Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

MA-Senate: Patrick Names Kirk Interim Senator



Paul Kirk, left, was appointed Thursday as the junior senator from Massachusetts. (AP Photo)

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick has named Paul Kirk, a former aide to the late Ted Kennedy, to fill the vacancy caused by the Democratic senator's death.

Patrick, flanked by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lt. Gov. Tim Murray, described Kirk as a "close and loyal confidante" of Kennedy in announcing the pick Thursday. "He shares the sense of service that so distinguished Sen. Ted Kennedy," added Patrick.

Kirk called the appointment a "profound honor" and said he would approach the job with "sincere humility." He also made clear that he would not be a candidate in the December special primary or January special general election that will choose a permanent replacement for the rest of Kennedy's term.

President Obama, whose senior aides helped orchestrate the state law change that allowed Patrick to make the interim appointment, praised Kirk as a "distinguished leader, whose long collaboration with Senator Kennedy makes him an excellent, interim choice to carry on his work until the voters make their choice in January."

National Republican Senatorial Committee executive director Rob Jesmer was less sanguine about the pick, calling it a "power play" that had "nothing to do with principle, and everything to do with politics."

Kirk, who currently chairs the board of directors at the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation, had emerged as the frontrunner in recent days, thanks to strong advocacy on his behalf from Kennedy's widow, Vicki, as well as his sons Patrick and Edward Jr.

Kirk's appointment restores Democrats to 60 votes in the Senate -- a filibuster-proof majority -- although Sen. Robert Byrd's (D-W.Va.) recent hospitalization complicates that math.

Kirk is the sixth senator to join the chamber this year, along with Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), George Lemieux (R-Fla.), Roland Burris (D-Ill.), Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).

Kirk will serve until early next year. A Jan. 19 special election has been set to determine who will fill the remaining years on Kennedy's term.

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 24, 2009; 11:23 AM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Morning Fix: Leveraging Foreign Policy?
Next: Hall of Fame: The Case Against Richard J. Daley

Comments

There were actually only 12 posts of mine discussing the Boston boycott. 13 now.

Posted by: JakeD | September 28, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps someone might do a post about how some disgruntled loser in San Diego plans to boycott businesses in Boston to exact revenge for a judge dismissing a Republican injunction.

Oh, wait, someone already did about thirty of them.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 28, 2009 2:38 AM | Report abuse

If anyone else wants to contribute anything to the discussion, let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | September 27, 2009 10:29 PM | Report abuse

On questionably relevant post out of ninety?

If you didn't know that the injunction attempt was frivolous and desperate then you're alone there.

You're blog-clog.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 27, 2009 8:38 PM | Report abuse

For the record, posts about the Mass. GOP filing for injunctive relief was, indeed, on topic. If anyone wants to discuss that, let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | September 27, 2009 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Post count for this thread (288 total):

86 JakeD
35 GoldAndTanzanite
28 mm14

==

So the "retired married Stanford Law grad" does more posts than the next three most prolific posters combined, and not a one of then contributes anything to the discussion. Smilies, sarcasm, sneer-quotes, and endless screaming for attention.

Hey Chris C. You want good discussions here? Get rid of JakeD.

You want more civility here, less back-and-forth bickering? Check out how very little of it *isn't* centered around JakeD.

You want more people to post here? Get rid of JakeD.

You want the discussions here to rise out of the gutter? Get rid of JakeD.

Want discussions to revolve around the topic? Get rid of JakeD and snowbama, and this time use the latter's IP to get the hospital he's at and write to them directly.

All those stay-on-topic and stop-the-name-calling scolds don't amount to a hill of beans as long as you give this sick creep freedom to sh*t up your blog. He does almost a third of the posts here and it's all puerile garbage.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 27, 2009 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. JakeD. Look It Up.

==

I'd be curious to hear from shrink2 on this one but for my untutored money JakeD exhibits one of the Cluster B disorders, and if I had to guess it would be Histrionic Personality Disorder. Look it up on some DSM site and I wager you'll agree.

To pursue so obvious a lie as posting from a device that doesn't allow access to the comment sections is just pointlessly compulsive, but since when has this creepy attention-wh0re ever owned up to any of his many lies?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 27, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

nodebris:

I do not have OCD, nor am I a hypocrite -- in fact, I am the only one here upset about BOTH DeLay and Patrick's power play -- I am also posting from my iPhone.

Posted by: JakeD | September 27, 2009 12:19 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

"To Infinity [Posts] And Beyond!"

Posted by: JakeD | September 27, 2009 10:36 AM | Report abuse

'Look up the definition of "zealot"'

I doubt there are many words in your vocabulary I need to look up, hypocrite.

Posted by: nodebris | September 27, 2009 2:28 AM | Report abuse

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. JakeD. Look It Up.

Posted by: nodebris | September 27, 2009 2:21 AM | Report abuse

I reject the notion that a majority of those who vote for the winner of a given seat does so to give one party or the other the seat. In many cases races are won by the candidate who gathers enough support from independents to give them their victory.

Posted by: jwestlake | September 27, 2009 1:24 AM | Report abuse

A Buzz Lightyear comment comes to mind.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | September 26, 2009 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Good, then we won't have to see your stupid post counts on the longer threads at least. Why don't you ever use Excel to keep track of all the threads I don't post on?

Posted by: JakeD | September 26, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Post count for this thread (288 total):

86 JakeD
35 GoldAndTanzanite
28 mm14
20 justjoeking
10 margaretmeyers
10 snowbama
7 FairlingtonBlade
6 DDAWD
5 nodebris
4 allenridge
4 Blarg
4 Conservator
3 scrivener50

My new resolution is going to be to avoid threads with more than 100 posts. By the time the post count gets high, it degenerates into pointless back and forths. Does anyone *really* care if a poster is using an iThingie? Or if a current poster used to post under a different name? A certain Star Trek episode comes to mind.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | September 26, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

just got a 20% Battery warning (not sure why my iphone is working better than everyone elses ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 7:54 PM | Report abuse

We will fact-check jaked's LIES from the weekend on Monday.

==

It's pointless, it just gives him attention. Negative attention or praise, it's all the same to a troll.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 25, 2009 7:26 PM | Report abuse

bibby wibby didn get his injunction so bibby takey hid ball an' go home.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 25, 2009 7:23 PM | Report abuse

At least we know that I will never again contribute to Boston's tax base ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 7:06 PM | Report abuse

GoldAndTanzanite, jaked refuses to give up on the iPhone story. We knocked down the lawyer, wife, and iPhone phony claims, not to mention all the RUBBISH pertaining to MA state law. This was fun- have a good weekend. We will fact-check jaked's LIES from the weekend on Monday.

Posted by: mm14 | September 25, 2009 6:29 PM | Report abuse

mm14:

Are you still fact-checking? If not, I will see you on Monday.

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 6:25 PM | Report abuse

That only corroborates that you have an iPhone. I got the same message.

BFD. You ctill can't post here on it. Why do you lie all the time? It's so easy to catch you at it.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 25, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse

I just got this text message:

"AT&T Free Msg: Picture and video messaging (MMS) is now available for iPhone. Your existing messaging plan includes unlimited send and receipt of text, picture & video messages. To enable MMS, connect your iPhone to your computer and click "Check for Update" in iTunes, then restart your iPhone."

Let me know what else you need to know, mm14.

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

You could figure it out in twenty seconds if you had enough neurons to make a synapse.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 25, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

mm14:

If you are aware of any tech savvy way to prove it, let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

You can't post here from an iPhone or any mobile device that identifies itself as one. The WaPo site (NOT the Safari browser) recognizes a portable device and 302s (auto-redirects) to the mobile site.

