Ted Kennedy is dead

[Kodiak]

They're contemplating a replacement
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick said today that he supported a recent proposal by the late US Senator Edward M. Kennedy under which an interim senator would be appointed to serve in Kennedy's place until a special election takes place.

“I believe that the senator’s request to permit the governor to appoint someone to serve for that five months until a special election was entirely reasonable,” Patrick told WBUR-FM. “I think particularly now when you think about the momentous change legislation that is pending in the Congress today, Massachusetts needs two voices.”

Asked if that meant he would urge the Legislature to pass a bill allowing him to appoint a successor, Patrick said yes, and that he would sign the bill, the station reported.

Kennedy died late Tuesday night at his Hyannis Port home. Under current law, a special election will be held 145 days to 160 days. But in a poignant letter sent last week, the ailing senator implored legislative leaders to make a temporary appointment in the interim so that Massachusetts maintains its voice in the Senate -- at a time when critical legislation may be voted on.

Neither House Speaker Robert DeLeo nor Senate President Therese Murray has said whether they will pursue the legislation, although Murray -- who had privately expressed quite vehement opposition to the plan -- is said to be softening her stance, according to a story in Tuesday's Globe.

Until 2004, a vacancy would have been filled by gubernatorial appointment. But legislative Democrats changed the rules that year, fearful that a presidential victory by US Senator John F. Kerry would give Republican Governor Mitt Romney the right to appoint a GOP successor.

They passed legislation creating the current system, which would leave Massachusetts with only one vote in the Senate for up to six months.

Kennedy's letter reflected an extraordinary public recognition by him that his Senate career was coming to a close. But it provoked a backlash from Republicans and conservatives in Massachusetts and Washington, who accused the senator and Democrats of trying to pull off a power grab.

Whenever the election takes place, the veteran senator's death sets the stage for a furious succession battle, the first such opening of a highly prized seat since the state’s junior senator, John Kerry, won election in 1984, the Globe reports today.

[Pablo Sanchez]

What's funny is that Kennady was one of the major backers of that bill; and then changed his mind when:

A.) He was in bad health

and (this is the most important one)

B.) A safe, trusted Democrat was now governor.

Gee, it's almost as if the bill was put in place to prevent the Republican governor from appointing a fellow traveller to represent a state that hasn't elected a Republican Senator since 1973, nor even a single Republican Representative since 1995. One might extrapolate from these facts the possibility that the MA electorate obviously doesn't want to be represented in Congress by Republicans, but that Mitt Romney was viewed as highly likely to flip the state's voters the bird and force a GOPer on them. But obviously an intervention designed to prevent a governor from overturning the will of the people would have been wrong.

[MKSheppard]

So basically, you admit the bill was basically the "Fuck Mitt Romney" Bill in all but name, which could be discarded when it's usefulness to democrats was past.

But what really annoys me over this is that Kennedy changed his mind about the bill, when his "lifelong" seat became in danger, due to his failing health. Class act all around, that Ted.

[Pelranius]

Going back to health care, can Chris Dodd pull off an acceptable passage (that is, with public option), with or without the second senator from Massachusetts?

If not, there's that maneuver that dodges the filibuster. I hope Rahm Emanuel breathes down the neck of every Blue Dog to make that happen.

[erik_t]

What's funny is that Kennady was one of the major backers of that bill; and then changed his mind when:

A.) He was in bad health

and (this is the most important one)

B.) A safe, trusted Democrat was now governor.

Gee, it's almost as if the bill was put in place to prevent the Republican governor from appointing a fellow traveller to represent a state that hasn't elected a Republican Senator since 1973, nor even a single Republican Representative since 1995. One might extrapolate from these facts the possibility that the MA electorate obviously doesn't want to be represented in Congress by Republicans, but that Mitt Romney was viewed as highly likely to flip the state's voters the bird and force a GOPer on them. But obviously an intervention designed to prevent a governor from overturning the will of the people would have been wrong.

If that were the concern, then they should have had the balls and/or competence to pass a bill that required the Governor to pick a successor from among a group of people selected by the party to which the Senator belonged. Instead I suspect they tried to avoid the appearance of partisanship by suggesting it was a will-of-the-people situation, which it plainly was not.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

What about the blue dogs?

What about them? They're widely acknowledged as being largely Democrats in name only. With a 60 seat majority and a liberal anchor-stone like Kennedy, they could be whipped into going along with the rest of the party. Now, with no Kennedy and no filibuster-proof majority, they might be tempted to waffle . . . especially since the Democrats don't really strong-arm reticent members of their caucus like the Republicans do.

