Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Impressive nitwittery regarding Kennedy’s suggestion about senatorial appointments

By

In 2004, as you know, the law was changed to provide for a special election to choose a new Senator to serve for the remainder of an unexpired term.  The law now mandates that a special election be held 145 to 160 days after a Senate seat becomes vacant.  I strongly support that law and the principle that the people should elect their Senator … I therefore am writing to urge you to work together to amend the law through the normal legislative process to provide for a temporary gubernatorial appointment until the special election occurs.  To ensure a fair election process, I also urge that the Governor obtain, as a condition of appointment of the interim Senator, an explicit personal commitment not to become a candidate in the special election.

So, clearly not a proposal to “revert to the old law.”  Thanks for playing, Dave.

Not to be outdone, though, our fearless Republican leaders, party chair Jennifer Nassour and Governor wannabe Charlie Baker have chimed in with equally inane commentary (HT EaBo):

Jennifer Nassour, chairman of the state GOP, said in a statement that lawmakers “must honor Senator Kennedy’s service by allowing those who sent him to the Senate to decide the next generation of leaders for Massachusetts.” She added: “Do not eliminate the voter from the electoral process. The voice of the people must be heard through a timely special election, and Republicans trust the people to be informed and to make an informed choice — rather than leave any succession to the whims of a small group of politicians.”

* * *

“… While I respect Senator Kennedy’s longstanding service, the voters have the right to choose their elected officials, regardless of the circumstances,” Baker said in his statement.

While we appreciate Nassour’s and Baker’s heartfelt commitment to democracy, it’s entirely irrelevant to the subject under discussion, because nobody is proposing to “eliminate the voter from the electoral process,” and no one is talking about taking away the right of the people “to decide the next generation of leaders for Massachusetts” or “to choose their elected officials.”  All we’re talking about is whether to install an interim Senator while the process of the people selecting the replacement (i.e., the special election) plays out.  Neither Nassour nor Baker has made any comment at all relevant to Kennedy’s actual proposal, and so, as I told EaBo, both of their comments are patently ridiculous.

But wait — there’s more!  We’ve even got some good government dude from D.C. weighing in, while remaining blissfully ignorant of the facts.

Dave Levinthal, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C.-based government watchdog, warned that Massachusetts needs to have an open process to replace Kennedy, who is battling brain cancer.

“Corruption in general is something anyone should be concerned with because it’s a matter of their tax dollars and their representation,” he said. “Any time a change like this could potentially happen, people of the state need to be very aware of it and need to weigh in.”

I’m a bit leery of attributing the “warning” about an “open process” to Mr. Levinthal, since that is not in quotes, but is rather the reporter’s characterization — and it appears in the excellent Mr. Wedge’s aforementioned piece, which has already been shown to be ill-informed.  Obviously, though, the “process” under both current law and Kennedy’s proposed change would be “open,” especially if Kennedy’s request that the interim not run in the special election is honored.  And Levinthal’s actual quote sure sounds like he didn’t realize that, under Kennedy’s proposal, there would still be a special election on exactly the same timeframe as before.  Is the prospect of an interim being in place for 150 days or so really so concerning that dire warnings about “corruption” are appropriate?

I’m not even going to bother with House minority leader Brad Jones and the legislature’s other elected Republican.  It’s too easy.  đŸ˜‰

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. The media have done a miserable job of parroting claims that Kennedy wants to return to the old law. He made it very clear that he wants to keep the new law, but have some form of interim representation during the five-month period before a special election can be held. Not a difficult concept.

  2. They have to use false science about global warming.
    They have to use false stories about health reform.
    They have to use false intelligence about WMDs.
    And even on something as simple as this, they have to use false information to get to the conclusion they want to make, to slur Senator Kennedy, who simply wants our state to keep two votes in the Senate.

    • They hate Bill Clinton. He’s a better politician than any of them, he was the best president since FDR in spite of their herculean efforts to impede him, and — worst of all — women love him. Anything that Bill Clinton says or does must be wrong. They use his name as an epithet.

      <

      p>They hate Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann (two of the leading climate scientists). They don’t read their papers. They don’t read any peer-reviewed papers. They lie, slander, and libel them. The literature supports Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann, and so they attack the literature. The facts support Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann, and so they attack the facts.

      <

      p>Most of all, they hate Ted Kennedy. They have been waiting to dance on his grave for decades.