You just can't tell the truth even under the most ordinary circumstances, can you.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 25, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

mm14:

I certainly have no idea how to prove that I an holding an iPhone in my hand right now, nor how it is relevant to the thread topic, but feel free to continue "fact checking".

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

@mm14: it's everything. I've been doing this stuff for many years and have yet to see a GOP troll who didn't lie all the time, even when the truth would serve. Dishonesty is a salient and defining characteristic of right-wing trolls.

You've already nailed the law school claim. That's a pretty blatant lie, a "lawyer" with the logical faculties of a Liberty U. grad and the science literacy of a home-schooled third-grader in Mississippi.

The one that makes my eyes crinkle in mirth is the claim of having a wife. As if there is a woman breathing who would live under the same roof with such a nasty malevolent little prick.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 25, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

GoldAndTanzanite, totally agree. I tried to have a rational, objective discussion with jaked but realized very quickly he's here to manufacture consent with his ideologue propaganda.

Let's you and I fact-check him on all these boards. It's a challenge: he normally posts 25-50% of the messages on any dem-related political issue. How can jaked do that on an iPhone? 3G is such a battery drain, he couldn't get 10 posts before he had to recharge LOL!

Posted by: mm14 | September 25, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

TEST POST.

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

@mm14: everything he posts is a lie. Absolutely.

For example, the most recent post. If you try to get to this site on an iPhone you are automatically redirected to the mobile version of the site, from which you cannot access the comments sections, only the articles.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 25, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I am posting from an iPhone 3G if you want to call that "tech savy".

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

GoldAndTanzanite, brilliant point. A very tech savvy retiree, no? NOT! I'm glad we have exposed jaked for the partisan hack he is.

Posted by: mm14 | September 25, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

mm14:

I went to Stanford, not Harvard. I never compared myself to Obama though.

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

@mm14: you catch on fast.

Another zinger: the guy who uses winky little smilies and "LOL" teenager stylistics claims to be a septuagenarian.

Recall what Det. Arbogast says about gelling and aspic in "Psycho."

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 25, 2009 4:02 PM | Report abuse

nodebris:

I am not the "hypocrite" when I say BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans have been in the wrong. There's no doubt that I am a conservative "ideologue" though. Look up the definition of "zealot".

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, Obama was a professor constitutional law and editor of Harvard Law Review. Impeccable credentials- why would you hurt your feelings by comparing yourself to someone of Obama's caliber. You're way out of your league.

I call your bluff. No way you are bar-certified: your critical reasoning skills would be much more impressive.

Posted by: mm14 | September 25, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: I believe it was "Conservator" who self-identified as a libertarian. I have no idea why you would have thought my comment was about you.

==

Think of the second line of the chorus to that Carly Simon song about Mick Jagger

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 25, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

If a boycott will impact employees IN Boston, that's all I care about.

==

You could have more of an impact on the fortunes of Boston by turning your table lamp on and off than you're going to have arranging a "boycott" in the pages of this blog.

You are a very silly little man.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 25, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

justjoeking:

I was just covering my bases.

mm:

Sorry to disappoint, but it's true. The GOP didn't object to pResident Obama being sworn in, although I think they should have, so I guess we have to call it even.

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 3:34 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: I believe it was "Conservator" who self-identified as a libertarian. I have no idea why you would have thought my comment was about you.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 25, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Some so-called libertarians have a very strange notion of libertarianism.

==

When I was younger libertarians talked about freedom allatime. Most of the time it was a eupehmism for gun ownership. But since Reagan libertarianism has merged with Republican corporatism and taken Ian Angell as its philosopher-king, and you'll never see a libertarian invoke "freedom" without sticking "economic" in front it it.

The only freedom that truly matters, aside from guns, is the freedom to enslave another human being.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 25, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

"Judge rejects GOP bid to block Kirk
Judge Thomas Connolly deliberated for nearly four hours before dismissing the GOP's claim that Governor Patrick overstepped his authority by declaring an emergency so Paul Kirk Jr.'s appointment to Kennedy's US Senate seat could be made immediately."

==

HAW HAW HAW

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 25, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Like I said, i'm retired.

==

You spelled it wrong

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 25, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

An attorney? Impossible. Then I'm Santa Claus. If you are a bar-certified lawyer, how did you fail to realize this case was a five-spiral crash for GOP? My bs-meter is bright red-- looks like it's about to explode...

Posted by: mm14 | September 25, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

As if you care where Glenn Beck's show is incorporated? I also don't care where Samual Adams is actually brewed. If a boycott will impact employees IN Boston, that's all I care about.

I am not a libertarian, but I was an attorney for 33 years.

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Some so-called libertarians have a very strange notion of libertarianism.

Here I thought it was about small government, live and let live, etc. Apparently it's all about trying to force your world view on legislators and judges in other states. Who knew?

Posted by: justjoeking | September 25, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

"The GOP only has to delay 90 days."

Hey nodebris,
After I read that post from jaked, I realized my hope was not to be.

My guess is jaked launches a boycott of Boston businesses next. Funny thing is he fails to realize 97% of companies are incorporated in Delaware, but stubborn facts never gets in the way of his arguments. Boycott jaked's boycott! Lol

Posted by: mm14 | September 25, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Businesses based in Boston to boycott:

Boston Beer Co. (Samuel Adams), New Balance shoes, Mutual Liberty insurance, Fidelity Investments, Sovereign Bank, State Street Corporation, Houghton Mifflin, Bedford-St., Martin's Press, Beacon Press, Little, Brown and Company, Pearson PLC, Gillette (now owned by Procter & Gamble) and Teradyne.

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

"Hope you are not a complete hypocritical ideologue"

Alas, you hope in vain.

Posted by: nodebris | September 25, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Another win for the good guys! The just-say-no obstructuonists had no chance- what a reckless waste of government resources. The case had no merit, totally baseless.

Posted by: mm14 | September 25, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

"Judge rejects GOP bid to block Kirk
Judge Thomas Connolly deliberated for nearly four hours before dismissing the GOP's claim that Governor Patrick overstepped his authority by declaring an emergency so Paul Kirk Jr.'s appointment to Kennedy's US Senate seat could be made immediately."

Posted by: mm14 | September 25, 2009 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Retired- what occupation? Car sales?

Posted by: mm14 | September 25, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Like I said, i'm retired.

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Apples and oranges- a lawyer you are not.

Posted by: mm14 | September 25, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse

No, the difference is not that great -- Bush v. Gore dealt with STATE election law too -- don't worry, though, I'm not using the case as precedent.

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 12:06 PM | Report abuse

“What is particularly shameful is that the same Republicans who are doing everything they can to keep this seat vacant howled about the need for full representation in the Congress five years ago. Once again, it is clear that the state’s Republican Party prefers antics and political stunts to being any kind of positive force in our state.

“With this action today, the Republican Party and its candidates have proven they will always be the party that just says no — no to new jobs, no to protecting health care, no to dealing with our climate change issues, and no to voters who may need the help of two US senators.”

Posted by: mm14 | September 25, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

President vs State Representative in Senate-- does that strike you as quite different? This case deals with a state law about the timing of a laws enactment. Bush v Gore is an absolutely specious analogy.

Posted by: mm14 | September 25, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Bush v. Gore got to the US Supreme Court. The GOP only has to delay 90 days.

