be produced by a bad process but I guess since I favor democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law I might be in the minority.