First and foremost, remember this: NO DEMOCRAT voted in 2004 against the proposal that Senator Kennedy put forward in the days before his death: that Massachusetts voters fill a Senate vacancy via special election, that the governor name an interim Senator to represent our state until voters can make their choice, and that whomever the governor selects not run in the special election. Nor did Democrats vote against the proposal that has been filed for consideration and will be discussed at a hearing on Wednesday.
That’s not what you heard? No surprise.
What Democrats DID vote against in 2004 was a dozen, yes 12, Republican efforts to thwart legislation empowering voters to fill a vacant US Senate seat by means of a special election. Democrats voted five times to pass this bill and override Gov. Romney’s veto of it, while Republicans voted all five times to keep the status quo and prevent any special election. Failing to stop the bill, Republicans tried seven times to amend it to hand Gov. Romney a trump card: the right to appoint an interim Senator who, Republicans did not deny, would be likely to run in the special election (very different from Senator Kennedy’s proposal that the appointee step aside). Only when those attempts to block an election and tilt the playing field failed, did the Republicans in the House offer up a baker’s dozen, yes, a 13th amendment – this time sham wording PUPORTING to provide for an interim appointee who SUPPOSEDLY would be prohibited from running in the special election. House transcripts show that amendment was challenged by Democrats not on its appeal in the abstract but because it was blatantly unconstitutional as drafted, violating a 1995 US Supreme Court decision. This effort went down by the biggest margin of all – not even all the Republicans voted for this charade. Understand these points: First, not a single Democrat spoke on the floor against the amendment saying it is bad policy or not attractive in theory. Second, not a single Republican defended its constitutionality. One Republican even admitted, “I don’t know whether this is constitutional or not . . . I can’t answer whether this is unconstitutional. That’s not my duty.”
So what REALLY happened in 2004 was Democrats in the legislature proposed and passed a law to give the voters the right to choose the person to fill a vacant US Senate seat. The Republicans battled against giving the voters the choice. Their next tactic was a series of maneuvers to give a political advantage to an interim appointee and when all else failed, they threw up a last ditch effort which was so feeble, they couldn’t get their own members to vote for it.
Does that seem unusual? Not to people who watch Republican legislative tactics regularly and know they are looking for a misleading vote to put on a piece of direct mail in the next election.
The stakes are high. We deserve the full staffing of two Senate offices to continue the important constituent service work for Massachusetts seniors and veterans who need a voice in dealing with a large federal bureaucracy. With health care reform and climate change in the balance, we need and deserve FULL representation on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Most of all we need to keep focused on what is best for Massachusetts – today.
There may be some who think we deserve less and that debate will be engaged in the coming days. But I hope we can finally put aside the distraction of what did and did not happen in 2004.
John Walsh, Chair
Massachusetts Democratic Party
John,
<
p>With all due respect the facts don’t support your contention. In 2004 an amendment was sponsored by both the House and Senate republicans to allow an interim appointment. Then in 2006 House Republicans offered HR 50. The text of HR 50 can be seen below.
<
p>
<
p>This bill came to a vote on March 22 2006, Roll call 362.
<
p>
<
p>Facts Mr. Walsh are Stubborn things.
You’re so funny. John Walsh is talking about something that happened in 2004. So you point to something that happened in 2006, and declare that that shows that Walsh was wrong?
<
p>Um, no. And furthermore, the bill you reference, HR 50 from 2005-06, has no provision to prevent the interim from running in the special election — the very issue we’ve been debating endlessly on this site for weeks. It’s no surprise that all the Dems voted no on that, and all the GOoPers voted yes.
<
p>So, actually, what John said is perfectly accurate, as far as I am aware. Certainly, nothing in your comment shows otherwise. Facts are indeed stubborn, aren’t they?
Yes that’s such a distinction. A possibly unconstitutional provision. Yep, I’d hang my hat on that one.
Good. Glad that’s settled.
…that EaBo is much more interested in taking potshots at the Democrats than discussing the merits of this proposal.