      <

      p>The GOP has elevated purely personal hatchetry to an art form. Their reliance on lies, deceits, and flagrant demagoguery reflects their seemingly boundless cynical greed and self-interest.

      <

      p>The GOP mob is only beginning to crank up its hate-machine in eager anticipation of Ted Kennedy’s passing.

      <

      p>For all but their own rabid sheep, the display is nauseating.

      • 1) on global warming, the earth is cooling now that we are done with a uncharacteristically high sunspot cycle. This isn’t me wishing it to be true, it is true.  But if you want to keep going down that road. be my guest. Just don’t make me join your religion, of questionable science.  Others have posited that virtually all warming and cooling are based on natural sources.  But that would fly in the face of Algore, all hail Gaia and her prophen Algore.  

        <

        p>2) The goals publicly stated and the bill may be different. But make no mistake, many of the criticisms of Health Care Reform is where your side wants to take us. It’s just you are used to incrementalism and as long as the ball is being moved in your direction you are happy.  Your goal is single payer.  The public option is the way to get there, so says Barney Frank, so says Obama early this century.  

        <

        p>3) When are you all going to realize that the entire world thought Saddam Hussein had WMD’s. He purposely did not allow inspectors so that the Iranians would think he did. It was the worst bluff in modern military history.  In addition during the Clinton administration the CIA was decimated especially in the HumInt area.  We didn’t have the resources to adequately vet Hussein’s claims because Democrats between 1993 and 1994 decimated our ability to do so.  But keep living in your fantasy.

        <

        p>4) If Senator Kennedy wanted to keep two votes in the Senate he would have asked John Kerry to be more present in 2004 and he would have resigned months ago. We don’t have two votes in the senate now.

        <

        p>

        • It is fun to see someone who only posts GOP talking points accuse others of being brainwashed.  

        • …by citing a former TV weatherman for his expert source on Global Warming.  

          • You mean these climatologists in a peer reviewed paper then yes.

            <

            p>

            J. D. McLean

            Applied Science Consultants, Croydon, Victoria, Australia

            C. R. de Freitas

            School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

            R. M. Carter

            Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia

            • be impacted by global warming?

              <

              p>AGU’s (where the journal is from) position on global warming.

              <

              p>

              The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system–including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons–are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.

            • …you just dance around your lies and it is pathetic.  But you lie so much you probably forget each one, so let me help you.  Above you contend the globe is cooling and the link is to a web site called “Watts Up With That” run by a Anthony Watts who is a former TV weatherman.  When I point that out you infer with you response that Watts is a peer reviewed scholar on this subject…but you link to totally different who have no relationship to the TV weatherman.  

              <

              p>So Eabo is once again purposely confusing people with deceptions about his sources.  Yes, Eabo, you provided as a source of expert information a TV weatherman who has never had a peer reviewed article.  

              • it was that article that I then linked to here.  Same story from the same people.   But whatever floats your boat.

                • Thirty seconds of googling reveals this about Chris de Freitas:

                  <

                  p>

                  Formerly one of the editors of a journal called “Climate Research,” de Freitas was involved in a controversy surrounding a research article co-authored by Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon. The article reviewed previous scientific papers and came to the conclusion that climate hasn’t changed in the last 2000 years. But 13 of the authors of the papers Baliunas and Soon cited refuted her interpretation of their work, and several editors of Climate Research resigned in protest at a flawed peer review process which allowed the publication.

                  Among the sharp criticisms of the Climate Research paper was one from Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University. When von Storch, then the journal’s editor, read Mann’s critique, he said he realized his journal should never have accepted the study: “If it would have been properly reviewed, it would have been rejected on the basis of methodological flaws.” Shortly after, Von Storch, along with two other members of the Climate Research editorial board resigned in protest – “they submitted flawed research,” Von Stroch stated at the time.

                  <

                  p>Source:  http://www.desmogblog.com/chri…

                  <

                  p>See that “flawed peer review process” above?  You and your man Watts lose this one, Eabo…

        • Science? Religion? Cooling now? Sunspot cycles?

          <

          p>You’re laughable. What’s next, EaBo, some choice quotes from Marc Morano and Senator Inhofe? Maybe some “real” science, courtesy of the Heartland Institute? You assert “questionable science”, and then cite Anthony Watts, of all people?

