perennial kennedy coatholder named to u.s. senate by spineless MA governor

[del]

Kirk to be named interim senator - Local News Updates - The Boston Globe

what a fucking joke the commonwealth is.

 

[Xenophon]

I find it halrious, they changed the rules so Romney could not name a replacement making it a special election, and now when Dems need it they change it again to get a dem appointed.

It has a wonderful 'banana republic' feel to it.

 

[Modbert]

Kirk to be named interim senator - Local News Updates - The Boston Globe

what a fucking joke the commonwealth is.

Or just politics in general. This isn't anything new nor was I shocked by it. Though I'm surprised they still picked this guy and not one of the other older Kennedy kids.

 

[del]

I find it halrious, they changed the rules so Romney could not name a replacement making it a special election, and now when Dems need it they change it again to get a dem appointed.

It has a wonderful 'banana republic' feel to it.

i wouldn't mind living here in a banana republic if the weather in the winter was better.

 

[Xenophon]

I find it halrious, they changed the rules so Romney could not name a replacement making it a special election, and now when Dems need it they change it again to get a dem appointed.

It has a wonderful 'banana republic' feel to it.

i wouldn't mind living here in a banana republic if the weather in the winter was better.

Send your application here:

Hugo Chavez
Caracas; Venezuela

RE: USA SUCKS

 

[anna]

I live in ass -achusetts. Crooked state!! Home of fwee love and barney the perv fwaaank!!! Can't wait to move away from this over taxed liberal melting pot!! Born and brought up here, but over the years the state has turned into a commie haven!! Fuck massachussetts!!!!!!

 

[jillian]

I find it halrious, they changed the rules so Romney could not name a replacement making it a special election, and now when Dems need it they change it again to get a dem appointed.

It has a wonderful 'banana republic' feel to it.

that's politics....

the supreme court changed the rules and overruled the determination of the highest court of a state on a matter of election law.

sometimes you win. sometimes you lose.

and did you think that they'd appoint someone who opposed kennedy? at least you don't have to worry about them running for election when the time comes since that was part of the deal, i believe.

 

[Valerie]

I find it halrious, they changed the rules so Romney could not name a replacement making it a special election, and now when Dems need it they change it again to get a dem appointed.

It has a wonderful 'banana republic' feel to it.

that's politics....

the supreme court changed the rules and overruled the determination of the highest court of a state on a matter of election law.

sometimes you win. sometimes you lose.

and did you think that they'd appoint someone who opposed kennedy? at least you don't have to worry about them running for election when the time comes since that was part of the deal, i believe.

Yeah, I don't really see what the big deal is. They appointed a man who would represent a vote in the senate that is identical to the representation that was elected, namely Ted Kennedy.

Should the people of Massachusetts have been forced to go either unrepresented or represented by someone with an ideology which no one voted for instead?

 

[Dr.House]

I find it halrious, they changed the rules so Romney could not name a replacement making it a special election, and now when Dems need it they change it again to get a dem appointed.

It has a wonderful 'banana republic' feel to it.

What makes it even more halarious is the democratics defending this "change it - ooops, change it back - ooops, change it again" hipocracy...lol

 

[Valerie]

I find it halrious, they changed the rules so Romney could not name a replacement making it a special election, and now when Dems need it they change it again to get a dem appointed.

It has a wonderful 'banana republic' feel to it.

What makes it even more halarious is the democratics defending this "change it - ooops, change it back - ooops, change it again" hipocracy...lol

So you think it would have been proper for Mitt Romney to appoint a Republican to the Senate to replace John Kerry in the event he won the presidency, even though the Massachusetts voters had elected to have a Democrat represent them?

 

[Xenophon]

I find it halrious, they changed the rules so Romney could not name a replacement making it a special election, and now when Dems need it they change it again to get a dem appointed.

It has a wonderful 'banana republic' feel to it.

What makes it even more halarious is the democratics defending this "change it - ooops, change it back - ooops, change it again" hipocracy...lol

So you think it would have been proper for Mitt Romney to appoint a Republican to the Senate to replace John Kerry in the event he won the presidency, even though the Massachusetts voters had elected to have a Democrat represent them?

Do people vote for a person or a party?