Can the legislature, through legislative means, prevent an interim appointment from running for the office?
Here’s one example; there are several other threads on the same topic. The bill being heard tomorrow is discussed here.
I don’t get to follow every thread, so thanks for directing me.
There really is NO other reason to oppose giving Massachusetts citizens FULL representation in the US Senate? I get that you don’t like it because Senator Kennedy proposed it, but is there another reason that seniors and veterans looking for help deserve fewer Senate staffers to assist them than seniors and veterans in Wyoming for example?
<
p>I certainly don’t want to misrepresent what you believe – so I want to be sure. Am I missing a substantive argument you’ve made? I guess we can – and to the degree you control the debate, we will – spend lots of time discussing what happened in the past but once we get past that and eventually start to discuss what is best for the people of Massachusetts today, is there a reason why you don’t think Massachusetts deserves two US Senators?
<
p>I mean – you and I can go back and forth for a while about who said what in 2004 or 2006. You can say Democrats are bad and only wanted to deny Mitt the appointment and I can say Republicans never wanted to give the people a chance to vote because voters in Massachusetts tend to vote for Democrats. Blah, blah, blah.
<
p>Why don’t we just say I won’t convince you and you won’t convince me – and most people in Massachusetts could care less what either of us say?
<
p>Break some new ground, EaBo. How about one non-political argument for your position? Just one. Or you can concede the case on the merits.
It is the members of your state party, one of the most corrupt group of politicians in the nation, that have not been consistent. It’s pretty amazing that we are spending all this time debating how we are going to fill a six week period at the end of the year with an appointment for senate. Given the wording of the current bill and the current election schedule, Patrick would not be able to appoint a replacement until around Thanksgiving.
<
p>This is all about politics. Your post was an attempt to frame the debate on terms that suited you. You were called out on it by a lowly blogger, now you need to change your position yet again. It’s quite laughable really.
<
p>There’s no wonder the elected leader of your party gets 19% approval ratings in some polls.
<
p>Ordinary people are waking up and seeing just how corrupt your party is. This is just one more naked power grab that follows all the rest.
<
p>George Peterson’s second amendment will be his best and get to the heart of what you are really doing.
<
p>
On a reason why Massachusetts shouldn’t be fully represented in the US Senate while the voters choose – you say what?
<
p>Nothing?
<
p>Thought so.
I’m on the record with that. It’s not why you wrote the diary. You’ve got nothing.
<
p>I like the Republican Party in 2004, 2005, and 2006 believe in an interim appointment. However, I would like to see it not be tainted by the corrupt politics of the Massachusetts Democratic Party. So I support George Peterson’s amendment that would have it go into effect on January 6, 2011 giving the power to the next elected governor. If that is Deval Patrick good for you. But it allows politics to be taken out of the equation.
<
p>For you to be arguing and demanding an answer on the “merits” is beyond laughable.
We both agree that Massachusetts should be fully represented in the US Senate while the voters choose. Good. You think that seniors and veterans who need help should have as many Senate staffers to help them as veterans and seniors in Idaho – in 2011. I think today’s veterans and seniors deserve the same.
<
p>Is that the only reason?
<
p>I know you’d rather talk about something else, so I appreciate you explaining.
Why didn’t your democrats put that provision into place in 2004. Oh, a Republican was Governor then. Why didn’t you democrats ask Sen. Kennedy to resign upon learning of his terminal illness? You could have worked a special election around a resignation by Kennedy. How many seats will your party have to lose before you resign your position because of mismanagement? I became a Republican three months ago because of democratic hypocrisy. Change is coming, you’re not going to like it.
“A few short months ago I was a bitter homophobe, so desperate for attention I spent my days ranting about liberals on a progressive blog. Now, thanks to the over 20 members of the Mass. GOP, I’m a political insider!”
Try to make a substantive argument.
<
p>This exchange sums up in a very pithy way the desperate state of the Republican party in the country as a whole and Massachusetts in particular.