          <

          p>Tell you what, EaBo, I invite you to post some peer-reviewed climate science papers that assert that we are in a cooling period. Similarly, I invite you to offer some peer-reviewed publications that support your implied claim that sunspot cycles have a significant impact global climate change, in comparison to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Oh, I know. There’s a massive liberal conspiracy blocking publication of peer-reviewed publications supporting your claims. It can’t possibly be because those claims are total, utter hogwash.

          <

          p>Citations to peer-reviewed literature, please. That’s how real science is done. I won’t hold my breath.

            • Watts, de Freitas, and every other climate change denier aren’t worth a hill of beans…

            • Your comment is not responsive to mine. Let me be more specific. You made two claims:

              <

              p>1. The earth is cooling now, and
              2. This claimed cooling is a result of changes in the sunspot cycle.

              <

              p>I asked you to offer peer-reviewed publications supporting those claims. You have not yet done so.

              <

              p>The abstract of the (discredited) paper you cited asserts “That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5-7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation.” (emphasis mine) The “natural forcing functions” it refers to are changes in the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI).

              <

              p>It does not assert that “the earth is cooling now that we are done with a uncharacteristically high sunspot cycle.” In fact, it makes no mention of sunspot cycles whatsoever.

  3. This would be a lot easier if Ted Kennedy hadn’t led the charge to change the initial law in the first place.  It was he and the supermajority in the legislature that rahmmed through the change.  

    <

    p>He does want to revert, albeit not all the way back, but partially to the old system. It is the utter hypocrisy of wanting to change something that you yourself fought to have changed to its current state that is galling.  While not 100% technically right on the merits. The general thrust of the comments is on the money.  Ted Kennedy is trying to change the game to suit him yet again. The rules don’t apply to Senator Kennedy, regardless of how you feel about his service, he doesn’t get to change the rules as he sees fit.

    <

    p>David, it is my understanding that the Republican Legislators offered exactly what Senator Kennedy now wants in 2004 as an amendment.  Where did the Senator fall then.  

    • Let’s see some backup, EaBo – I don’t give a fiddler’s f&$# about your “understanding.”  If you can show that Kennedy opposed the exact thing he’s proposing now, then yes, your charge of “hypocrisy” has some weight.  If not, though — if he supported the change in 2004 but this interim thing didn’t come up — then give it a rest.  There is absolutely no inconsistency — none, zero — in supporting the change that was made in 2004 and supporting Kennedy’s proposal now.

      <

      p>And, FWIW, I’ve already said that I’d only support a strong version of Kennedy’s proposal, i.e., one where the interim is legally ineligible to run in the special election.  So the folks droning on about my “integrity” can give their false piety a rest.

      • If the legislature controlled by your party gave a rat’s ass about openness and transparency, I’d easily be able to find the aforementioned amendment at 8:20 am on a Sunday Morning on the internets.  But since you can’t really find information about current bills readily on the internets, I guess finding information from five years ago is tough.  

        <

        p>However the GOP Senate Blog does reference what I’m talking about.

        <

        p>

        It should be noted that during the 2004 debate, the Senate Minority Party offered an amendment to permit the Governor to appoint an individual to serve as US Senator once a vacancy occurs and until an election can be held to fill that vacancy. That amendment was rejected.

        <

        p>On another note, aren’t we all “wee-weed-up” this morning.

      • David,

        <

        p>Here is a New York Times article from 2004.  This article buttresses my claim.

        <

        p>

        The Senate also voted that the governor could not make an interim appointment. Mr. Kerry, if elected president, would hold his Senate seat until his inauguration in January, and then, under the Senate bill, his seat would be vacant for up to three months until the special election.

        <

        p>In the same article Senator Joyce, pretty much sums up what is happening now.  It’s pure plain politics, so save me the “good government” bovine excrement OK?

        <

        p>

        ”I think anyone who would suggest that there weren’t partisan politics at play would be disingenuous,” said State Senator Brian A. Joyce, who sponsored the bill to move up the election. But, he added, ”I suspect if we had a Democratic governor, those Republicans who voted no would have voted yes.”

        • You haven’t got anything on what Senator Kennedy’s position was on the alleged Republican amendment to allow an interim until the special election.  My guess: he didn’t weigh in, because no one asked him about that level of detail.  Most likely, the Senate dinged it all by themselves.

