Kennedy Wants Election Law Change

[veritas]

Ya'll are really stupid. Why would any state want their senate seat vacant for 5 months?

I can see it as a sticky wicket like when a senator is no longer physically or mentally able to serve and replacing him is sorta disrespectful and hurtful in a way, but the real world wouldn't bat an eye. They do this for judges too. The judges stay home and wither and a whole segment of the court is closed and the other judges have to take up the slack. It's just stupid.

 

[The T]

Ya'll are really stupid. Why would any state want their senate seat vacant for 5 months?

I can see it as a sticky wicket like when a senator is no longer physically or mentally able to serve and replacing him is sorta disrespectful and hurtful in a way, but the real world wouldn't bat an eye. They do this for judges too. The judges stay home and wither and a whole segment of the court is closed and the other judges have to take up the slack. It's just stupid.

Oh Gee, I dunno...Senator Mel Martinas (R), FL...is giving up his seat, and Governor Crist, is going around the State interviewing perspective candidates to fill the short vacancy...(For which, admittedly Crist is going to run for)...

But why would Kennedy INSIST the LAW be changed just for him?

When you have an answer? let the rest of us know? And please? STOP playing the "Sympathy Card"? I wish the Senator (Kennedy), well in his illness on a HUMAN LEVEL, but that is NO REASON to change a LAW just for this.

Life goes on. Deal with it.

LIFE IS A BITCH.

 

[veritas]

Again, you didn't answer the question, why would any state want to leave their Senate seat vacant for any amount of time?

And Florida is a bad example to use, their election laws are crap.

 

[del]

Again, you didn't answer the question, why would any state want to leave their Senate seat vacant for any amount of time?

And Florida is a bad example to use, their election laws are crap.

that is an excellent question. perhaps you should ask ted kennedy since the law was changed in 2004 at his and other dems behest? before the change, the governor appointed a successor, but that had to change now that kerry was on his way to the white house.

y'know, because when kerry won the presidency <snicker> mean ol' mittens was going to appoint someone to serve the rest of his term.

maybe even <gasp> a republican

so if i were you, i'd write to the fat drunk and ask him.

tell him mary jo sent you.

 

[WillowTree]

Again, you didn't answer the question, why would any state want to leave their Senate seat vacant for any amount of time?

And Florida is a bad example to use, their election laws are crap.

then explain why kennedy went to such great lengths to get the present law passed? the one he now wants to change back? go ahead we will wait.

 

[veritas]

You assume this is a "DEM" thing. It is not. It's a process thing. I'm a registered Republican. The reason I am, is because the Republicans decided to let Independents vote in their primaries and DEMs do not. I support more open primaries, actually I like the Virginia model. So I did what I could toward that end.

 

[WillowTree]

You assume this is a "DEM" thing. It is not. It's a process thing. I'm a registered Republican. The reason I am, is because the Republicans decided to let Independents vote in their primaries and DEMs do not. I support more open primaries, actually I like the Virginia model. So I did what I could toward that end.

that's not an answer.

 

[The T]

again, you didn't answer the question, why would any state want to leave their senate seat vacant for any amount of time?

and florida is a bad example to use, their election laws are crap.

that is an excellent question. Perhaps you should ask ted kennedy since the law was changed in 2004 at his and other dems behest? Before the change, the governor appointed a successor, but that had to change now that kerry was on his way to the white house.

Y'know, because when kerry won the presidency <snicker> mean ol' mittens was going to appoint someone to serve the rest of his term.

Maybe even <gasp> a republican

So if i were you, i'd write to the fat drunk and ask him.

Tell him mary jo sent you.

bingo

 

[del]

You assume this is a "DEM" thing. It is not. It's a process thing. I'm a registered Republican. The reason I am, is because the Republicans decided to let Independents vote in their primaries and DEMs do not. I support more open primaries, actually I like the Virginia model. So I did what I could toward that end.

i assume nothing.
i live in massachusetts.
it is most assuredly a dem thing, both the current law and the desire, now, to change it back to what it was.

 

[The T]

You assume this is a "DEM" thing. It is not. It's a process thing. I'm a registered Republican. The reason I am, is because the Republicans decided to let Independents vote in their primaries and DEMs do not. I support more open primaries, actually I like the Virginia model. So I did what I could toward that end.

So you are Picking, and choosing? We understand that...but you have yet to defend your prior statements...

Floor is yours...

 

[veritas]

You assume this is a "DEM" thing. It is not. It's a process thing. I'm a registered Republican. The reason I am, is because the Republicans decided to let Independents vote in their primaries and DEMs do not. I support more open primaries, actually I like the Virginia model. So I did what I could toward that end.

that's not an answer.