…John from Abington is a big boy (and I mean that in the figurative sense only, of course), so he doesn’t need me or anyone here to ask you to tone down your crass attitude with him. Sure you, I and others can mix it up with insults, but when elected’s or party poobah’s post, we should show them a bit of civility. Instead you rant to the State Chairmen that he presides over one of the most corrupt of politicans in the US.
<
p>Now I know this little admonishment will just bounce off your thick skin, but need I remind you that life is full of two way streets and that Festus Garvey loves to go tit-for-tat with you on things? So you’ve just open up the occasional VIPs that vist RMG to the same kind of treatment you feel compelled to show at BMG…unless of course you want to apologize for your bad behavior?
Like insults are your only ammunition at the moment. It surely is not information.
You’re clearly missing a lot of context in 99.99999999999999% of your postings. Have you tried sounding out the words you don’t understand?
Democrats took the power of nominating a senator from a Republican in 2004. Now in 2009, with democratic totalitarianism in full bloom, you want to change the law to your own political advantage. You never objected to one senator in 1980, 2004 and 2009, until now.
Do tell.
<
p>For the record, I felt the 2004 machinations were silly. I think you and EaBo’s ranting is even sillier, especially now that we only have one senator.
<
p>What is clear is that neither of you care about anything but hurling insults at Democrats.
<
p>Those are the facts John.
You mean THIS George Peterson?
<
p>“{W)e’re talking about a period of 160 days. It’s a lengthy period of time. It is too long to go without one US Senator, or possibly two . . . I don’t know how anyone could vote against making sure we are going to have some representation in the US Senate.”
– George Peterson (R-Grafton)
July 14, 2004
No insults. We want to know?
Dear Mr. Walsh:
It is the view of this resident of the Commonwealth that you and your party are awash in hypocrisy over this issue.
Regards,
pmg
They never reply to valid questions. Unless they think they have a witty insult. Well John” We’re waiting….?
I don’t want to be nitpicking, but PMG doesn’t actually ASK any questions here.
<
p>I notice you DO ask some questions however and I want to be responsive to them and in return, I hope you might consider answering one for me.
<
p>You ask – a few times – about 2004. You guys really want to talk about 2004, don’t you? If you’ve got a minute, take a look at my original post. I spent a bit of time talking about what I think 2004 was all about.
<
p>You also ask about how many races will be lost – or something like that. A long time ago, I gave up making predictions about politics and decided to focus on the races one at a time. Feel free to make your own predictions though.
<
p>Finally, a little further down you ask a really interesting question about flaggers. I put the answer after the question.
<
p>Now, I wonder if you might be willing to pick up for EaBo and answer just one question for me? Old EaBo seems to have gotten a little scarce once the discussion turned to questions.
<
p>My question: Is there a reason why you think Massachusetts shouldn’t have full representation in the US Senate while voters choose the person to fill the balance of Senator Kennedy’s term? What I’m looking for here (you may have noticed elsewhere in this discussion) is a SUBSTANTIVE reason. I already get the 2004 stuff but I’m asking about TODAY. Nobody else can come up with a reason not to have the same number of Senate staffers to help veterans and seniors in Massaschusetts as veterans and seniors have in North Dakota. Can you think of a reason? Even ONE reason?
between having full representation (for our seniors and veterans etc) on the one hand, and having respect for (small d) democratic values by only allowing individuals who were elected to the US Senate by the people of MA to serve as a MA Senator. It’s simply hypocritical to wax poetic about (small d) democracy when there is a Governor of the opposite party, and to wax poetic about having full representation when there is a Governor if your own party. Both parties are guilty of hypocricy in this case, which I think was the concession Joe is looking for below (and might look for again over your beer together).
Senator Kennedy did not make his proposal in 2004. He made it in 2008. You people, in your own Nixonian way are going to annihilate your own absoluteness. I guess “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”
Mr. Walsh: I hope you’re not Christy Mihos’ “Senior Adviser” to Boston.com
Who gets to say what is best for Mass.? Would that be John Walsh? It seems to me that JW should remember that this is a democracy, thus, voter, decide, not paid party hacks.