          <

          p>And let’s be clear: everyone recognizes that the state legislature changed the law in 2004 for the “wrong” reasons.  Of course it was a partisan power play.  Just so happens it was also a good, pro-democracy change on the merits.  That doesn’t always happen, but it did in this case.

          • You are not always the smartest person in the room.  Please look at my original comment.  I offered as FACT that GOP legislators offered an amendment.  The I ASKED A QUESTION about Senator Kennedy’s position.  You took that to mean I offered what Senator Kennedy had as a position.

            <

            p>Perhaps some remedial reading comprehension lessons would be in order.

              • and understand them. There is no parsing needed.  Just reading.  Here is the comment in question.  I did not put the words in my mouth. David did.  Words have meaning.

                <

                p>

                David, it is my understanding that the Republican Legislators offered exactly what Senator Kennedy now wants in 2004 as an amendment.  Where did the Senator fall then.

                <

                p>Again SRA makes great reading comprehension materials.  

                • You might want to practice your transcription skills.  Something is getting lost in translation.

                • I interpreted what you said exactly as David did. Perhaps, in this internet environment where everything written is 2-d and lacks body language to help display true meaning, you should just try to be clearer next time, instead of lashing out on our esteemed editor… who probably is the smartest person in the room.  

                • Is you purport meaning to words that arent’ there. I am very clear in the use of my language. I asked a question. If your ideological prism can’t let you read something in an unbiased way. That is your problem.  

                  <

                  p>As to the part about being the smartest man in the room. I’d like to debate David any time any place.  Perhaps we could even do it for a charity.  

                • I am very clear in the use of my language.

                  <

                  p>Perhaps your language isn’t as clear as you think it is? Don’t feel bad. Anyone can make that mistake.

                  <

                  p>

                  I’d like to debate David any time any place.

                  <

                  p>A few things:

                  <

                  p>1. Perhaps you’d like to tell David that? Oddly enough, I don’t arrange David’s debating schedule.
                  2. Debates often reward ability with rhetoric far more than pure intelligence.
                  3. Smart doesn’t always mean right. So when I say he’s probably the smartest person in this metaphorical room (though Stomv probably gives him a run for his money), that doesn’t mean I think he’s always right.

                  <

                  p>However, the very fact that you’re now arguing against something you emphatically claim to have argued for in the Romney era, strictly because that’s what one prominent Democrat supports now, clearly suggests this is not one of those times David’s wrong. If this is the armament you’re going to bring to a hypothetical debate, do yourself a favor, just don’t. It won’t end pretty, whether David’s got debating skillz or not.  

            • Here’s what you actually said in your original comment.

              <

              p>

              This would be a lot easier if Ted Kennedy hadn’t led the charge to change the initial law in the first place.  It was he and the supermajority in the legislature that rahmmed through the change.  

              He does want to revert, albeit not all the way back, but partially to the old system. It is the utter hypocrisy of wanting to change something that you yourself fought to have changed to its current state that is galling.

              <

              p>That is not a question.  That is an accusation of hypocrisy directed at Senator Kennedy.  You then mentioned your unverified “understanding” that someone had offered an amendment to do what Kennedy is now suggesting, and asked where Kennedy was on it.  I asked you to provide backup, and said that absent any indication that Kennedy had opposed the supposed amendment, your charge — and yes, it was a charge — of hypocrisy had no legs.

              <

              p>So far you haven’t been able to provide any indication whatsoever that Kennedy took any position on this alleged amendment.  Instead, you have decided to accuse me of saying something that you didn’t say.  Problem is, you did.  Let’s repeat your original comment:

              <

              p>

              It is the utter hypocrisy of wanting to change something that you yourself fought to have changed to its current state that is galling.

              <

              p>Sorry pal.  Massive fail.

              • Those first two sentences are for the original law.  Are you now saying that this law was not passed as a favor to Senator Kennedy?  He is trying to change a law that he lobbied for passage so it then suits him again.  My statements are completely consistent.  He is hypocritical in that he wants to change a law that he wanted changed yet again.  Was he not right the first time or did circumstances change.  

                <

                p>The second part of my argument was to show that what he wants now was in fact debated and voted on.  And failed. I asked how he stood on that amendment then.  I don’t know.

                <

                p>The charge of hypocrisy still stands my friend, because he wants to again change a law to suit his particular whim.  

