I’ve just made Eabo’s day by headlining him in a BMG diary…I know this because when he does the same thing to me at RMG, it makes my day.
But I digress. There is an interesting thread Eabo and David had (actually they are still having it) regarding Sen. Kennedy’s request to change the law pertaining to an open US Senate seat in MA.
In this thread, Eabo informs us the Republican State Senators offered an amendment to the 2004 which would have allowed the Governor to appoint an interim US Senator until a special election could be held.
That brings up a couple of questions I wish Eabo would answer (I’d rather the Senators would, but I’m reality based). Eabo, if it was a good idea then–they offered the amendment–why not support the idea today?
Or to phrase the question in a manner you can best understand, why were MA Republicans for this amendment, before they were against it?
If Republicans oppose this measure today because Democrats are playing politics today (and in 2004), then should we assume that the Republicans are equally guilty of playing politics (I’m shocked that there is politics being played!) this year because they are now opposing something they originally proposed? Or did the Republicans simply make the amendment in 2004 as an act of…politics?
And let me stipulate that at the root of changing these laws (today and 2004) is politics (or are you going to pretend you’re a political virgin?). Given that, do you think having an interim appointment and then calling a special election has merit? The idea seems to offer the best of both worlds…it gives MA two votes in the Senate in the interim and provides for an orderly election of a permanent successor. So this is my most important question: Does this system of interim appointment and then special election have strong merit to it?
silver : werewolf :: logic : eabo
can you name the senators who sponsored this amendment in2004 and call them out?
“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>So apparently they are all taking credit/responsibility for the amendment.
…complete silence from Eabo so far…
It’s more fun to call people names and try to score cheap political points.
This has been Eabo’s pattern since day 1.
Who were the Democratic senators who thought it was a bad idea and voted against it? Shouldn’t they also be required to explain why it was a bad idea then, but a good idea now?
My guess is the explanation is a combination of crucial votes coming up this time (health care) and keeping that magic 60 in place. I personally have always favored gubernatorial appointment possibly with advice/consent and WY rules regarding keeping the party) with an election at the next biennium.
…where do your priorities come from?
<
p>Magic 60? You don’t have that now, between Lieberman and the Blue Dogs.
<
p>Crucial votes? Is that to imply that TARP, ARRA, even Cash for Clunkers, were trivial votes? We need full representation ONLY when progressives are interested in an issue?
<
p>The reason the GOP floated the amendment then? To underscore the partisan nature of the law change, despite bloviation about the will of the people.
<
p>The reason they oppose it now? To underscore the willlingness of the incumbancy to rewite any rule, as long as it allows them to puppeteer the votes they want to protect themselves.
<
p>(Question Authority – ask me anything!)
I didn’t say the arguments above were MY arguments, but I do suspect that many consider health care to be THE most important vote in several years, especially for progressives. Point taken about 60 not necessarily being magic; it’s a good psycological boost though.
<
p>Indeed, it’s not 60D == filibuster-buster. However, 60 are needed and there are both Dems (plus Sanders and Lieberman) who might not vote to end a filibuster, but there are also GOPers (Snowe, Collins, Voinovich, etc) who might vote to end a filibuster. It’s clearly close to 60 on many issues, closer than it’s been in a long time.
<
p>
<
p>TARP et el. aren’t trivial programs, but the votes may have been trivial in the sense that Senator Kennedy’s yea/no/abstain wouldn’t have changed the outcome.
<
p>
<
p>Not in an attempt to create the best legislation possible? Two wrongs don’t make a right you know.
<
p>
<
p>Not in an attempt to create the best legislation possible? Two wrongs don’t make a right you know. Speaking of ‘know’, the MA GOP really does seem to be taking marching orders from national GOP, what with this party of no and whatnot. Well, based on size, it’s more like a small social gathering of no.
<
p>Is there currently an amendment before the Legislator to now be against? Or for?
is that when the law was being changed in 2004, the Republicans floated an amendment to allow the Governor to make an interim appointment until the special election could be held (i.e., exactly what Kennedy is proposing now). Supposedly, the legislature rejected the amendment; as far as anyone knows, Kennedy took no position on it. No one has actually found a copy of this amendment, so we’re going on faith that it existed. Anyway, that’s the discussion.
It does not matter where I fall on the merits of the current suggestion by Senator Kennedy. What matters is that Senator Kennedy is playing politics with the law in order to achieve an outcome that is personally advantageous to him and his party. It’s quite simple. If the Democratic super-majority legislature thinks the law should read as Senator Kennedy is now suggesting then they could have voted that way in 2004. I have been provided the roll call of the House Amendment.
<
p>View senate-vacancy-temporary-appointment-amendment-pdf
<
p>If you really want to know, I think that the amendment offered by the Republican Party in 2004 is the way to go. I can believe this while still saying that Ted Kennedy and the Democratic Super-majority legislators are hypocrites for wanting to change yet again to suit their whims.
<
p>
You like the change Kennedy is suggesting. You just don’t like the fact that it’s from Kennedy. Well, get over it, man up, buck your party’s hacks, and proclaim your support for Kennedy’s suggestion.
I’m upset like hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts Residents at the corruption of your party. At the way your party changes the rules to benefit themselves personally and politically.
<
p>There’s change a brewin in the air though. The change that will get your party out of office. It’s coming. Be ready.
You used to have 22 members in the House. Now you’ve got 16. What change exactly do you expect with the lege?
<
p>Oh that’s right, none. You mean the governor’s office. The governor who wasn’t an elected official when this passed in 2004. You’re rambling illogical nonsense again EaBo.
…you would have been gleeful and cheering on Tom Delay’s minions when they redistricted the congressional seats in the UNPRECEDENTED mid decade 2004 and not after the 10 year US census. So your holier than thou postings is complete BS and pathetic political positioning. If the shoe were on the other foot, the Republicans would be doing the same thing. Can you man-up and admit that fact?
Sounds like a trailer for a B horror flick. Come to think of it….
Or a a Zoloft for MA Republicans commercial!
Since when are Republicans like eabo concerned about corruption?
Wow, doesn’t that statement just say it all about the difference in how the two parties discuss the issues. Merits don’t matter – I’ll be sure to remember that:(