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?