                • See, the problem is the definition of the word “hypocrisy.”  Your definition seems to be this:

                  <

                  p>

                  hy•poc•ri•sy (n.)  The condition of taking an action which, upon subsequent reflection, could have been improved upon further, and subsequently advocating for that further improvement.

                  <

                  p>That’s not a definition with which I’m familiar, but if you can find it, by all means knock yourself out.  My view of the meaning of “hypocrisy” is somewhat different.

                  <

                  p>Again: if you can show that Kennedy opposed this supposed amendment, you’ve made your point.  If not, I suggest you leave Kennedy out of this and debate the proposal on the merits.

                • that Ted Kennedy believes that the 2004 law could be “improved upon further” I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn and some really good land in Florida to sell you.  

                  <

                  p>My definition of hypocrisy is as dictionary.com has it:

                  <

                  p>

                  The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

                  <

                  p>Suits the senior senator to a T.

                • you have utterly failed to supply any evidence whatsoever for that charge.  So don’t bullshit me by saying that you’re not calling Kennedy a hypocrite.  You are.  You have been all along, and you just did it again.  Problem is, you can’t prove it.  You just don’t like the guy, and you think it’s fun to call him a hypocrite, despite your pathetic lack of ability to substantiate the charge.  Well, whatever floats your boat, I guess.

  4. Who gives a sh** whether it’s a full or partial or modified reversion to the old law.  It doesn’t even matter whether the proposed changes are a good idea or not.

    <

    p>It’s the principal of thing. The law was changed in 2004 to prevent a Republican governor from filling an empty US Senate seat.  But now that a Democratic is governor, they want that power back.

    <

    p>JoelPatterson can blather away all he wants about “false information” but the electorate sees this craven political power play for exactly what it is.  Voters no doubt are thinking “what WON’T Beacon Hill do to serve their self-interests?  Will they stop at nothing?  Will laws constantly be changed to fit the circumstances?”

    <

    p>You think Murray and DeLeo want to rile likely voters any more than they are?

    <

    p>Maybe this is too small-ball politics to make a difference to Joe and Jane Six Pack, but it still stinks.  Kennedy should have announced his resignation months ago, given time to run the special election, then stepped down.

    • You wont’ get anywhere on this forum talking about principle. It’s not like the original poster of this thread doesn’t know exactly what’s going on. He just sees some perverse virtue in supporting his side at any cost – including the cost of his own integrity.

      • Hilarious.  I love the guys who drone on and on about how there’s no “principle” or “integrity” to be found on BMG, yet can’t seem to keep themselves away from it.  It’s a big internet, fella.  You don’t like what we do here, go somewhere else.  Please.

        • A couple of the differently winged posters use “BMG hypocrites” so often it might as well be in their sig. It does make one wonder why they’re here.

          <

          p>It’s like they’ve confused BMG with sports radio. If you scream the loudest and spew the most insults, you “win.”

      • The principle of cat vs. dog, or the principle of doing the right thing after doing the wrong thing?

        <

        p>You guys are looking for the former.  We’re looking for the latter.

        <

        p>They’re both principled positions.  The difference is yours is all about hunkering down in an irresponsible position (far too common amongst the GOP lately) and ours is on doing the right thing, if not the first time then the second time.

    • be to get it right?

      <

      p>A special election within 5 months is good for Democracy.

      <

      p>An interim, caretaker appointment is good for Massachusetts.

      <

      p>If it’s all about the ‘principal’ of the thing, I’d rather the principal to be about getting it right, not petty partisanship issues.  

  5. Are you going on record saying that your prefered alternative is for MA to have a VACANCY for the duration of the special election period under current law?  It sounds like EaBo and bostonshepherd are the ones putting party ahead of state.  I prefer gubernatorial appointment to special election anyway (and yes, I believed that in 2004 as well), but certainly the Kennedy proposal has the advantages to both methods.

    • It’s fighting the damn hypocrisy of the ruling class in Massachusetts.  If you are too tone deaf to hear that, well that explains Deval’s 19% approval rating.  People are fed-up of the corruption in Massachusetts and this is yet another example. If you don’t like the rules change them at will.  In fact I sorta like the idea proposed by GOP legislators in 2004 and belated adopted by Senator Kennedy.  But you know what where was Ted on this in 2004?  

      • Most people on this blog have admitted that the law was changed for the wrong reasons in 2004, but unlike you would prefer to discuss the MERITS.  Thank you – you have shown you’re more interested in criticism for it’s own sake, just as I kind of thought.