Voters re-elected those that made the change in 2004 (and again in 2006 and again in 2008) and will, under this bill vote in a special election (and then vote on the Reps and Senators again in 2010.
<
p>You just don’t like what the voters decided!
Anything about Senatorial succession being a campaign issue in 2008.
This mumbo jumbo about 2004, 2006, and the proposal they were for before they were against it–that’s all they’ve got.
<
p>Kind of sad, really.
<
p>It’s pointless to reason, really, but heck. Here’s the process, set forth in the 17th Amendment.
<
p>
<
p>I can see why these folks would prefer that Massachusetts should only have one senator–they were pretty tickled to do that for Minnesota for as long as they could–but we haven’t heard a single argument about how that would be good for Massachusetts.
<
p>Nor will we.
Ask Kerry where he was on the unemployment extension that lost by ONE vote, HIS.
“What REALLY happened in 2004 was we played party politics with a Senate seat. It was wrong. We realize the err of such a politically motivated move, and are installing the amendment that the Republicans initially proposed because it’s the right thing to do.”
<
p>Time for John Walsh and Co. to act like adults and just admit it and move the f*ck on. Seriously!
<
p>
<
p>Nice to see that Massachusetts – yesterday – was not worthy of such prodigious defense.
If Republicans liked it so much in 2004, why don’t they like it now?
<
p>Politics?
<
p>Time for Republicans to act like adults and just admit it and move the f*ck on. Seriously!
those who voted in 2004 and now opposing (that’s if you were talking about yourself).
<
p>If you were talking about Republicans in the legislature then that’s a pathetic response. Are you saying they have no responsibility whatsoever?
<
p>Why vote at all? Whaaaa whaaaa ….
that whether this outlandishly hypocritical, albeit necessary move happens is the responsibility of the Democrats. You want to run the show, you get the responsibility. Instead what we have is the chair of the Dems trying to spin this in some other fashion rather than the truthful fashion.
<
p>Instead of the chair of the Dems explaining why there was no appointment power in the bill in ’04, we have him trying to blame the Republicans for WHO KNOWS WHAT.
<
p>Man, the way Republicans get blamed for problems in this State you’d think WE were the ones rockin’ the 90% majority.
<
p>Republicans not supporting the bill now is obviously hypocritical, but Mr. Walsh doing some crying himself and pointing his finger at them is just childish. It’s like the US pointing at Uruguay and going “they’re hypocrites too!”
You seem like another person who thinks this makes sense. That makes you, me and EaBo.
<
p>What exactly have we agreed on? Well, we each seem to have less than a high political regard for the other side’s position and motivation. OK, we agree that we are good and right and the other side is not. It’s not much, but maybe it is a basis to build on.
<
p>What else? We all seem to agree that giving Massachusetts full representation in the US Senate while the voters choose the next Senator has merit as an idea.
<
p>You don’t seem to put dates on it, but EaBo feels it was a brilliant idea in 2004 and 2006 – – and certainly in 2011. But not today – no way.
<
p>I say if it makes sense for veterans and seniors in 2011 to have the same number of Senate staffers as Montana to help with problems, it seems like it makes sense for today as well.
<
p>So that seems to sum it up – WHEN will we stop arguing about the politics of this decision and decide this on the merits?
<
p>Have I missed anything?
I think it should be. I also think that it’s important to recognize that what was done in the past was pure politics playing, and that the only reason this debate is going on is that the same Democrats who are so concerned with veterans and seniors today are the same ones who, in 2004, put politics ahead of the concern being expressed today.
<
p>
<
p>If it makes sense in 2009, why didn’t it make sense in 2004?
<
p>This is why I’m getting so fed up with both political parties. I’m fed up that the Republicans are balking at this amendment now when they should be supporting it, and I’m fed up with the Democrats acting like they didn’t put party politics ahead of what was best for Massachusetts – yesterday.
