• 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!

Massachusetts names Kirk to fill Kennedy Senate seat

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,910
Reaction score
60,374
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Massachusetts names Kirk to fill Kennedy Senate seat - Yahoo! News

32 mins ago BOSTON (Reuters)

Paul Kirk, a former Democratic National Committee chairman and a close friend of the late Senator Edward Kennedy, was named on Thursday as a temporary replacement for the liberal champion in the U.S. Senate.

Kirk, backed for the post by Kennedy's wife Victoria and his two sons, will fill the seat until voters in Massachusetts elect a permanent replacement in January. His appointment will restore a 60-seat Senate majority for the Democrats that could help President Barack Obama's push to overhaul healthcare.

While I appreciate the reasons why he was appointed, I have to oppose the way it was done. Changing rules every time it is convenient is silly. Either allow the governor to pick a replacement, or don't, but don't change back and forth depending on the governor.
 
Massachusetts names Kirk to fill Kennedy Senate seat - Yahoo! News



While I appreciate the reasons why he was appointed, I have to oppose the way it was done. Changing rules every time it is convenient is silly. Either allow the governor to pick a replacement, or don't, but don't change back and forth depending on the governor.


Most in the State approve of the appointment.

Pollster.com: MA: 2010 Sen Special (Suffolk 9/12-15)

I don't see what the problem is. This is Democracy under the guidlines of their State Constitution.

Elected representatives acted within Constitutional guidlines to change the rules in favor of their Party who control nearly 88% of the legislature.

88% control along with the Governorship is a CLEAR MANDATE that citizens what Democrats in power.

Of course right wingers are going to complain about this liberal State now having a voice in the Senate during the healthcare debate!

Just like they complained when Texas, pushed by Tom Delay, broke with decades of precedent and gerrymandered it's Congressional districts out of turn to help remove Democrats.
 
Last edited:
Most in the State approve of the appointment.

Pollster.com: MA: 2010 Sen Special (Suffolk 9/12-15)

I don't see what the problem is. This is Democracy under the guidlines of their State Constitution.

Elected representatives acted within Constitutional guidlines to change the rules in favor of their Party who control nearly 88% of the legislature.

88% control along with the Governorship is a CLEAR MANDATE that citizens what Democrats in power.

So it's ok that if they have a Republican in office they can change the rules to state that there would be an emergency election. But if there is a Democrat in office they can change the rule back to say that he can appoint a replacement?
 
So it's ok that if they have a Republican in office they can change the rules to state that there would be an emergency election. But if there is a Democrat in office they can change the rule back to say that he can appoint a replacement?

They didn't change it back, they changed it again (to what I think is the right process). An interim appt until a special election is held. The people should decide Senators, we've seen too many problems with appointments. But the people also deserve representation, and not have the seat unfilled.
 
What happened to the Duke? It was looking like he was getting happy about a new, albeit temporary, title.
 
So it's ok that if they have a Republican in office they can change the rules to state that there would be an emergency election. But if there is a Democrat in office they can change the rule back to say that he can appoint a replacement?

Yes sir. That would be correct. As long as it's legal and Constitutional.
 
They didn't change it back, they changed it again (to what I think is the right process). An interim appt until a special election is held. The people should decide Senators, we've seen too many problems with appointments. But the people also deserve representation, and not have the seat unfilled.

I understand that, and I think it's probably the better rule. I just have problems when they change the rule when a Republican was in charge to prevent him from naming an interim and then changing it again when a Democrat is in charge to allow him to name an interim. I think that's dirty pool.
 
They didn't change it back, they changed it again (to what I think is the right process). An interim appt until a special election is held. The people should decide Senators, we've seen too many problems with appointments. But the people also deserve representation, and not have the seat unfilled.

I agree with all of that, but the problem is that the rules that they themselves enacted said otherwise. I think consistency is important, and this idea that it is trivial to change the rules I think is a bad precedent.
 
Yes sir. That would be correct. As long as it's legal and Constitutional.

It's horrible partisan politics and nothing more. I don't think honest people could actually support such measures.
 
I agree with all of that, but the problem is that the rules that they themselves enacted said otherwise. I think consistency is important, and this idea that it is trivial to change the rules I think is a bad precedent.