Why because you can't wrap your brain around the concept that people's views are not divided neatly into column A and column B?

I clearly said I was concerned with the process and the function, not the implications of some political fulcrum with respect to who asked for what and what state they happen to be in.

I don't care if Kennedy asked for the opposite before, that was wrong, IMO, and stupid. I want full participation from all the states in all of the seats in Congress. Period. Put whomever in there and keep working.

 

[WillowTree]

You assume this is a "DEM" thing. It is not. It's a process thing. I'm a registered Republican. The reason I am, is because the Republicans decided to let Independents vote in their primaries and DEMs do not. I support more open primaries, actually I like the Virginia model. So I did what I could toward that end.

that's not an answer.

Why because you can't wrap your brain around the concept that people's views are not divided neatly into column A and column B?

I clearly said I was concerned with the process and the function, not the implications of some political fulcrum with respect to who asked for what and what state they happen to be in.

I don't care if Kennedy asked for the opposite before, that was wrong, IMO, and stupid. I want full participation from all the states in all of the seats in Congress. Period. Put whomever in there and keep working.

Kennedy needs to live with the law he worked so vigorously to enact. wrap your brain around that.

 

[veritas]

I don't care one whit about Kennedy. The states need to keep their seats filled, period. Kennedy's one guy. He's richer than Crosius and doesn't care that some blabberer on a chatboard wants his hide. He is what he is. His state needs to be represented. They need to fully participate. Neenering is just stupid. Stick Romney in there for all I care. But he has to show up.

 

[WillowTree]

I don't care one whit about Kennedy. The states need to keep their seats filled, period. Kennedy's one guy. He's richer than Crosius and doesn't care that some blabberer on a chatboard wants his hide. He is what he is. His state needs to be represented. They need to fully participate. Neenering is just stupid. Stick Romney in there for all I care. But he has to show up.

okay, then let a Republican appoint somebody to make up for cheating Romney out of his due. then I'll believe you. til then

 

[JakeStarkey]

National Ledger - Edward Kennedy's Successor, Ted Wants Election Law Change

"Who will be Senator Edward Kennedy's successor? He would like to hand pick that person. He wants the law changed so he can make certain he gets to hand choose his successor, special election be damned. Oh and the lawmaker would like to toss the Constitution out as well. Perhaps Kennedy should have retired.

"I am writing to you now about an issue that concerns me deeply -- the continuity of representation for Massachusetts should a Senate vacancy occur," Kennedy wrote.


***


How pathetic are Democrats in Massachusetts? The Sentinel and Enterprise points out that "Dem lawmakers actually took the power to appoint a replacement away from the governor in 2004 when Sen. John Kerry was running for president and Republican Mitt Romney was governor."

"The hypocrisy of it all is incredible, because the change they're talking about is what we offered in 2004," said House Minority Leader Brad Jones, R-North Reading, according to the report. Should Kennedy now be able to change law even as he is dying? If lawmakers allow this - why should they ever be trusted again?"


Sounds Typical. Change the laws to favor you. Then change it back when it no longer favors you. Terrible.

"Change the laws to favor you." I have seen both parties when having the majority in a state, stick it to the other party. So Kennedy wants to change the law? It isn't right, of course, but the GOP ranters are hypocritical. The only difference is that the GOP in Massachusetts may get the shaft this time. Who cares?

However, what is important here is that may affect the type (not whether) of Health Care Reform is passed.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I am no fan of Ted Kennedy. The article linked to has very little substance. I suppose we are supposed to take Jim Robert's word, that everything he stated was accurate and in proper context? Not me.

Show me some facts.

 

[The T]

I don't care one whit about Kennedy. The states need to keep their seats filled, period. Kennedy's one guy. He's richer than Crosius and doesn't care that some blabberer on a chatboard wants his hide. He is what he is. His state needs to be represented. They need to fully participate. Neenering is just stupid. Stick Romney in there for all I care. But he has to show up.

It's Statements like this that makes one want to REPEAL the 17th Amendment...And it should be repealed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

One Corrupt Party Rule

...or...

State's rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, will the Republicans who opposed changing the law back in 2004 support changing it back to what they wanted then,

or will they be hypocrites, too?

THE repubican (yes we have ONE) has the same position he had back then. He wanted to leave it as an appointment by the governor then and he is on record saying he still wants it to be that way now.

So nope, our lone republican is not being a hypocrite on this issue.

MA has 16 Republicans in the house and 5 in the senate. What's this 'one' you're talking about?

 

[garyd]

So what they do isnt going to matter a whit is it? And it wouldn't even be an issue absent Kennedy's perfidity. By the way thanks for the classic defense of the average five year old, "They do it to"