«

»

The New Rules

I don’t know if you remember the shenanigans that went on with Massachusetts’ senate seat in 2009. To recall:

The Massachusetts governor had once held the ability to appoint replacement senators. This power was taken away by the Democratic legislature in 2004 because they feared, were John Kerry elected, that then Governor Romney would appoint a Republican to replace him.

However, by 2009, Ted Kennedy was growing increasingly ill. And the Democrats quickly realized the folly of writing legislation predicated on John Kerry being elected anywhere outside the state of Massachusetts. So they rapidly restored the power to appoint a replacement, conditional on the replacement agreeing not to run in the subsequent special election (the one they were grooming the execrable Martha Coakley for). This blew up in their faces when Scott Brown won the election.

So now there are rumors that Barack Obama will appoint John Kerry as his next Secretary of State. I’m not sure what the world has done to the President to deserve this sort of treatment. Maybe his strategy is that if foreign leaders have to talk to Kerry for very long, they’ll do anything to make it stop. But this creates the possibility of another special election in Massachusetts early this year. And there is a good chance that Scott Brown could run for that and win.

Can you guess what the Democrats are trying to do now?

Power-hungry Bay State Democrats — eyeing another potential Senate opening if U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry joins the Obama Cabinet— are quietly discussing reinstating a 2004 law that would let Gov. Deval Patrick appoint a permanent replacement to help keep the seat under party control until at least 2014.

“I think that would be preferable. It would certainly save the taxpayers money if they don’t have to pay for another election,” said Phil Johnston, former chairman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.

“I think people are campaigned out. I think the governor is very popular and most voters would be happy to support his choice until the next general election,” Johnston added.

They’re not even trying to hide it any more. And I expect the people of Massachusetts, who would happily vote a sign-post into office it were a Democrat, to go along with it.

The Democratic Party is constantly styling themselves as the Defenders of Democracy. Their opposition to voter ID, their support for letting felons vote, their shenanigans in 2000, their hypocritical complaints about gerrymandering … all of these are supposedly because they love democracy and want the people enfranchised. This, yet again, puts the lie to that boast. In the end, they’re still just politicians.

7 comments

No ping yet

  1. Mississippi Yankee says:

    So they rapidly restored the power to appoint a replacement, conditional on the replacement agreeing not to run in the subsequent special election (the one they were grooming the execrable Martha Coakley for). This blew up in their faces when Scott Brown won the election.

    Ah, no they didn’t, hence the special election of Scott Brown.

    The leadership of the Massachusetts legislature at the time was concerned that the Republican governor Mitt Romney would appoint a Republican if Democratic Senator John Kerry were elected President of the United States in the 2004 election.[1][2][3][4] Generally, the law requires a special election within 145 to 160 days from the date of the filing of a Senate resignation. The law contemplates resignations that become effective some period of time after the filing of the resignation, so long as the election occurs after effective date of the resignation.[5]
    Wikipedia

    They’re not even trying to hide it any more. And I expect the people of Massachusetts, who would happily vote a sign-post into office it were a Democrat, to go along with it.

    There have only been [Class 1] 6 democrat senator BUT 7 republican senators since 1871 when we more or less became a (D) or (R) two party system. The [Class 2 is even worse with just 4 democrats and 10 republicans. Also republican governors have always been the rule, not the exception in the Bay State. Although I have no idea why.

    Sorry to rain on your parade but your facts are wrong.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  2. Hal_10000 says:

    MY, read the rest of the article:

    The Massachusetts House of Representatives approved legislation to give Governor Patrick the power to appoint an interim senator on September 17, 2009, by a 95–58 vote.[30] The Massachusetts Senate approved the measure on September 22, 2009, by a vote of 24 to 16,[34] and both houses of the General Court gave final approval to the bill on September 23.[35]

    They amended the law so Patrick could appoint a temporary replacement. Otherwise, there would have been a 5-month vacancy. So I’m right.

    There have only been [Class 1] 6 democrat senator BUT 7 republican senators since 1871 when we more or less became a (D) or (R) two party system. The [Class 2 is even worse with just 4 democrats and 10 republicans. Also republican governors have always been the rule, not the exception in the Bay State. Although I have no idea why.

    Uh, OK. Kennedy’s seat was Democratic from 1953-2010. Kerry’s seat has been Democratic since 1979. The Mass Senate is 90% Democrat. The Mass house is 80% Democrat. Since 1997, every single Massachusetts congressional delegation has been 100% Democrat. Massachussetts has been one of the most Democratic states in the union for 70 years. It’s interesting that they were Republican in the 1940′s. It’s not relevant to anything today.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

      
  3. Argive says:

    Also republican governors have always been the rule, not the exception in the Bay State. Although I have no idea why.

    As I understand it, the MA Democratic Party tends to advance crappy candidates for statewide elections. So when Republicans win those elections one of the reasons why is usually that their opponent was, in the words of one Bay Stater I know, “a total Muppet.”

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  4. Mississippi Yankee says:

    They amended the law so Patrick could appoint a temporary replacement. Otherwise, there would have been a 5-month vacancy. So I’m right.

    Then why didn’t he? Why did they wait the 5 months for the special election?

    ” It’s interesting that they were Republican in the 1940′s. It’s not relevant to anything today.”

    Actually there has been republicans senators in a lot more decades than the 40′s. Please do some fact finding. I never disputed the “blueness of that shit-hole.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  5. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Argive,
    I hadn’t heard the “a total Muppet.” expression but I still remember my grandfather and his buddies calling our (Massachusetts) politicians “mopes” and “ginks”. Two words that have fallen out of favor since the 50′s.

    A “gink” was not something you ever want associated with your name. Outside of that the meaning has been lost to posterity.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  6. Hal_10000 says:

    Then why didn’t he? Why did they wait the 5 months for the special election?

    They didn’t. They appointed Paul Kirk to serve in the interim.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  7. Mississippi Yankee says:

    On September 24, 2009, members of the Massachusetts Republican Party filed suit seeking to block the appointment of Kirk, saying that under commonwealth law, the law giving Gov. Patrick the right to appoint Kirk should not take effect for 90 days. A hearing was scheduled for the morning of September 25 to resolve the issue.[32] A Suffolk Superior Court judge dismissed the case the same day, and Kirk took the oath of office as Senator that afternoon.

    My apology, I stand corrected

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.