What do you mean, the rules that they themselves enacted said otherwise? I'm not sure what you're referring to there.
 
I understand that, and I think it's probably the better rule. I just have problems when they change the rule when a Republican was in charge to prevent him from naming an interim and then changing it again when a Democrat is in charge to allow him to name an interim. I think that's dirty pool.

I think the '04 change was purely politically driven, and thus ended up with a bad policy enacted.

Someone in one of the previous threads discussing the MA change said that the interim appt should be required to be of the same party as the person who previously held the seat. I think that's a change they should have included. Some states that still rely on appts do have this requirement (I think AZ is one?).
 
The contention is this:

The change to state law to let an interim senator be named angered Republicans and some Democrats. They saw it as a hypocritical reversal of a law state Democrats passed in 2004 to prevent a Republican governor from naming a replacement for Democratic Senator John Kerry if he had won that year's presidential election.

They changed the rule in 2004 to prevent the Republican governor (Mitt Romney) from being able to name a replacement if a seat became vacant. The legislature was worried that if Kerry were elected President (god help us all) that a Republican could name the interim senator. However, they reversed their position when it was a Democrat in office instead.
 
I think the '04 change was purely politically driven, and thus ended up with a bad policy enacted.

I think both of these movements were purely politically driven. I wouldn't put it past them to go back to the 2004 law should a Republican again get the governorship and a seat opens up.
 
I think both of these movements were purely politically driven. I wouldn't put it past them to go back to the 2004 law should a Republican again get the governorship and a seat opens up.

I disagree, I do not think that would happen.
 
Did someone above just suggest that Redress was a conservative? :confused:

Just because somethings legal doesn't make it right. Its legal for me to go up to a friend in the bar and tell him I just heard from a friend that his sister's a two dollar whore and ask him if its true and whether she learned it from his mother. That doesn't make it right.

I don't think there's anything legally wrong with the change in 2004, I do think it was extremely dirty partisan politics that was more concerned with political power than serving the people of the state.

I don' think there's anything wrong with this, but again I think it is an extremely dirty partisan politics motivated action more concerned with political power than serving the people of the state.

That said, I'm not against the change because I think the original way is how it SHOULD be. However, I don't applaud the Dem's for changing the rules because if they actually gave a damn they wouldn't have changed it in the first place, or they would've changed it earlier, rather than now trying to change it when they can take advantage of it.
 
What do you mean, the rules that they themselves enacted said otherwise? I'm not sure what you're referring to there.

In 2004, democrats changed the law. Now, when the law is no longer convenient for their political ends, they change the law. If you can change the law to whatever is convenient politically, then laws lose their meaning to my mind. Since democrats changed the rules, they should have lived by those rules.
 
I disagree, I do not think that would happen.

I find the timing and conditions very suspicious. I do think the governor should choose the interim senator, I don't have a problem with the change in the law. I just find it very very suspect as to why it was changed when there was an R in office and a possible open seat and when there was D in office and a possible open seat.
 
Couldn't tell if Dragondad was refering to you specifically or complainers in general

He does not know me, and probably did not notice my "lean". I will give him a pass this time.

The thing that pisses me off about this is that I feel that politicians don't worry about doing what is right, they worry about winning at all costs. I hope I never reach the point where I give up my morality for political expedience.
 
I think both of these movements were purely politically driven. I wouldn't put it past them to go back to the 2004 law should a Republican again get the governorship and a seat opens up.

I have to agree with you. I believe that in '04 they should have changed the law to allow for the governor to appoint an interim senator, whose term would last only until an election could be scheduled.

Since there will be an election in a few months, it seems to me that this is the GOP's chance to try to capture Kennedy's old seat. Although the state leans left, it seems that the GOP has had some success in winning some elections there.
 
The thing that pisses me off about this is that I feel that politicians don't worry about doing what is right, they worry about winning at all costs.

I pretty much take that as the base. They're in it for their own pockets and power, that's about it. I guess it's not everyone, but on the whole I think that's how it goes.

I hope I never reach the point where I give up my morality for political expedience.

Which is probably why you could never be a politician. I think the people who have real political conviction and are uncorruptable and are in office is a rather small number.
 
Back
Top Bottom