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

You have paid but you are not currently paying taxes. Therefore this issue is not your business. And obviously my sarcasm about appealing to the US Supreme Court completely eludes you. ;) The MA Supreme Court is the furthest this case can go; if the obstructionist go that route, hopefully there is summary judgment as the Court has ruled quite clearly ok this issue before.

Posted by: mm14 | September 25, 2009 11:38 AM | Report abuse

I've paid Mass. state taxes too (and the US Supreme Court is paid by FEDERAL taxes ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

You are not a MA resident; I am. How can your rationally think your tax money is involved in this case files in a state court. This saga will end exactly as it did for Norm Coleman- tremendous waste of government resources- the absolute hypocrisy from the party of no.

Posted by: mm14 | September 25, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

If either party tried to swear in two new Senators from Washington D.C., I would urge an appeal as well, whether you thought that was a waste of OUR tax money or not.

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Appeal it to the US Supreme Court- hypocritical republicans talk about the need for small government and a clamdown on abusive, meritless litigation. Yet everytime the sore losers face defeat, they resort to endless stall tactics in the judiciary. It's a waste of government time and money. You lost. Deal with it. Stop wasting my tax money on these baseless stall tactics.

Posted by: mm14 | September 25, 2009 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Judge Connolly took the issue under advisement and promised a ruling by noon. Hopefully, the Mass. GOP have an appeal ready to file.

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

JakeD - guess your campaign was as indefensible as all other disingenuous just-say-no party obstructions. Hope you are not a complete hypocritical ideologue, and keep your word never to visit Boston again. We will be happy to hear it.

Posted by: mm14 | September 25, 2009 10:40 AM | Report abuse

We actually ate dinner just down the street from there (Ruth's Chris on School Street) the last time we were in Boston. If the Judge does not grant this injunction, it will have been the "last time" we ever go to there.
Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 7:09 PM | Report abuse
Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly has scheduled an 8 a.m. hearing tomorrow to consider the request for injunction filed today by the Massachusetts Republican Party. GOP Party Chairman Jennifer Nassour said: "I thank the court for taking the time tomorrow for what we consider to be an important legal question. From the beginning, the Republican Party of Massachusetts has been focused on ensuring the laws of our Commonwealth are properly followed. While we opposed the change in the election law, once changed, we believe Governor Patrick has an obligation to follow the law as written. By immediately making an appointment, we believe the governor has overstepped his authority."

Hearing Information:

Friday, September 25, 2009 at 8:00 a.m.

Superior Court, Suffolk County Courthouse
Courtroom 1006, F session
3 Pemberton Square
Boston, MA 02108
Time for another rally!!!
Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse
Look, I'm not doubting that Senator-Designate Kirk will be joining the chamber this year -- the Dems pushed this through just like the Texas GOP re-drew district lines in Austin -- just not until after 90 days from today ; )
Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse
justjoeking:
CNN.com is reporting that the measure "would not go into effect for 90 days —- a period that ends just a month before the scheduled special election for a permanent successor to complete the remainder of Kennedy's Senate term –- unless two-thirds of the state House voted to bypass the delay and enact the measure immediately.
Democrats fell just short of that mark, with a final state House vote of 95-59. But Patrick also has the power to declare an emergency, which would allow the provision to go into effect right away."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/24/mass-governor-to-name-kennedy-replacement-today/
Perhaps you are quoting an amended bill that didn't pass?
(Hat tip to Bubbette ; )
Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: mm14 | September 25, 2009 10:36 AM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers:

Yes.

mm14:

We'll see what happens, but it was a longshot for sure.

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 10:29 AM | Report abuse

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/09/judge_to_rule_b.html

On Thursday, Secretary of State William F. Galvin, a Democrat, said the emergency letter is "very clearly available to the governor under the Constitution. I don’t know how you suggest this is something novel. It's not."

Former Republican governor Mitt Romney used the emergency provision 14 times, Galvin added, including to increase the boating speed limit in Charlton and to change the office of town moderator in Milton.

Posted by: mm14 | September 25, 2009 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Jake, put down the bullying swagger stick. I answered your question. Here it is a third time:

Atty Jake: "Just answer the question yes or no: do two wrongs make a right?"
Margaret: "No."

Brief enough? or should I have said "No, sir?"

Now I hope you read my links to the New Yorker, so you can see how pervasive the Republican Gerrymandering was throughout the last redistricting and that it involved much more than a single district in Texas. The GOP intent was to disenfranchise as many Democratic voters as possible, and they ended up choking on their own swill.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | September 25, 2009 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Back on topic (from an editorial this morning urging the GOP's injunction be granted):

"Mr. Patrick’s “emergency” claim comes after the House failed to gather the two-thirds majority required to attach such an emergency preamble to its approval of the legislation; in the wake of that failure, the Senate did not even consider an emergency preamble.

With all due respect to the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, and to Mr. Kirk — whose qualifications and character appear to be beyond reproach — the death of a senator who participated only infrequently in roll-call votes during the last year does not constitute an emergency as outlined in the state constitution. If Mr. Patrick’s appointment preserves any of the stipulated qualities, it would be the political convenience of the Democratic Party."

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 9:51 AM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers:

"Hate" away but, technically, your "answer" was non-responsive to the question(s) asked -- we still don't know if you think two wrongs make a right or if you simply are having trouble understanding -- those could be actually answered with a "yes" or "no". Whereas you've admitted you are not a lawyer, I've seen plenty of evasive "answers" in my career to know. Of course, you are not under oath here, and therefore under no obligation to answer. So, not really expecting that you would actually answer, the reason for my "double post" was to point out that I already said the 2003 Texas redistricting was WRONG.

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Jake, I thought I answered that question when I said I hoped the Democrats did not use redistricting in the same slash and burn way the Republicans did 10 years ago.

And I further said that I felt the "Romney Law" situation was a parallel -- two situations where a party fekt they had stacked things for themselves only to see it tumble pretty quickly. This latest legislation in MA is a mush better idea. Semate and Congressional seats should be filled quickly when they become vacant.

Actually, at first I thought you were needling me about my double post, but now I have answered YOUR question twice. And I hate it when you strut through these posts demanding answers. It makes you look like Erich von Stroheim.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | September 25, 2009 6:22 AM | Report abuse

Democratic governors can make appointments, but Republican governors cannot? That's fair?

==

awwww I t'ink someone need a *hanky*

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 25, 2009 12:19 AM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers:

What part of "Do TWO WRONGS make a right?" aren't you understanding?

Posted by: JakeD | September 25, 2009 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Even I know that just because the redistricting wasn't illegal doesn't make it right

==

Hey margaret did you forget who you were responding to there for a minute? Trying to appeal to the moral sense of the guy who wrote about me "I pray he doesn't survive the anesthesia" and then tried to weasel out with some religious babble?

May as well appeal to the social conscience of a slaver.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 24, 2009 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Tired of Kennedy, huh? Well riddle me this.

How many of our elections in the part thirty years have NOT had someone named "George Bush" on the ticket?

Wanna talk about sick'n tired?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 24, 2009 11:36 PM | Report abuse

I am sick to death of the "KENNEDY" name and you are faced with one of your own - I wish you all if MA good luck!

Posted by: barbwhatley59 | September 24, 2009 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Oops. Clearly, my write was a wrong. Ah well, the Blade will *cut* himself some slack. Get it, cut? I'll be here aaaaaaallll night folks.

Cheers,

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | September 24, 2009 10:15 PM | Report abuse

The Texas redistricting was very much a power play. As is the legislation for a caretaker in Mass (or the special election legislation preceding it). The thought that one party is virtuous and the other not is, well, charming in its naiveté.

