• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Move To Find Kennedy's Replacement Gains Momentum.

dragondad

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
541
Reaction score
130
Location
Dallas-Ft.Worth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
"“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.
 
Last edited:
Why don't they just give John Kerry two votes? What the hell would be the difference?
 
Why don't they just give John Kerry two votes? What the hell would be the difference?

The difference there is that the State doesn't have a legal basis to do that because our Constitution doesn't allow for that.

In the case of the replacement....the State can legally and Constitutionally amend the procedure.
 
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 "well the governor picked replacement can't run in the next election" is a load crap clause that can be changed or that hand picked politician can still do some damage.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
They're the ones who changed the laws governing a successor. They should have to follow those laws.
 
This whole business is about the filibuster.

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. You are correct that this about the filibuster.
 
Last edited:
"“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.


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!
 
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.

Yeah, but that was before Obamacare. Obviously, the Dems think there's a good chance that a Connie could get slide right on in there.
 
They're the ones who changed the laws governing a successor. They should have to follow those laws.

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
 
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]

Obviously, it's not the Connies that don't like it when it doesn't work the way they thought. Sucks to be runnin' scared...don't it?
 
Yes good ole legal and Constitutional Democracy!

[The right wing hates it when it doesn't work out for them]

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.
 
Last edited:
"“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.

This is such a pile of crock it defies the imagination. So a Democrat Legislature passes a law requiring a special election when a REPUBLICAN Governor was in power to prevent him from appointing Republicans in the event of a vacancy, but now that there is a DEMOCRAT in charge they want to by-pass their own laws for purely politically motivated purposes.

You just cannot fabricate the level of hypocrisy, lies, distortions and partisan BS Democrats wallow in these days.

The vast double standard that represents Liberal thinking is most apparent when News Papers, the same ones who dragged Obama's lame ass across the finish line in 2008, write this story as just another ho-hum story and basically support the despicable hypocrisy and double standard this State Legislature represents.

Yes folks, the party that promised you fiscal responsibility and transparency continues to wallow in its own failures, lies, hypocrisy and distortions and continues to expose itself for the vast partisan political machine it has always been.
 
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.
Hehe, lefties changed it the first time, and now again. They are hypocrites.
 
So when should we expect the Wellstone-style memorial push for KennedyCare?
 
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

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.
 
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.

Another area of common ground between us; :doh
 
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.

3 points to the first person to guess what right-wing hack said this.
 
Back
Top Bottom