My local paper, which is apt to mis-quote people sometimes, is reporting today that Governor Patrick is considering legislation to make it possible for him to appoint someone to a vacant U.S. Senate seat, if one should become vacant. This sounds like the politics of old and not the politics of new that the Governor preached when he ran for office.
The voters should decide who represents them in the U.S. Senate. The change four years ago that made it possible for that to happen was a change for the better, even if it was made for partisan reasons. Hopefully, assuming the story is true, the Governor will come to his senses and remember that he promised a new kind of politics during his campaign.
The Legislature would never go for it anyway. They want to be able to influence where the dominoes fall.
The Globe quote sounds a little bit different:
<
p>I’m with you, TOS. I think changing the law back at this point would send the wrong message on so many fronts.
I know he said MA should replace Senators the same way 45 other states do it (funny how he uses this logic here but didn’t quite go for the 49 other states have flagmen) via the Gov appointing someone but I disagree.
<
p>But I’d prefer something along the lines… if a US Senator leaves office for any reason, and there is 2 years or less remaining in the term, then the Legislature should appoint a replacement. If there is more than 2 years remaining then a special election should be held to find a replacement. We are talking about a 6 year term here and I think the people should decide who gets the nod “directly” and not the politicians. Certainly history shows us that politicians make decisions based on many factors with the “good” of the people being low on the list.
<
p>In fact, maybe we should add some caveat that should a Senator leave office voluntarily, the office will go to the person who lost the election. That would prevent the “disingenuous” politician that runs for reelection merely to cover his/her ass since they truly want a cabinet position (or VP). Think of it, Kerry (or anyone) runs for reelection, fighting tooth and nail, spending millions, making promises, telling his supporters and voters why HE singularly is the best person for that office… then he vacates the office in the blink of an eye while “whomever” replaces him. Maybe these politicians would think twice if they knew leaving office would mean the opposing party’s candidate will take over. Never would happen but it’s an interesting idea.
I remember hearing all about the fact that the other states have civilian flagmen.
<
p>It was the primary driver behind the move. Yeesh.
<
p>And…uh…the legislature should replace the person if less than 2 years are on the term? Huh?
<
p>And under NO circumstances should the seat go to the loser of that election. How dumb is that? Beatty lost by 35 points. If someone does not get a majority of the electorate to vote for them, they should not get the seat. Period end of story. It’s a stupid, undemocratic idea.
I gave the Gov credit for pushing the flagman initiative (although I still think it is too limited). What I am saying is he initially wasn’t moved by the fact that 49 other states had flagmen but know he was sighting that 45 states have the Gov appoint the replacement. NM, not a big deal.
<
p>So what “undemocratic” idea do you have to replace a US Senator until a special election can be held?
<
p>Sorry my ideas were “stupid” and “dumb”. You don’t sound like you have the right attitude about new ideas.
When discussing stuff with people with whom you frequently disagree, prepare yourself for the response that your ideas are stupid or dumb. If you can’t stand that response, this is the wrong forum for you to be discussing politics in.
I was just reading a comment today from Bob about “here”…
<
p>
<
p>And I was hoping for good constructive back and forth, not the usual borish remarks of the past.
<
p>But thanks for the advice and I will be prepared for people to make personal attacks and declare that ideas which they disagree with are stupid and dumb. I certainly hope the new President doesn’t think that way since many here have made comments that this is how the old President thought.
<
p>But even with your warm warning of the lack of civility here, I’ll stay. If for no other reason than to bother you.
KBusch is speaking for themselves, not for BMG.
<
p>Our rules of the road are very clear: “Insults, personal attacks, rudeness, and blanket unsupported statements reduce the level of discourse, interfere with our basic objective, and are not permitted.”
<
p>I’d say calling someone else’s ideas stupid and dumb is quite rude. People who do it risk having their comments deleted without notice, and being banned from the site, also without notice, temporarily or permanently.
<
p>In fact, this is very much the right forum for people who want to discuss substantive issues but do not want to be subjected to name calling.