Texas Republicans did what they did, because they could. The same holds for Massachusetts Democrats. The nuclear, sorry constitutional, option was necessary. Now, well, it's not.

This isn't two wrongs making a write. This is politics and if you can't stand the heat, get out of the mother loving kitchen. We have 535 potential Harvey Dents up on Capitol Hill. It's not do good, it's get it done.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | September 24, 2009 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Jake, I'm not a lwayer - just a citizen. Even I know that just because the redistricting wasn't illegal doesn't make it right, and I'm very glad that the greedy pigs failed to hold onto what they had grabbed up for themselves. I think this is the same lesson to be learned from the "Romney Law" fiasco. I hope the Democrats, who have some control over redistricting this time out do nothing like what the Republicans did (though I know we will hear a great deal of squealing none the less).

Posted by: margaretmeyers | September 24, 2009 9:59 PM | Report abuse

So -- Democratic governors can make appointments, but Republican governors cannot? That's fair? Nothing like changing the rules in the middle of the game?

Posted by: jburnetti | September 24, 2009 9:25 PM | Report abuse

I just called the Senate Finance committee (202) 224-4515 and told the lady that I would like to have a public option included in the Senate bill.
"he ha ha ha he he heeee" she squealed and added,
" Oh, my I needed that, Oh and yes, I will pass your opinion on, thank you."
Seemstome they need a foot in their buttocks.

Posted by: seemstome | September 24, 2009 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Now that the Democrats have the filibuster proof majority in the Senate, perhaps they will have the courage to enact a comprehensive health care reform bill including the public option. This will create a system to compete with the Insurance companies so that every American can get better heralth care at a reasonable price. If there is no public option, then these greedy Insurance companies will win and they will then dictate the terms they want and keep on paying their executives excessive bonuses at the expense of the people.Health care will then be more expensive. I hope that the newly appointed Senator Kirk will be as avid a champion of Healthcare reform as Senator Kennedy was.

Posted by: duketa | September 24, 2009 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Quit with the blog-clog, Jake. Think about it for a minute, would you?

(1) The number of people reading this blog is probably in the dozens, certainly not the hundreds. Of those dozens only a few are motivated to make the call and only a small fraction of the motivated will bother to do so. There is no army of "lurkers" out there awaiting marching orders from JakeD.

(2) Even if your reoeated postings generated hundreds of calls, even if thousands, the judge and the Secretary are not going to bend like reeds in the vague breezes of public opinion, regardless of the percentages; they are going to do what the law prescribes, period.

(3) I'm sure you personally have had city officials and assistants to aides to staff of city officials holding phones away from their ears all day, looking at the clock and taking bites of their lunch. COngratulations, you've nade the lives of some underpaid people more miserable today. Be proud.

You just post this crap for the same reason that dittoheads bring guns to town halls. To feel in charge and engaged.

In reality you're clogging the blog and nothing more, and probably not generating one single call.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 24, 2009 7:58 PM | Report abuse

All right-thinking citizens who are upset about this rank hypocrisy should contact Sec. Galvin's office and urge him to NOT accept the Governor's emergency letter:

Tel: (617) 727-7030
Toll Free: 1-800-392-6090
TTY: (617) 878-3889
Fax: (617) 742-4528
E-mail: cis@sec.state.ma.us

Also, call the Court in the morning 617-788-8130 and ask for the clerk in Courtroom 1006 to urge Judge Connolly that he should grant the temporary injunction, at least to make sure the law is being followed.

If all that doesn't work, then we boycott Boston-based business!

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

And why, exactly, should anyone reading this blog give a damn?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 24, 2009 7:13 PM | Report abuse

We actually ate dinner just down the street from there (Ruth's Chris on School Street) the last time we were in Boston. If the Judge does not grant this injunction, it will have been the "last time" we ever go to there.

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly has scheduled an 8 a.m. hearing tomorrow to consider the request for injunction filed today by the Massachusetts Republican Party. GOP Party Chairman Jennifer Nassour said: "I thank the court for taking the time tomorrow for what we consider to be an important legal question. From the beginning, the Republican Party of Massachusetts has been focused on ensuring the laws of our Commonwealth are properly followed. While we opposed the change in the election law, once changed, we believe Governor Patrick has an obligation to follow the law as written. By immediately making an appointment, we believe the governor has overstepped his authority."

Hearing Information:

Friday, September 25, 2009 at 8:00 a.m.

Superior Court, Suffolk County Courthouse
Courtroom 1006, F session
3 Pemberton Square
Boston, MA 02108

Time for another rally!!!

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

205 posts in this thread

55 of them from JakeD

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 24, 2009 6:53 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers:

Only ONE District (# 23) out of the 32 total Districts in the 2003 Texas redistricting plan was found to have violated the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court specifically refused to throw out the entire plan, ruling that the plaintiffs FAILED to state a sufficient claim of partisan gerrymandering:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-204

That was hardly equivalent to an entire Senate seat with Obamacare hanging in the balance. As I said, earlier, you would have to go back to at least Bush v. Gore to find a more egregious power grab in American politics.

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps not but revenge certainly is sweet

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 24, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers:

Do two wrongs make a right?

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Maybe you could fold your hands and send a telepathic petition ("pray") to your giant invisible spirit ("God") and he'll send some of that supernatural power to send the Kirk appointment to aitch ee double hockey sticks.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 24, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Conservator @3:41, you've brought up a touchy subject with me. My Hot Button Issue, if you will. The 2000 redistricting of the congressional voting districts was run by the GOP to fulfill Karl Rove's vision of a Permanent Republican Majority. When ever and where ever possible the Republican controlled redistricting that year diluted or dissolved Democratic voting districts into Republican districts. If a state was losing or gaining a dictrict, the map was redrawn to disown incumbent Democrats or create new districts with a Republican bend.

Mark in Austin reports that his city, a Democratic stronghold, was carefully divided into the surrounding 5 Republican controlled congressional districts. Here in Pennsylvania, my own 6th Congressional District http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/pdf/congdist/PA06_110.pdf
took on an incredible shape as the Republicans in charge worked block by block to dilute Democratic votes on the Main Line and minority-dense Norristown into either Republican held Lancaster county or Republican held Bucks County. If you look to the other end of the state, you can see that Democrats in Pittsburgh were similarly dealt with. It went to the Supreme Court and was in all the papers. Jeffrey Toobin wrote two excellent pieces for The New Yorker on this:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/12/08/031208fa_fact and http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/03/06/060306fa_fact

Of course the Permanent Majority didn't even last as long at that 1000 Year Reich. I figure the diluting simply made a lot of Solidly Republican districts Marginally Republican districts, and it only took a cycle to whip their backward heinies.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | September 24, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Conservator @3:41, you've brought up a touchy subject with me. My Hot Button Issue, if you will. The 2000 redistricting of the congressional voting districts was run by the GOP to fulfill Karl Rove's vision of a Permanent Republican Majority. When ever and where ever possible the Republican controlled redistricting that year diluted or dissolved Democratic voting districts into Republican districts. If a state was losing or gaining a dictrict, the map was redrawn to disown incumbent Democrats or create new districts with a Republican bend.