[Pelranius]

What about the blue dogs?

What about them? They're widely acknowledged as being largely Democrats in name only. With a 60 seat majority and a liberal anchor-stone like Kennedy, they could be whipped into going along with the rest of the party. Now, with no Kennedy and no filibuster-proof majority, they might be tempted to waffle . . . especially since the Democrats don't really strong-arm reticent members of their caucus like the Republicans do.

If we take the Blue Dogs (along with Holy Joe) away, does that still leave the Democrats with a majority?

[Pablo Sanchez]

So basically, you admit the bill was basically the "Fuck Mitt Romney" Bill in all but name, which could be discarded when it's usefulness to democrats was past.

I question the specificity of "its usefulness to democrats," since Massachusetts voters obviously fucking hate the Republican Party so the bill was probably more in the character of protecting them from being saddled with a Republican Senator for four years. But yeah, I generally admit it, and I honestly don't see what's wrong with it. The reason for the bill in the first place was to prevent Mitt Romney from fucking the state of Massachusetts. Shep, if you believe that it would have been right for Romney to exercise the power to force an unwanted Republican senator on Massachusetts simply because he has that power under the default system, how is it wrong for the state legislature to use it's own powers in a perfectly legal fashion to prevent him from doing so?

Is it the perceived unfairness of enacting the law and then repealing it when it's no longer useful? A good Republican like you should appreciate it; Democrats are going to forgo the money that would have been wasted by a special election, since whoever had the authority, popularity, and connections to secure an appointment from Gov. Patrick would have almost certainly used those advantages to win the special election, anyway. This way saves time and money. If there were some possibility of a Republican winning a special election I might understand where you're coming from, but there's no such possibility. I think you (and the WSJ) are just engaging in some sad whining. I have no sympathy at all.

Instead I suspect they tried to avoid the appearance of partisanship by suggesting it was a will-of-the-people situation, which it plainly was not.

In Massachusett's case Democratic partisanship and will of the people are the same fucking thing, because the will of the people is to elect the shit out of Democrats. The state House of Reps. approaches 90% Democratic control, and that's without any real Gerrymandering. It's pretty much the bluest state in the country, so I seriously don't see your point.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

What about the blue dogs?

What about them? They're widely acknowledged as being largely Democrats in name only. With a 60 seat majority and a liberal anchor-stone like Kennedy, they could be whipped into going along with the rest of the party. Now, with no Kennedy and no filibuster-proof majority, they might be tempted to waffle . . . especially since the Democrats don't really strong-arm reticent members of their caucus like the Republicans do.

If we take the Blue Dogs (along with Holy Joe) away, does that still leave the Democrats with a majority?

No. While they don't self-identify like the ones in the House do, there seem to be about a dozen Senate Democrats who tend to break ranks and vote with the Republicans. And, among Senate Democrats, there are fifteen to twenty of them who identify as "moderate" Democrats. Either way you cut it, the Democrats are possibly going to have to do some strong-arming, bullying, summoning Kennedy's ghost, and other firm tactics to ensure their majority on health care reform.

[fgalkin]

The bluest state in the country that had consistently elected Republican governors since Dukakis? How did Romney, a Republican, end up as Governor of Massachussets? Did he wake up in the governor's office one day, with no memory of how he got there? (he might have, but that's not the point). Did he seize power in a coup?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[MKSheppard]

But yeah, I generally admit it, and I honestly don't see what's wrong with it.

Neither do I. Each state has it's own specific quirks.

However, Teddy's last political act before he kicked the can was to send out a letter to the Governor saying that yes, he's changed his mind, and he wants the Governor to appoint someone to fill out Ted's personal private seat "for the good of MA", really does strike me as a totally dick move.

Basically, it's saying that there's two rules -- one for everyone else, and one for the Kennedies, among the other implications which leap out to me.

Course, Massachusetts is basically Kennady land -- at least in MD we threw that fucking kennedy bitch out on her ass a while back.

[Pablo Sanchez]

No. While they don't self-identify like the ones in the House do, there seem to be about a dozen Senate Democrats who tend to break ranks and vote with the Republicans. And, among Senate Democrats, there are fifteen to twenty of them who identify as "moderate" Democrats. Either way you cut it, the Democrats are possibly going to have to do some strong-arming, bullying, summoning Kennedy's ghost, and other firm tactics to ensure their majority on health care reform.

There's been a whip count going around that says about 45 (44 now, I guess) Senators could be counted on to vote in favor of the public option, so I think that's a fair indicator that there's about 15 DINOs and weak sisters in the Senate's Democratic Caucus.