<
p>John, if you just admit that you guys beefed on your duty as public servants when you changed the law in 2004 for reasons that were purely and unequivocally political, I will drive to the Ale House and buy you a Sam Adams.
That way, you can get the discussion off to a more sociable start. 😉
I frankly don’t care whether the governor appoints that interim senator, the legislature elects that interim senator, etc. as long as the “interim” person cannot run, that also allows the special election created in 2004 to go forward.
<
p>What WAS good about 2004 was the creation of the requirement that the senate position be filled by an interim election not an appointment. Now, onwards, please, and let’s just get this done!
How about the beer without pre-conditions?
<
p>I’ll even buy you one back – and the Ale House is a great place to have one – or two. A few months back, I met Sabutai there when he was helping make our platform better. Of course at times he was doing that by whacking me over the head with it – but that’s a different story.
<
p>I’m off to a DNC meeting in Austin, TX tomorrow, so if you shoot me an email (johnewalsh@comcast.net) with a couple dates for next week or after we can set a mutually-convenient time.
I’ll send you an email today or tomorrow.
That new platform is so tiny I couldn’t do any real damage whacking anyone over the head with it. Nice to see you giving better than you’re getting with our resident Andy Rooneys…
As I understand it, the special appointment proposal now being considered finesses the eligibility question by preventing the Governor from appointing anyone who is a candidate in the subsequent special election. That’s good enough for me.
<
p>I am dubious that any minds are going to be changed by continued rehashing of history. I am quite clear, in my own mind, about the hypocrisy — or even simple downright dishonesty — of both the local and national GOP. For better or worse, I strongly suspect that those on the other side have come to the same conclusion about the local and national Democratic party. Fair enough — it seems to me that the question is “what shall we do now.”
<
p>The question on the table now is is whether or not to enact the following language:
<
p>I feel, strongly, that this bill should pass NOW. If those from the other side of aisle disagree, could you please:
<
p>
In 2004 Massachusetts Democrats thought that if we elected two Democrats to be U. S. Senator we should have two Democrats as U. S. Senators. That is what Democrats are saying in 2010.
Ted Kennedy asked for the Governor to have interim appointment power, this means that if MA elects two Democrats but has a Republican Governor he or she could appoint a Republican to the Senate.
<
p>We are not asking for two Democratic votes in the Senate. We are asking for two votes in the Senate during the interim. And I want to be represented during that interim regardless of whether or not the Governor making that appointment chooses someone I disagree with. If its really for MA this bullshit about healthcare reform needing a vote NOW or having two Democrats NOW wouldn’t be discussed.
<
p>The GOP is hypocritical for opposing a good idea they proposed back in 2004, John Walsh and the Democras were hypocritical from killing a good idea back in 2004 and supporting it now. A good idea is a good idea no matter which idiot party supports it, and I support this because its a good idea. Lets leave the politics out of it and just call a good idea a good idea, then maybe we can get more Republicans to support this idea and maybe actually get it passed before the special election.
Should be fun identifyng all the Democratic hypocrits that played games before and after. November 2010 should be fun.
I’m sure that there will be hundreds of thousands of people who would have voted for their Democratic incumbent, but this will upset them too much. Because these obscure process arguments about who wanted to change the Senate replacement process in which way at which time will have a whole lot of traction with independents. I’m sure that this will be the major campaign issue in 2010, and that people won’t be discussing the economy, taxes, and spending because the really important thing is who changed their minds about the Governor appointing a Senator for a term that only lasts a few months. This is a law that will probably affect Massachusetts for 3-6 months once every 20-40 years. That could be well over 12 months over the course of an average lifetime! Who cares about things like when the RMV is open, what the sales/income tax rates are in comparison to this major, life-altering procedural quirk.
<
p>Seriously – by next summer nobody is going to care about this at all. Bringing it up will make people think you are crazy. There is plenty of corruption and hypocrisy in the state house that has a more ongoing affect. This isn’t going to change any votes, no matter how it ends up working out. The only people who are going to care will be the true partisans that will vote based on party anyway.
Governor Patrick’s total contempt for voters.