Mark in Austin reports that his city, a Democratic stronghold, was carefully divided into the surrounding 5 Republican controlled congressional districts. Here in Pennsylvania, my own 6th Congressional District http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/pdf/congdist/PA06_110.pdf
took on an incredible shape as the Republicans in charge worked block by block to dilute Democratic votes on the Main Line and minority-dense Norristown into either Republican held Lancaster county or Republican held Bucks County. If you look to the other end of the state, you can see that Democrats in Pittsburgh were similarly dealt with. It went to the Supreme Court and was in all the papers. Jeffrey Toobin wrote two excellent pieces for The New Yorker on this:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/12/08/031208fa_fact and http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/03/06/060306fa_fact

Of course the Permanent Majority didn't even last as long at that 1000 Year Reich. I figure the diluting simply made a lot of Solidly Republican districts Marginally Republican districts, and it only took a cycle to whip their backward heinies.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | September 24, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Moving on then, I have contacted this group about a possible IMPEACHMENT rally and proceedings against Gov. Deval Patrick (given his 20% approval ratings, this could be better than a Boston boycott):

http://www.examiner.com/x-10438-Peace-Studies-Examiner~y2009m9d8-H1N1-Action-Alert-Rally-to-Impeach-MA-Sen-Richard-Moore-Over-Forced-Vax

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 6:17 PM | Report abuse

I guess that "kahnpl" was just a drive-by poster.

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Did Democrats vote unanimously against Bush judicial nominees, or against any GOP legislation, much less every single last piece?

No, they didn't.

Stop pretending there's any symmetry here.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 24, 2009 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Actually, still 59 votes. The Massachusetts Republican Party has filed an injunction today in a Boston court seeking to block former Democratic Party chairman Paul Kirk from becoming the interim replacement for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1199781&pos=breaking

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Byrd is out of the hospital. Sixty votes.

Posted by: nodebris | September 24, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

As you pointed out, the GOP indeed contemplated the "nuclear option" -- but it was to reduce from 60 to 50 the number required to invoke cloture re: judicial nominees only, and they ended up NOT doing that -- actually pulling the trigger this time, on Obamacare rather than judicial nominees (who arguably deserve an "up or down" vote due to the Senate's "consent" responsibility) is very different, don't you think?

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

kahnpl:

Do you not think that the Dems will ever be in the minority again? Given your 4:58 PM post, it is a reasonable question to ponder what the political landscape may look like after the "nuclear" fallout.

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

"Do you not think that the Dems will ever be in the minority again?"

In the interest of bipartisanship, Democrats are going to grant that argument all the weight that Republicans did when they were in power. Republicans are always right, so we feel compelled to follow their example in governance.

Posted by: nodebris | September 24, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

A better phrasing of that petulant question might be "do you think the GOP will ever stop acting like angry spoiled children and return to carrying out their elected responsibilities?"

Looks like maturity is at least a generation away, and electoral victories further still/

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 24, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

High principle has nothing to do with their claims -- raw power, and their belief in their right to control this country despite two successive elections rejecting them, is what they are about here.

==

Not to mention a degree of party affiliation among voters headed all the way to third party level. How many more people identify with the GOP now than voted for Ross Perot?

I get scorned for dismissing all Republicans as racists and nutjobs. Well, that's who's left. The authentic conservatives mostly walked away in the last few years. What kind of knucklewalker could be proud of being in the party of Palin and torture?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 24, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

kahnpl:

So, because the GOP threatened to use the "nuclear option" it's OK for the Dems to actually use it? Do you not think that the Dems will ever be in the minority again?

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

What is at stake in this argument is the ability of the Senate majority to overcome yet another filibuster by a party that has lost two successive elections by overwhelming numbers.

It was only a few years ago that the Republicans were outraged that the Democrats would dare to filibuster any Bush judicial nominee. Even though the filibuster was rarely used, they argued that ANY Democratic filibuster denied the right of the majority to do whatever it wanted. This was so outrageous, they felt, that they seriously contemplated what was then called the "nuclear option," removing filibusters from Senate rules, to ensure the majority could act as it chose.

But from the very moment they lost power in 2006, the Republicans adopted an entirely new practice, using filibusters routinely to prevent enactment of any Democratic legislation. Suddenly, for the first time in the history of the Republic, literally everything has to meet the new 60-vote standard. Now, absent a 60-vote supermajority, Democrats are powerless to enact the agenda a national majority voted for. Apparently Republicans believe filibusters are the expression of high moral principle when they themselves employ them, and an outrageous subversion of democracy when their opponents use them.

What we are seeing across the country is a massive temper tantrum by the right wing, not unlike the massive right-wing temper tantrum we witnessed during the Clinton years. If they do not run this country, by God, no one will. High principle has nothing to do with their claims -- raw power, and their belief in their right to control this country despite two successive elections rejecting them, is what they are about here.

Time to treat their confused claims of high principle as just so much ego-satisfying self-delusion, which it is. Let's play hardball.

Posted by: kahnpl | September 24, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

rogerGG:

Please join my boycott of Boston if they go through with this and contact Sec. Galvin's office to urge him to STOP THE HYPOCRISY / do not accept the Governor's "emergency" letter:

Tel: (617) 727-7030
Toll Free: 1-800-392-6090
TTY: (617) 878-3889
Fax: (617) 742-4528
E-mail: cis@sec.state.ma.us

Posted by: JakeD
-----------------------------------
LOL...JakeD, just being...well JakeD, LOL...So you're now boycotting Boston, LOL...what will that do for you and your ilk in throwing your (Boston) tea parties, lol? Do you even live in Boston, lol...probably not...did you get that from Rush this morning as the Rethuglican talking points for the day, lol...you people really make me laugh. Get over it...Dems rule and the only ones waiting for 2010 and 2012 to supposidly get a new Rethuglican Congress and a new Rethuglican President is the same old crazies who didn't have enough votes to get it in 2008, lol...dream on dreamers while the rest of the country leave you behind screaming...NO, NO, NO, LOL!!!

Posted by: Beingsensible | September 24, 2009 4:39 PM | Report abuse

I'm a libertarian

==

Thanks for "removing all doubt"

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 24, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

If you post the phone numbers just a FEW more times Jake the electricity will go out in Boston.

What a pompous self-important twit.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 24, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

BB wrote,

@ Conservator - You haven't been paying attention. There was a post-census redistricting in Texas in 2003. Remember when the Texas Dems high tailed it out of state to prevent a quorum? Not to mention misuse of the DHS by Delay to track them. Ah, memories.
___________________________________________
Hi BB, actual I do recall and if I'm not mistaken the courts ruled in favor of Delay's legislation with an exception about one district which was found to have been based on race.

I'm a libertarian and would like to see all the "Kings and Queens" ruling us from DC leave the country like GoldAndTanzanite.


Posted by: Conservator | September 24, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Another target of mine is GOVERNMENT Motors (GM), especially if you are thinking about renting a car in the next 2 months -- purchase a brand new car instead and then just take it back for a refund -- no questions asked:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gm-moneybackbox11-2009sep11,0,7551730.story

I am going to "buy" a $60K Corvette and then turn it back in so that GM has to sell it as a "used" car. LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

BTW, please post when you move to another country - a typical leftist comment. But folks like and Alec Baldwin never follow through to my chagrin.

==

Oh, I will. Construction of my house in the city of Cần Thơ in the province of the same name in Việt name began on the numerologically felicitous date of 9/9/9. I'll be living in palatial luxury with my partner, our parrots, two servants, and lots of friends and watching you guys back here lining up for fơd handouts, and still boasting you live in the greatest nation on earth.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 24, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Someone on this comment board is complaining that the administration wants to "stack the deck."
In the face of this intractible wall of GOP legislators humiliating the country and their elected offices by refusing to do their job and legislate -- and he complains about "stacking the deck."
Well, yeah -- I guess so.
The deck has already been stacked by a bunch of terrorist traitors to this nation who won't take any responsibility for the mess they got this nation into.
That's why the late Senator Kennedy had the foresight to write his letter to the governor.
Congress has never been in such a bind.
Democrats always exercized input and votes on legislation; they didn't reject it outright.
But the current GOP crew in Congress has no such values in their systems.
They are a pitiful excuses for their titles of "legislator."
I'll guarantee if the shoe were on the other foot, they would not hesitate and no demon on these comment threads would complain in the least; they would think it was a clever ploy and laugh about it.