This happens a lot here. Just a lot. Lots of ideas are called dumb or stupid. If we spent all our time responding to such slights, we wouldn’t talk about much else — or, following your threat, there’d be no one left to talk. For example, your very own reply to gary here is titled “Complete rubbish” and lower in that exchange you inform someone else that their comments constituted “lazy BS”.
<
p>By comparison, Lynne’s “It’s a stupid, undemocratic idea” seems mild.
<
p>Might I add, JohnD’s sensitivity comes from someone who said, on another thread, that my “ears seem to be full of feces”.
I have been blogging on this site since early this summer. This is the only site I have ever blogged on. One of the first blogs I commented on was “removed” from BMG for violating the rules of the road. This was completely my fault as I didn’t quite understand how these things worked. I try to keep my comments real and say what I really am feeling but civil. Occasionally I have broken those rules when other bloggers have really pissed me off.
<
p>In light of that I am trying to change even my visceral responses into something more constructive. I guess my “annoyance” at Lynne’s Stupid and dumb comments were a result of my naivete that the Presidential election was over and we would all be working together… better. There have been many posts towards the end of the Presidential campaign asking for more constructive and civil discussions on the issues vs. the smears and gutter attacks people were reading. I’m hoping for this to materialize as well now that he election is over.
<
p>While we will all be pulling together I’m sure there will be much to disagree on and maybe setting the “tone” for these civil discussions is appropriate. I won’t even promise that I won’t take some remarks personally and respond in a knee jerk reaction but maybe even the time between “preview” and “post” will afford the sanity check for me to remove invective comments. Otherwise, I would hope BMG will slap me or at very least remind me of the rules.
<
p>I appreciate the support since consistency is something I want in all aspects of my life, even being a “visitor” in a “foreign” blog-site. But I couldn’t be a hypocrite and point out violations without admitting to be guilty myself.
Going back to the old way means that we’d have a special election in November 2010, with a temporary appointment until then.
<
p>The new way would generate a special election in early 2009, with the seat vacant in the interim.
<
p>One possible change is to be like Texas, where there’s both a special election and a temporary appointment until that election is held.
<
p>One advantage of the new way of doing things is that the sitting Representatives don’t have to give up their seats to run for Senate, as they would if the election is in November 2010.
“One advantage of the new way of doing things is that the sitting Representatives don’t have to give up their seats to run for Senate, as they would if the election is in November 2010.”
<
p>Is that really an advantage? I mean, sure it is, if you’re the Representative. I’m not sure about the rest of us. A lot is made of the incumbency re-election rate, particularly in this state (but it’s not unique to Massachusetts by any means). I think forcing the Representatives to give up their seats for a chance at higher office is one of the few means we have at shaking things up every once in a while, and getting some fresh blood out there.
Does it really matter if the seat is vacant for a few months? Kennedy has been out of the Senate for most of this year. McCain has only been to the Senate once since April. It is very rare that some time-critical bit of legislation comes up. The Senate normally debates things for a few months anyway. If something is really so critical that it has to pass right away, one vote shouldn’t make a difference. I can’t think of any legislation that has been rushed through the Senate that didn’t turn out to be a bad idea afterwords – rushed bills that I can recall off the top of my head include the Patriot Act, the FISA updates, and the recent financial giveaway. I would prefer to never have any unelected Senators, even if that means that we have to go a few months without 100 Senators now and then.
<
p>We don’t let governors appoint House Reps, why should we let them appoint Senators?
would the state Democratic Party have to call a special convention to endorse a nominee and decide who goes on the ballot? This year, Ed O’Reilly had to get 15% of the state convention vote in order to qualify for the ballot.
….is anyone reading that he will be, thereby freeing up Senate seat?
<
p>I’d be surprised.
<
p>Maybe Ambassador….
Even before I heard that he was lobbying.