You are saying party, ergo why bother even putting a name on a ballot, just have everyone vote either 'd' or 'r'.

What you and Jill both did here is something i often speak about, you tried to make an excuse for something you know is wrong because it helps the party you like.

That is exactly why i reject political parties.

What was done here is unethical.

Changing the rules so you can have your way all the time is not a way the USA should operate.

 

[Valerie]

What makes it even more halarious is the democratics defending this "change it - ooops, change it back - ooops, change it again" hipocracy...lol

So you think it would have been proper for Mitt Romney to appoint a Republican to the Senate to replace John Kerry in the event he won the presidency, even though the Massachusetts voters had elected to have a Democrat represent them?

Do people vote for a person or a party?

You are saying party, ergo why bother even putting a name on a ballot, just have everyone vote either 'd' or 'r'.

What you and Jill both did here is something i often speak about, you tried to make an excuse for something you know is wrong because it helps the party you like.

That is exactly why i reject political parties.

What was done here is unethical.

Changing the rules so you can have your way all the time is not a way the USA should operate.

No, I'm not making an excuse for what I know is wrong at all. I'm asking what is wrong with making sure the people of Massachusetts are represented by the ideology they voted for?

The entire history of Massachusetts politics is not the issue here. Two SPECIFIC circumstances are. Can you answer to those two specific questions I posed?

 

[rayboyusmc]

Sometimes those democrats are as sneaky as the repubs. Go figure.

 

[Valerie]

Sometimes those democrats are as sneaky as the repubs. Go figure.

I seriously don't understand why it's considered so sneaky and so wrong for the Massachusetts legislature, under these special circumstances, to use the legal mechanisms at their disposal for the purpose of protecting the will of voter's elected representation.


Individual personal political opinions and the history of Massachusetts politics are beside the point. I would have the same exact opinion if the opposite happened in a Republican state.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I find it halrious, they changed the rules so Romney could not name a replacement making it a special election, and now when Dems need it they change it again to get a dem appointed.

It has a wonderful 'banana republic' feel to it.

Doesn't it just make you laugh out loud to openly see how the Democraps operate? Do they really think people don't pay attention to this kind of stuff? The funniest thing about it all is that the "dyed in the wool" hard-core Democraps think this is great shit and exactly how things should be done.

 

[xotoxi]

del (and others from Mass---ACHOO!---setts)

Do you think that Curt Schilling should run for senate and do you think he'd win?

 

[Ravi]

This is only until the special election is held...the people of MA deserve a voting member in the Senate. I don't see an issue here.

 

[Dr.House]

I find it halrious, they changed the rules so Romney could not name a replacement making it a special election, and now when Dems need it they change it again to get a dem appointed.

It has a wonderful 'banana republic' feel to it.

What makes it even more halarious is the democratics defending this "change it - ooops, change it back - ooops, change it again" hipocracy...lol

So you think it would have been proper for Mitt Romney to appoint a Republican to the Senate to replace John Kerry in the event he won the presidency, even though the Massachusetts voters had elected to have a Democrat represent them?

Yes... Rules were in place.... Then they were changed... Now they were changed back... Do you think they'll change them again should a R be elected governor of MA or has the hipocritical cycle ended?

 

[Dr.House]

So you think it would have been proper for Mitt Romney to appoint a Republican to the Senate to replace John Kerry in the event he won the presidency, even though the Massachusetts voters had elected to have a Democrat represent them?

Do people vote for a person or a party?

You are saying party, ergo why bother even putting a name on a ballot, just have everyone vote either 'd' or 'r'.

What you and Jill both did here is something i often speak about, you tried to make an excuse for something you know is wrong because it helps the party you like.

That is exactly why i reject political parties.

What was done here is unethical.

Changing the rules so you can have your way all the time is not a way the USA should operate.

No, I'm not making an excuse for what I know is wrong at all. I'm asking what is wrong with making sure the people of Massachusetts are represented by the ideology they voted for?

I thought people vote for a person, not an ideology?

 

[Liability]

This is only until the special election is held...the people of MA deserve a voting member in the Senate. I don't see an issue here.

What you don't see is far too voluminous to cover in one tiny internet message board.