Posted by: Judy-in-TX | September 24, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

ohboy3:

Please join my boycott of Boston if they go through with this, and contact Sec. Galvin's office and urge him to STOP THE HYPOCRISY / do not accept the Governor's "emergency" letter:

Tel: (617) 727-7030
Toll Free: 1-800-392-6090
TTY: (617) 878-3889
Fax: (617) 742-4528
E-mail: cis@sec.state.ma.us

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Paul Kirk! Spawn of the E.T.


Cheech and Chong's version, not Steven Spielburgs.

Posted by: Homunculus | September 24, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Yes let's compare the effectiveness of gooper boycotts and liberal support.

One data point will do: Vermont in the months after the Civil Union law.

"Take back Vermont!" the cultural warrior signs read. Then gay couples started showing up and having the ceremony and spending money in nice little towns with Bed and Breakfasts. Those signs came RIGHT down.

And by the way, my partner and I went there and had the ceremony, and dumped a clean $5K into the economy of Stowe. Did you know that you can use maple syrup in cooking as well as on pancakes?

Boycott away you silly fools.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 24, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats were not marginalized prior to 2006 and more importantly, they were far more effective at stopping and delaying GOP legislation

==

GoldAndTanzanite wrote:

Nowhere near effective enough. It'll take generations to recover from what they failed to delay and some of it we may never recover from.

If leaping on a typo is the apotheosis of your sophist talent you might consider finding a less demanding place to surf.

___________________________________________

The typo wasn't my apotheosis (a perfect example). But, since you bring it up, you also spelled "thumping" wrong as well.

You sycophant parasites on the left are really amusing. Also, you neglected to respond to my point on the census, but I expected as much from you.

BTW, please post when you move to another country - a typical leftist comment. But folks like and Alec Baldwin never follow through to my chagrin.

I have my fun with you, so adios amigo...

Posted by: Conservator | September 24, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

this smells worse than a rotting pile of baked beans!!! :o(

Posted by: ohboy3 | September 24, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

the smells worse than a rotting pile of baked beans!!! :o(

Posted by: ohboy3 | September 24, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

National Republican Senatorial Committee executive director Rob Jesmer was less sanguine about the pick, calling it a "power play" that had "nothing to do with principle, and everything to do with politics."
-------------------------------------
Ummm duh...was his response expected to be different? After all, he a Rethuglican.

Posted by: Beingsensible | September 24, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

So, two wrongs make a right?

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

For the record, if Glenn Beck and/or Rush Limbaugh get behind it, the boycott of Boston will be much more effective than the boycott of South Carolina ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

@ Conservator - You haven't been paying attention. There was a post-census redistricting in Texas in 2003. Remember when the Texas Dems high tailed it out of state to prevent a quorum? Not to mention misuse of the DHS by Delay to track them. Ah, memories.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | September 24, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

"2)The Democrats were not marginalized prior to 2006 and more importantly, they were far more effective at stopping and delaying GOP legislation. The GOP and its so-called "Big Tent" are deficient in regards to being the minority party."

Man, I am trying to imagine what they blocked. I know Bush blamed the Democrats for blocking immigration reform, but it was actually the Republicans. Bush's Social Security plan? I'm drawing a blank.

By the way, I believe that for the 2007-2008, Republicans used the filibuster like 2.5 times the previous record.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 24, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

My first and last name, when said together, sound like a girl's name (I'm not).

==

Try growing up with a name that sounds like something out of Beatrix Potter

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 24, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

My question is who are the real reporters at WaPo? - the editorial writers or libs like you.

==

Reporters report, editorialists opine and never the twain shall meet.

By the way, around here it's universally acknowledged that people who toss around the term "lib" get ignored once identified.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 24, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

@joeking: the gun thing has really gotten nutty in the past 40 years, and it's one of the reasons I'm leaving the USA when I retire and moving to a country where only the cops and jewelry store guards have guns.

It's come up in my workplace. Have a guy who put up a really nasty poster outside his cubicle (right next to the full-sized American flag I kid you not) about open carry, lovingly detailed graphics of handguns, sounds like he wants to pack heat in his cubicle. I filed a formal objection with HR. Turns out that someone has been posting the same sort of crap on hallway bulletin boards, people have complained but HR had no idea who was doing it. Now they do. I hope the guy gives them a bunch of free speech BS and finds himself in the UI office.

And I knew exactly how to manipulatively articulate my objection.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 24, 2009 3:59 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats were not marginalized prior to 2006 and more importantly, they were far more effective at stopping and delaying GOP legislation

==

Nowhere near effective enough. It'll take generations to recover from what they failed to delay and some of it we may never recover from.

If leaping on a typo is the apotheosis of your sophist talent you might consider finding a less demanding place to surf.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 24, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

GoldAndTanzanite wrote:

You Republicans whining about the law being changed sound like crybabies. Didn't hear any objections from your quarters when Texas was being redistricted to favor the GOP, nor when Demorats were completely marginalized before the '06 thumpin'.

Man up. You guys made your bed with eight years of grotesquely irresponsible government. Heckuva job. Swallow your defeat and choke.
___________________________________________

How old are you? Based on your post, I hope you are a teenager. BTW, you really need a spell checker program when the word "Democrat" is beyond your abilities.

1) You stated that "Texas was being redistricted to favor the GOP." Exactly when did that occur? As far as I know, states can only redistrict Congressional districts after the census and that occurred after the 2000 US Census and in every state of the union.

2)The Democrats were not marginalized prior to 2006 and more importantly, they were far more effective at stopping and delaying GOP legislation. The GOP and its so-called "Big Tent" are deficient in regards to being the minority party.

3) How do you know I'm a member of the Republican Party? You don't know and it's obvious you know less on politically topics.

Regards, the crybaby (LOL)

Posted by: Conservator | September 24, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

>pompous twaddle<

He shoots... he scores!

Posted by: margaretmeyers | September 24, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

"boycott of Boston" by a few lowbrow trolls on the other side of the country?

I bet the city fathers are holding emergency sessions as we speak.

What pompous twaddle. You have ANY idea how lame you sound?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 24, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

If anything the whole situation should remind us that Senator term limits are very much needed.

==

Panacea.

Elect a Senator, give him a term or two to accumulate experience and effectiveness, then replace a good representative with a no0b "just because."

Nonsense.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 24, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse

You Republicans whining about the law being changed sound like crybabies. Didn't hear any objections from your quarters when Texas was being redistricted to favor the GOP, nor when Demorats were completely marginalized before the '06 thumpin'.

Man up. You guys made your bed with eight years of grotesquely irresponsible government. Heckuva job. Swallow your defeat and choke.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 24, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

...President Obama, whose senior aides helped orchestrate the state law change that allowed Patrick to make the interim appointment, praised Kirk as a "distinguished leader, whose long collaboration with Senator Kennedy makes him an excellent, interim choice to carry on his work until the voters make their choice in January."...

Sounds like the "Fix Was In" eh Chris? I look forward to seeing you on MSNBC and playing the role of a reporter.