<
p>Richardson is an extremely strong choice and the “bi-partisan” choice is rumored to be Republican Dick Lugar. Between those two and a number of others out there, Kerry has some stiff competition. I don’t think I’d be surprised if Kerry was or was not SoS. I’d imagine that if Obama hasn’t already privately made a choice that it will be a tough call with a deep pool of solid choices.
<
p>If I were to venture a gut guess? I’d say Richardson.
Says “Nope” to a position in the cabinet. Any position.
that is, Kerry–not that I believe it’s likely.
He was Senator to gain a platform from which he could run for president; that train has left the station. If not SoS, he goes for UN Ambassador, or some other working retirement.
How influential will the Secretary of State be in this administration. I get the feeling that regardless of who officially holds that post Vice President Biden will end up being de facto Secretary. Kerry might be better suited for a turn as Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
<
p>I’d rather hold off on an election until 2010 with an interim appointment as special elections are costly. I like Wyoming’s law that requires the Governor to pick from a set of nominees of the state committee of the same party as vacated the seat.
Don’t forget that his seniority is high and likely to rise quickly…
<
p>1 Robert Byrd (D-WV)
2 Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
3 Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
4 Ted Stevens (R AK)5 Pete Domenici (R NM)6 Joe Biden (D DE)7 Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
8 Richard Lugar (R-IN)
9 Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
10 Max Baucus (D-MT)
11 Thad Cochran (R-MS)
12 John Warner (R VA)13 Carl Levin (D-MI)
14 Chris Dodd (D-CT)
15 Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
16 Arlen Specter (R-PA)
17 Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
18 John Kerry (D-MA)
<
p>So JFK starts 2009 at 14, minimum. Then, there’s a number of Senators which aren’t likely to be US Senators in 2011, including Byrd and Kennedy (health), Inouye (retirement), Specter (health or retirement), and so forth.
If he uses his place on the Democratic Steering Committee, and his influence within the party, to shift Joe Lieberman’s Oversight chairmanship to an actual Democrat.
He’s too much of a national joke. would the president-elect really want him 4th in the succession line. I think not. I do agree with your prior post.
Not only do I want a say in who replaces a leaving senator and feel that voting jibes with my desire for democracy, but it was changed so Romney couldn’t pick a Republican. It would be terribly dishonest to change it back now that a Dem is governor. Not to mention, you never no when the next GOP governor will come through and have the chance to appoint.
<
p>With two seats that could become vacant in coming months/years, I say put it in the hands of the people.
If the election is 2010, these office holders have to choose between house seats (which are safe but for redistricting) or other jobs they already hold, for a shot at the Senate.
<
p>If the election is next March, there’s no such downside risk. Expect anywhere from six to ten credible Democrats vying to win maybe 25% of the primary vote.
<
p>Advantage Capuano, I suppose, since he’s done that sort of thing already.
To have a real, competitive election to replace his seat.
<
p>We’re not going back to the old way, that’s for sure, and good riddens.
<
p>Any idea on who’ll run? Capuano and Coakley are the obvious choices. If Murray tips his cap, he has my support.
Who are most likely to lose their House seats when re-districting takes place in 2010? Why not go for Senate now, rather than fight for a House seat then?
unless the law is changed to fill the seat at the 2010 general election instead of a special.
<
p>Everybody runs in the special. It is a political free lunch. Even if you lose, you get risk-free statewide exposure, which helps you (1) in the next statewide race and (2) should redistricting force you and another incumbent to run against one another in 2010.
<
p>So the uncertainty about redistricting you mention makes it advantageous to run for the Senate to protect your current House seat.
<
p>If a House member wins the special, that probably resolves the redistricting risk.
<
p>If the law is changed, then the calculus becomes impossible in my view. You do have to weigh the unknowable redistricting risk versus the imponderable who-can-get-the-largest-plurality question.
<
p>These are difficult because unless you are Joe Kennedy they depend primarily on the actions of others.
I like the idea – we only changed it because Romney was Governor when Kerry could have been President – This would guarantee a Democrat in the Senate – My fear is Charlie Baker could win that seat!