More and higher taxes.
Democratic crooks
Democratic perverts
Democratic hypocrites
And oh yeah, where are those civilian flagmen.
<
p> Don’t worry, I’ll keep reminding you.
There are too many places for me to list them all here. That’s OK, because the state transportation folks have a very cool interactive map where you can see them all. Check it out. Neat graphics and if you click on any of the little yellow flagger symbols, it’ll tell you all the details about the specific project. They are all over the place and in a few locations there are more than one – so they even have a special red flagger symbol for those locations. Try it. The people over at transportation are very smart and they’re working hard to get this info out so I appreciate you helping to spread the word. There are a ton of good things going on in transportation. To stay on top of it all, I follow them on Twitter @MassDOT. They’re punching out info every day.
<
p>Hey Bill, since I answered your questions, don’t forget to go up and answer mine – OK?
<
p>Thanks.
Do tell. An example would help.
And Paul “Cinderella” Kujawski.
I keep listening to everyone argue about this in the statehouse and just don’t get it. Why do we have to justify changing our mind on this? Even if we originally wanted the current law because we wanted to stop Romney from appointing a Republican if Kerry became president, who cares? The process is inherently political. If Republicans don’t like it then they should win majorities in the state House and Senate. Until then, we’re in control and we should do what is best for Massachusetts (and our Party!).
Choose a way and stick to it in a way only the voters as the ultimate sovereign of the Commonwealth can reverse. That will eliminate and temptation or ability to play politics or change the rules ad hoc. My personal preference is appointed by the Governor with advice/consent of Council and requirement to retain the party label, with an election at the next biennium.
Senator Kennedy held his seat for forty seven years (from 1962 to 2009). Senator Kerry has held his seat for twenty seven years (since 1985). It’s not as if we’ve had a problem with too-frequent turnover of Senate seats (unlike the Governor’s office, I might add — how many elected Massachusetts governors have served their full terms in the last, say, 20 years?)
<
p>I think it’s crucial that we have two senators for the remainder of this year. I think the Republicans are just doing their same-old shit-stirring that they always do around every issue of substance.
<
p>In my view, no amendment is necessary or appropriate. The best answer is to leave the special election provision as is (it appears to be working just fine) and quickly pass the modification proposed by Senator Kennedy and presented as legislation. This should not be difficult, Democrats have an overwhelming advantage in the House and Senate, and Democrats hold the corner office. Let those who don’t like it try and force the issue through an initiative petition — good luck.
<
p>I don’t understand why, if the Governor wants this to happen, there is any question about it. I’m tired of hearing whining about Republicans and whining about the Lege. Governor Patrick was, if nothing else, a fine campaigner. Perhaps it’s time for him to draw on those skills now. Besides, it will be good practice for his upcoming campaign.
<
p>I can think of no more important action this Governor and this legislature can take to improve health care for Massachusetts residents than to ensure that two strongly Democratic strongly pro health-care reform senators are in office as soon as legally possible. President Obama himself has publicly stated his support for an interim appointment.
<
p>I think Governor Patrick should loudly and forcefully press his agenda to appoint a new senator as soon as the filing deadline passes. I think that if he gets anything but wholehearted, enthusiastic support from the lege (and specifically from Mr. DeLeo and Ms. Murray), Governor Patrick should go directly to the people and make his case in the media and in public. We saw President Obama do a fine job of this earlier this week.
<
p>It’s past time to put anti-progressive reactionaries on notice, regardless of their formal party labels. If Mr. DeLeo is going to act like a Republican, we should treat him like one — and hold his feet to the public fire, very publicly, starting now.
<
p>Once again, I think Governor Patrick should act like a governor. It’s already been weeks, and still no effective leadership from the corner office. What does it take to wake this man up?
I just think on principle this kind of thing should be constitutionalized. I don’t even care if it ends up not being my preference for a method that we follow. I just think the people should decide how we do it and that we should choose a way and stick with it. That way there are no questions or playing politics if/when the situation does arise again.