The bluest state in the country that had consistently elected Republican governors since Dukakis?

I guess we're ignoring the current governor.

How did Romney, a Republican end up as Governor of Massachussets. Did he wake up in the governor's office one day, with no memory of how he got there? (he might have, but that's not the point). Did he seize power in a coup?

For some reason they like to elect moderate Republican governors from time to time. I think it had to do with their state fiscal crisis in the early 90s. So the fuck what? You going to close your eyes and mumble that over and over like a mantra in the hopes of pretending that a state that gives the Democrats nearly 90% of both houses of the state legislature, hasn't elected a Republican Senator in 30 years, nor a Republican representative in 15 years, nor a Republican president in 25 years, is not blue as fuck? By all means, please point to a fluke of their state politics like it proves me wrong. I'll just sit over here, with the facts and logic.

Basically, it's saying that there's two rules -- one for everyone else, and one for the Kennedies, among the other implications which leap out to me.

If that's your reason then I won't argue with you, I don't like the Kennedys either.

[ArmorPierce]

The bluest state in the country that had consistently elected Republican governors since Dukakis? How did Romney, a Republican, end up as Governor of Massachussets? Did he wake up in the governor's office one day, with no memory of how he got there? (he might have, but that's not the point). Did he seize power in a coup?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

The same way that new york city can elect a republican mayor?

[Pelranius]

There's been a whip count going around that says about 45 (44 now, I guess) Senators could be counted on to vote in favor of the public option, so I think that's a fair indicator that there's about 15 DINOs and weak sisters in the Senate's Democratic Caucus.

I wonder how much it would take to threaten any of the 15 DINOs who are up for reelection next year?

[Civil War Man]

However, Teddy's last political act before he kicked the can was to send out a letter to the Governor saying that yes, he's changed his mind, and he wants the Governor to appoint someone to fill out Ted's personal private seat "for the good of MA", really does strike me as a totally dick move.

You forgot the part where he wanted the appointment to only be interim, so Massachusetts does not have half the Senate representation as other states while they prepare for the special election to elect a permanent replacement.

[Mr Bean]

However, Teddy's last political act before he kicked the can was to send out a letter to the Governor saying that yes, he's changed his mind, and he wants the Governor to appoint someone to fill out Ted's personal private seat "for the good of MA", really does strike me as a totally dick move.

You forgot the part where he wanted the appointment to only be interim, so Massachusetts does not have half the Senate representation as other states while they prepare for the special election to elect a permanent replacement.

You can't argue with his system however I like it.

The idea that Governor's simply can't fill a Senate Seat or Representative seat at will with whatever lackey he wants is appealing.
The idea itself is not that bad regardless of if it did come from Ted.

His method is superior method, a temporary fill in for a period of five months and whoever is the fill in can't run in the special election. If there's only five months to the next election then the fill in can simply sit there, if not the special election can fill the seat.

While I don't like how he dicked over the rules before, his second plan is a much better one and worth adopting nation-wide I think.

[Rogue 9]

However, Teddy's last political act before he kicked the can was to send out a letter to the Governor saying that yes, he's changed his mind, and he wants the Governor to appoint someone to fill out Ted's personal private seat "for the good of MA", really does strike me as a totally dick move.

You forgot the part where he wanted the appointment to only be interim, so Massachusetts does not have half the Senate representation as other states while they prepare for the special election to elect a permanent replacement.

You can't argue with his system however I like it.

The idea that Governor's simply can't fill a Senate Seat or Representative seat at will with whatever lackey he wants is appealing.
The idea itself is not that bad regardless of if it did come from Ted.

His method is superior method, a temporary fill in for a period of five months and whoever is the fill in can't run in the special election. If there's only five months to the next election then the fill in can simply sit there, if not the special election can fill the seat.

Too bad it wasn't his method five years ago, then. Either the governor has the power to appoint Senate vacancies or he does not; changing the separation of powers depending upon the party of the sitting governor is naked abuse of power.

[Mr Bean]

Too bad it wasn't his method five years ago, then. Either the governor has the power to appoint Senate vacancies or he does not; changing the separation of powers depending upon the party of the sitting governor is naked abuse of power.

That it was, his new system would you not admit would be a good system? Provides the state with a 2 senators at all times yet ensures no single Governor, Democratic or Republican can get away with putting in someone who votes their personal way rather than what the people voted for.

It would also cover all the deals that get made around the start of each adminstration about Senators and Representatives resigning to work in the Cabinet.