      • If you don’t like the rules change them at will.

        <

        p>You really want to make that critique after eight years of George W. Bush signing statements, law breaking and Dick Cheney? Really?

    1. Kennedy immediately announces that he will relinquish the seat no later than October 31st, 2009.
      2. The Governor immediately schedules a special election for November 3rd, 2009.

    <

    p>That satisfies the requirement for a special election within 150 days of vacancy, minimizes the time without the second Senator for the State, and lessens the public cost of the special election by making it concurrent with other elections occuring in November.

    • Being an odd-numbered year there may be a few municipal elections, but most of the state wasn’t planning on voting that day.  I also don’t want Kennedy to leave the Senate, or announce his intentions thereof, any earlier than he has to.

      • especially in the population centers, such as Boston, Worcester, Lowell, Malden, Springfield, Saugus, Melrose, Cambridge, Worcester Woburn, Somerville, Watertown, Lynn and Gloucester to name several.

        <

        p>I think Kennedy has already effectively announced his intentions, although not for a specific date.

    • though November 3rd is awfully close to now.  It certainly guarantees that a current member of the House or an independently wealthy candidate wins — they’re the only ones with enough cash sitting around to run full speed on such short notice.

  7. But I couldn’t give two shits as to whether we appoint a caretaker and then have a special election or just have it empty in the meantime.

    <

    p>Honest to God, if we weren’t at each other’s throats with such frequency, we might do a pairing system like the Brits do.  

    • If you mean a Senator who would vote the opposite of an absent Senator agrees not to vote, thus cancelling each other out, I believe they do sometimes do that.

      • In Parliament there’s clerks who keep track of pairs and whathaveyou…it’s closer to a system than the gentlemans agreement something in Congress would have.  

        • …if Kennedy is still Senator but can’t get to the chamber.  I suspect Orrin Hatch would be willing to pair with Kennedy.  They’re good friends, but likely to vote oppositely.

  8. I am going to ignore the fat jokes and the erroneous global warming debate above this post to comment on the actual topic at hand.

    <

    p>I would agree with you that Dave Wedge made a completely incorrect statement that should be retracted.

    <

    p>But one could argue that Nassour, Baker, and the good government group were all correct in saying that they want the election of the Senator to be maintained.

    <

    p>Arguably, an appointment, even on an interim basis, violates the spirit of a special election or gives that newly entrenched incumbent an un-fair advantage in that special election. So while I would disagree with Nassour and Baker’s criticism, it is not factually invalid.

    <

    p>I would argue that the advantage is negated if Gov. Patrick appoints someone who will not run for re-election, and I would also argue that the window we are talking about is so small that an appointment merely preserves the status quo until the special election and does not alter the voters original intent. For instance after Paul Wellstone’s death Gov. Ventura insured that the period between his death and the set election that MN still had a Senator and we would simply be doing the same thing. But while the argument that any appointment would violate our rights is incorrect in my opinion, it is not factually incorrect.

    <

    p>Additionally the watch dog group is correct, any senatorial appointment in the wake of the Blago scandal could be subject to corruption or political favoritism. While I disagree with the Governor’s track record and believe he is incompetent, I have never doubted his personal integrity or his commitment to the job, so again factually yes this appointment could be subject to corruption, as is any political appointment, but in my opinion that would not be the case. Sorry if I was too nitpicky in defending some of the nitwittery.  

  9. In a Federal Republic, that is to say a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, a vacancy, of whatever duration, is more to be feared and avoided than an appointment or the faint notion that, somehow, the people are being robbed of their voice.

    <

    p>The people voted for Deval Patrick in the clear and explicit understanding that he would make decisions on their behalf.  One such decision ought to be interim appointments.

    <

    p>In general, as I’ve noted before (but don’t have the time to look up), I favor a clear and well defined line of succession where election to one position (for example AG or House Rep) entails ‘stepping up’ in the event of an unplanned vacancy.  Barring that, however, I have no problem, whatsoever, with the Governor  (be it Romney or Patrick) making an interim appointment.

    <

    p>So I think the law was changed wrongly and not just for the wrong reasons.  I think that Kennedy, et al, in this instance are trying to thread the needle with more than half an eye to some vague notions of democracy and vox that have little to no bearing on the reality of a representative democracy.

Archives