On the other hand, the WaPo did publish an "Editorial" that discussed this chicanery:

Not Having Their Say Massachusetts voters are bystanders in filling a Senate seat. - Thursday, September 24, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/23/AR2009092304135.html

My question is who are the real reporters at WaPo? - the editorial writers or libs like you.

Posted by: Conservator | September 24, 2009 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Good posts on Virginia, margaretmyers and nodebris.

Wilder's problem is, he's a Clinton-era Democrat. The gun debate has moved and left him behind. Not sure his endorsement would help Deeds all that much on balance. The liberals will still vote for him, and the moderates might just like it that Wilder has a problem with Deeds.

More evidence that the country does not (yet) consist of two monolithic camps. Good to remember, after GWB's "If yer not with us, yer agin' us" mentality.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 24, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Just respond with Surely, you jest. To which the only response is Stop calling me Shirley.

I'll be here all night folks...

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | September 24, 2009 2:45 PM | Report abuse

.....in other words, the right-wing Republican trash has been rendered useless and irrelevant.
Now, Dems can approve all the right bills...and screw the Psycho Von Limbaugh crowd.

Posted by: analyst72 | September 24, 2009 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Wilder won't support Deeds because Deeds doesn't support gun control. He even got the NRA endorsement the last time he went against McDonnell.

Keep advertising that. It's really going to hurt him bad in Virginia. Not.

Hey Virginia: do you realize you can have a conservative governor who isn't a Pat Robertson born-again nut job?

Posted by: nodebris | September 24, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

If I had a dime for every half-wit who came up to shake my hand, saying "You must be Joe King!"....

Posted by: justjoeking | September 24, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Can you spell SLAM DUNK?

Sure, I knew ya could!

Also, you fail to mention that Al Franken also joined the Senate this year.

Who's fact checking there?

Posted by: Heerman532 | September 24, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I second the hearty welcome to just joe king, though I do like the play on words. Congrats to your parents on picking a clever name. My first and last name, when said together, sound like a girl's name (I'm not).

Anyway, my congratulations to Senator Kirk. First star to the right and straight on till morning.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | September 24, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

So why is the governor of New York so stubborn? Answer, he is not too smart.

Posted by: truth1 | September 24, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

"I don't recall Obama ever claiming that "brothers" should hang together. If he had said such nonsense during the campaign, he would not have been elected."

The best is not to respond to jaked's racist tripe.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 24, 2009 2:24 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, do you live in Massachusetts? Seems you would have mentioned it by now if you have. If not, please let we Mass. residents handle our own Senate seats. I wouldn't write to your Sec. of State; please don't write to mine. It's a state matter, and we'll handle it. Thanks very much.


Posted by: mwallace8831 | September 24, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

------------------------------------------

Unfortunately I don't think your reasoned plea will have much impact on JakeD as this individual has a very pronounced god complex and track record of meddling in other people's affairs.

But hey, if you were to say incur irreparable brain damage, JakeD would be the first person to step to your aid by sending a petition around on WaPo demanding that you be plugged into an electric socket for the remainder of your artificial "natural existence". Or even better yet, if you were to show some act of empathy that received broadcast coverage, ol' JakeD would gladly get the ball rolling to organize a hate rally in front of your house.

We're sure lucky to have a "Real American" like JakeD in our midst!

Posted by: htruman1 | September 24, 2009 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, but its "Joe King" not "King Joe." Only crowns are in my mouth.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 24, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

"justjoeking earns his crown everyday!

Posted by: margaretmeyers"

Yeah, we've had some really great new regulars join in the past few months. Unfortunately, the trash posters are still intent on clogging up the place, but this has become a lot more fun to read recently.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 24, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

I have no reason to doubt the NYT report. The White House would "neither confirm nor deny."

I don't recall Obama ever claiming that "brothers" should hang together. If he had said such nonsense during the campaign, he would not have been elected.

My view (and if I recall Obama's inaugural comments, his) is that competence in government is required. He said of himself that if he didn't do the job, he didn't deserve to be re-elected. So if Paterson's numbers are below 20%, he should not run if he cares about his party. All he can do is screw it up for Cuomo.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 24, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

justjoeking earns his crown everyday!

Posted by: margaretmeyers | September 24, 2009 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I cannot see a great wave of minority voters in Virginia pulling that lever for McDonnell.

There wasn't anything racist in McDonnell's political action plan (that I could see), however he is most vehemently against many of the social service programs that most aid disadvantaged and minority communities.

McDonnell's low tax/small government agenda pulls the legs out from under these programs, and I think minority voters recognise this as a mainstay of the Republican party (which explains their consistently voting for the other party).

Posted by: margaretmeyers | September 24, 2009 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Political maneuvering and hypocrisy are rampant in every state in the union. If you want to boycott every business in every state that has politicians, that would be great. Please shut off your internet service, and all other utilities, forthwith. Let's hope your groceries hold out until you get your first crop in.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 24, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Well, we can at least agree that Obama IS pressuring Paterson not to run, right? So much for brothers hanging together!

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I bet she feels the same way that Jim Bunning's wife felt about him being persuaded by the NRSC not to run in KY next year.

It is not hard to find individuals who are upset. It is not hard to produce a poll that shows people don't like political maneuvers. But they continue on both sides, because unilateral disarmament is suicide.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 24, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

You're welcome (maybe Obama will get the hint and stay out of these local races -- if not, then I can at least boycott, right?). Here's the wife of a blind guy upset with Obama too (didn't he "joke" about the Special Olympics once upon a time?):

"I have never heard of a president asking a sitting governor not to run for re-election ... I thought it was very unusual and very unfair."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/24/patersons-wife-says-situation-is-very-unfair-2/

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

******Bad news for DEEDS *****

And you POST lovers you can expect the POST to censor this information. Here you go the "nail in the cofin" for DEEDS:

"Doug Wilder whacks Deeds

Former Virginia governor Douglas Wilder announced Thursday that he will not be endorsing a candidate in the Virginia gubernatorial race, while mounting some sharp criticism at Democrat Creigh Deeds over his stance on taxes and guns.

“The requests, made of me, have been to endorse Mr. Deeds, the Democratic Candidate, for Governor. I refrain from doing so and will leave that choice to the voters,” Wilder said in a statement.

“This in no [way] is intended to detract from Mr. Deeds in terms of character or commitment to the task of being Governor. I find that he, as well as Mr. McDonnell are fine and honorable men and well suited to that task. The question before me is whether I support the Democratic candidate's position in addressing these issues. I have not thus far in the progress of the campaign, and as aforesaid refrain from so doing.”

Wilder’s announcement is a significant blow to the Deeds campaign, which had been aggressively courting his support in recent weeks. Even President Obama got involved in the lobbying campaign, making a personal call to Wilder earlier this month asking him to endorse Deeds.

Wilder. the first African-American governor in Virginia, met with both gubernatorial candidates this month in preparation for his statement. His comments still carry sway in the state's black community, and Deeds needs strong, enthusiastic turnout among African-American voters in Richmond and the Tidewater to win the governorship."

Posted by: allenridge | September 24, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the link, Jake. But the article doesn't say New Yorkers are turning against Obama, it says he shouldn't put pressure on Paterson not to run. We don't even know that he did. He *may* have "expressed concern" about Paterson's poll numbers.

From the same CNN story: "The poll also indicates that only a quarter of all voters want Paterson to run for re-election and only 17 percent think he's doing a good or excellent job as governor."

In other words, "Don't tell him not to run--that's OUR job."