As I've already conceded, his last change to the law was moronic, and yes an abuse of power. However what's wrong with the method he purposed last week?

[Rogue 9]

Too bad it wasn't his method five years ago, then. Either the governor has the power to appoint Senate vacancies or he does not; changing the separation of powers depending upon the party of the sitting governor is naked abuse of power.

That it was, his new system would you not admit would be a good system? Provides the state with a 2 senators at all times yet ensures no single Governor, Democratic or Republican can get away with putting in someone who votes their personal way rather than what the people voted for.

It would also cover all the deals that get made around the start of each adminstration about Senators and Representatives resigning to work in the Cabinet.

As I've already conceded, his last change to the law was moronic, and yes an abuse of power. However what's wrong with the method he purposed last week?

There is nothing wrong with the method he proposed last week; my issue is with his (and others; I do recognize he hardly did it alone) actions in 2004. I think it's simply telling that he waited until Mitt Romney was no longer governor to do the right thing.

[Pablo Sanchez]

There is nothing wrong with the method he proposed last week; my issue is with his (and others; I do recognize he hardly did it alone) actions in 2004. I think it's simply telling that he waited until Mitt Romney was no longer governor to do the right thing.

As I said before in this thread, I simply do not recognize the legitimacy of a butthurt political party argument about what laws are legitimate for the MA state legislature to enact with regards to replacing a senatorial seat. The state legislature perceived in 2004 that the sitting governor, elected for reasons quite entirely dissociated from the matter of appointing national legislative representation in an exigency, might appoint a replacement senator in opposition to the clearly and repeatedly stated desire of the electorate to be represented by a liberal Democrat. Thus they introduced and, completely legally, passed legislation to ensure that populace would have its say. Subsequent to the election of a Democratic governor, who would reasonably be expected to more closely reflect and respond to the prejudices and desires of the heavily (D) electorate, they found that this rule was a hindrance rather than a help. I can't really understand the extent to which certain people are outright cumming in their fucking shorts about this. MA voters want Democrats to rep them on the national stage. This is something that they have clearly expressed over and over. They have a big fuckin' hardon for Democrats. Accept it and move on. They elected Republican governors for a time because they perceived some kind of fiscal responsibility or whatever, but Romney disabused them of any sympathy with the party of reaction (look at his approval ratings). The law that was enacted to prevent a Republican governor from fucking a Democratic state is now inconvenient: so the fuck what? In either case you simply cannot argue with the fact that they're backing what the people of Massachusetts want, which is really their only responsibility anyway.

The idea that policy/legal structures should not change to match the situation is a kind of obscurantist, I would say mentally retarded argument. The voters of MA elect a Republican governor to fulfill specific fiscal roles but coincidentally in a fashion that they could not have anticipated he gains the ability to make an end run around them and rape them for four years with a Republican senator whom they would never ever elect; and it is unjust to preempt that governor by legislative fiat. But when this situation is resolved electorally by the election of a Democratic governor, repealing or modifying that law in such a way as to basically represent what the people obviously want and would elect given the chance (a doctrinaire Democratic interim Senator), it is somehow unjust. I guess I simply do not understand where you guys are coming from. Are people supposed to be forced to choose between mutually exclusive negative alternatives? Either you get fucked over by an appointed US Senator who totally fails to reflect your views on national issues, or the nation has to sit and spin with the only sane party hanging at 59 votes for five months during the most critical legislative period in fifteen years, while you wait for the special election? I don't buy that this dichotomony is at all sensible. It basically follows from the hairbrained idea that a rule, no matter who it fucks over, is fair as long as it is perfectly consistent and has no regard for reality.

[Rogue 9]

Should a Democratic Congress be able to take away a Republican president's ability to make appointments and vice versa as well? It's naked party politics, which is to say it's complete bullshit. There's nothing inherently wrong with changing the law; that's part of what the legislature is for, but changing it for the specific purpose of making one set of rules for one group of people and another set for a different one is dangerous fucking precedent.

[SirNitram]

Should a Democratic Congress be able to take away a Republican president's ability to make appointments and vice versa as well? It's naked party politics, which is to say it's complete bullshit. There's nothing inherently wrong with changing the law; that's part of what the legislature is for, but changing it for the specific purpose of making one set of rules for one group of people and another set for a different one is dangerous fucking precedent.

Vice versa is happening for over half of the seats Obama needs Senate confirmation for, so that's a touch academic.

Moreover, I believe if they strike the relevent constitutional passage, I suppose they could.