dragondad
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2009
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 130
- Location
- Dallas-Ft.Worth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Why don't they just give John Kerry two votes? What the hell would be the difference?
This whole business is about the filibuster.Let me get the is straight the dems want to give the people the right to pick a replacement when so that a republican governor couldn't replace a politician with a republican but now the governor is a democrat and therefore most likely replace that seat with another democrat they want to give the people the middle finger by taking away their right pick a replacement? I seriously doubt that the people after decades voting for a liberal sellout democrat are suddenly going to change their mind and vote for a republican, independent or whatever, I however still however have the position that it should be the people who pick the replacement.
This whole business is about the filibuster.
"“The Republicans will say, ‘Isn’t this terrible,’ but the Democrats have nothing to apologize for as long as the temporary appointee is not a candidate for the permanent seat.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/us/politics/27succeed.html?_r=1&hp
This is how it's done.
When you have a Democratic Governor and the State Legislature is 88% Democratic you don't give right wing cry babies the time of day.
You get a firm commitment from the replacement he will not run in the upcoming election (because incumbents are at a huge advantage) and ensure your State has full representation in the Senate.
Then the GOP can get blown out in the Special election by whoever the new Democratic candidate is.
Considering the people there have repeatedly voted for Kennedy I seriously doubt they are going to have a change of heart and vote for someone opposite of Kennedy.
They're the ones who changed the laws governing a successor. They should have to follow those laws.
Yeah, this is how it's done. When the law doesn't help you out, just change it. Then, when that change has the wrong effect, change it back. Awesome!
Yes good ole legal and Constitutional Democracy!
[The right wing hates it when it doesn't work out for them]
Yes good ole legal and Constitutional Democracy!
[The right wing hates it when it doesn't work out for them]
"“The Republicans will say, ‘Isn’t this terrible,’ but the Democrats have nothing to apologize for as long as the temporary appointee is not a candidate for the permanent seat.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/us/politics/27succeed.html?_r=1&hp
This is how it's done.
When you have a Democratic Governor and the State Legislature is 88% Democratic you don't give right wing cry babies the time of day.
You get a firm commitment from the replacement he will not run in the upcoming election (because incumbents are at a huge advantage) and ensure your State has full representation in the Senate.
Then the GOP can get blown out in the Special election by whoever the new Democratic candidate is.
Hehe, lefties changed it the first time, and now again. They are hypocrites.Right wingers are not the ones trying to change the rules again in Massachusetts. Obviously left wingers in Massachusetts do mind when things do not work their way. Because if they didn't mind then they wouldn't be changing the rules like that. You are the pot calling the kettle black.
They are following the law. The State Constitution says the legistature can change and create new laws. When they pass the new law they will follow it.....LOL
So when should we expect the Wellstone-style memorial push for KennedyCare?
"You've heard of 'win one for the Gipper'? There is going to be an atmosphere of 'win one for Teddy,'" Ralph G. Neas, the CEO of the liberal National Coalition on Health Care, told ABC News.
Dems Pushing for Health Care Reform Say 'Win One for Teddy' - ABC News
The law should be consistent, not a plaything to be changed on a whim to suit the convenience of the lawmakers. Playing these political games with the rules of succession is despicable, and you are too blind a partisan to see it.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy has asked the Massachusetts Legislature to change state law to let the governor, currently a fellow Democrat, fill vacant Senate seats. Abandoning the current system, in which voters choose, would be undemocratic, even at the request of such a respected lawmaker.
...
Massachusetts governors used to fill Senate vacancies. But in 2004, the Democratic majority in the State Legislature changed the law to require a special election. The leaders were concerned that if Senator John Kerry was elected president, Gov. Mitt Romney would appoint a fellow Republican. To change back now would look like an unseemly amount of partisanship in setting the rules for who goes to Congress.
...
It might be possible for Massachusetts to shorten the campaign, so a new senator could be elected more quickly. But states should be moving away from gubernatorial appointment of senators, not toward it.
Right wing Pity Party! I love it!
3 points to the first person to guess what right-wing hack said this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?