Posted by: justjoeking | September 24, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

rogerGG:

Please join my boycott of Boston if they go through with this and contact Sec. Galvin's office to urge him to STOP THE HYPOCRISY / do not accept the Governor's "emergency" letter:

Tel: (617) 727-7030
Toll Free: 1-800-392-6090
TTY: (617) 878-3889
Fax: (617) 742-4528
E-mail: cis@sec.state.ma.us

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Proves yet again the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party. Just more shameful disregard for laws and procedure...

Posted by: rogerGG | September 24, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Down in New York, voters are turning against Obama, more so than even Paterson:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/24/poll-new-yorkers-say-white-house-should-bud-out/

Wilder is NOT going to endorse Deeds in Virginia either. We may have just reached the tipping point, folks : )

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Of course. And that reconciliation bill would have been a worse bill for it. As I said before, it will be a better bill now that reconciliation is not necessary.

But the Dems were not going to just roll over and play dead until January. Get what you can, retreat, and declare victory. And so we would have gotten a hacked-up version of it passed this year.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 24, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

justjoeking:

You DO understand that the Senate "reconciliation" process is strictly limited to BUDGET items, not any insurance mandate or public option, right?

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

I don't know why anyone should be surprised at this. It simply smacks of career politicos (Kennedy goons) taking the power away from the people after they gave it to them (sounds like Kerry flip-flopping!). What a bunch of phonies. They are replete with aristocratic hypocracy and they think we're too stupd to see through it!

Posted by: rogerherd | September 24, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Ret-Coastie:

You DO understand, I hope, that the Special Election is still scheduled for January? That Kirk will be a Senator for less than 4 months?

And, if the Massachusetts voters are as upset about it as the right-wingers from the rest of the country, they can vote in the GOP candidate on January 19. Ain't democracy wonderful?

And don't kid yourself about health care. It was going to be voted for and signed into law this year regardless, through "reconciliation" if necessary.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 24, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

"If the bill that comes to the floor for a vote is as good as the Administration and Democratic leadership says it will be, then the need to have a filibuster proof block in the Senate seems moot."

Welcome! I see you've been living under a rock for the last few decades. Let me bring you up to speed: The Republicans do not believe that health care should be changed at all. No matter how "good" the bill is, they'll vote against it. (More accurately, they'll filibuster it.) So the Senate Democrats need a supermajority to push the healthcare bill past GOP opposition.

Good luck in the outside world. It sounds like you're going to need it.

Posted by: Blarg | September 24, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

nodebris:

No, thankfully, one of them is dead and the other is widowed.

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Ret-Coastie:

Please join my boycott of Boston if they go through with this and contact Sec. Galvin's office to urge him STOP THE HYPOCRISY / do not accept the Governor's "emergency" letter:

Tel: (617) 727-7030
Toll Free: 1-800-392-6090
TTY: (617) 878-3889
Fax: (617) 742-4528
E-mail: cis@sec.state.ma.us

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

See the picture above for Boston's reaction to jaked's, ehem, "threats."

Posted by: nodebris | September 24, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Tourism comprises a large part of Boston's economy. In 2004, tourists spent over $7.9 billion and made the city one of the ten-most-popular tourist locations in the country -- no more hopefully, and that means quit sending our kids and grandkids to school there too -- Boston's colleges and universities have a major impact on the city and region's economy, with students contributing an estimated $4.8 billion annually to the city's economy. Not only are Boston's schools major employers, but they also attract high-tech industries to the city and surrounding region.

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Two things that I find deeply disturbing about this entire episode can be found in the statement that "President Obama, whose senior aides helped orchestrate the state law change that allowed Patrick to make the interim appointment..."

First, I am insulted that the White House and the Administration felt compelled to intervene in the internal political workings of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to ensure that the successor to Sen. Kennedy's seat went to a Democrat. Given the track record of the voters in Massachusetts, the concept of anyone other than a Democrat gaining that seat in a special election would be the upset election story of the year if not the decade.

Still the Administration felt that they needed to stack the deck. This leads to my second issue: the fact that the Administration feels that they so desperately needed the "60th vote" tells me that there really is something fundamentally flawed with the Health Care Reform legislation being considered. If the bill that comes to the floor for a vote is as good as the Administration and Democratic leadership says it will be, then the need to have a filibuster proof block in the Senate seems moot. My sense is that deep in their hearts, the Administration knows that the pending Health Care legislation won't be able to pass on its merits alone, hence the urgent need to cover all the bases.

Today represents yet another shameful stain on the fabric of American "democracy".

Posted by: Ret-Coastie | September 24, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

mrmoogie:

Will do (and I've emailed Glenn Beck to push for a boycott too ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

WHICH KENNEDY IN 2010?

So Chris, who's out front to become the PERMANENT Ted Kennedy seat-holder come January?

I'm betting it's Teddy Jr. (most likely) or Joe -- the dynasty endures and the dream never dies.

The Kirk interim appointment foreshadows a next-generation Kennedy gambit? Your take?

***

ATTENTION A.G. HOLDER: Where is the DOJ Civil Rights Division investigation into the covert use of silent, harmful microwave and laser directed energy weapons on unjustly targeted Americans and their families by a Bush-legacy federal-local "multi-agency coordinated action program" that continues to commit civil and human rights violations under Team Obama...

...including government-enabled, GPS-activated covert "community stalking" harassment and terrorism?

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america OR http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | September 24, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

Very funny -- I never said that Sam Adams is brewed in Boston -- check out their own web site if you don't believe me corporate headquarters is located at 1 Design Center Place, Suite 850, Boston, MA 02210

http://www.samueladams.com/contact.aspx

Toll free # 800-372-1131 (yes, I already called them ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

democrats must cheat to be competitive..and their water carriers in the media must be of like mind.

Posted by: SMWE357 | September 24, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Jake D,

Please boycott Boston. We don't want you here anyway!

Posted by: mrmoogie | September 24, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

kahndo:

I have indeed criticized the GOP, and specifically Bush v. Gore on this very thread; I call 'em like I see 'em.

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Jake swings and misses. Sam Adams is a contract beer and is not brewed in Boston. As for me, I'll be drinking a Harpoon Octoberfest tonight. That actually *IS* brewed in Boston and a dam fine beer.

SA was first brewed by Pittsburgh Brewing Company. Over the years, the brand has been produced under contract at various brewing facilities with excess capacity, ranging from Stroh breweries, Portland's original Blitz-Weinhard brewery, Cincinnati's Hudepohl-Schoenling brewery, and SABMiller. More than a third of its beer is now brewed at its own brewery--in Cincinnati. One-third of Samuel Adams beer is still produced under contract at breweries in Rochester, NY and Eden, NC. It is also being brewed in Latrobe, PA in the former Rolling Rock facility.

"I will also boycott Boston and never travel to / spend a single dime there again."

I'm sure that Professor Gates will be glad to know that.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | September 24, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Right with you, kahndo.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 24, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

What amazes me is the rank hypocrisy on both sides. I am not defending Massachusetts. But where were all of these critics during the Tom Delay power play with redistricting in Texas? Or Delay’s power play during the Medicare Part D vote? Or the 2000 recount in Florida?

Both sides utilize this hardball style of politics, and for either of them to act indignant when the other side does it and not when their side does so, is dishonest and disingenuous.

Criticize both sides, even when the partisanship is to your liking. This behavior is why the country is so divided.

Posted by: kahndo | September 24, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

MediaMurphy:

Who said it was an advisory opinion?

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

FLvet @ 1011,

In return I will say I don't want a few representatives and senators from 4 or 5 scantly populated states deciding just how hard the insurance industry can ride 300 million Americans.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | September 24, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Boycott businesses in Boston. Yeah, that will work. Pull profits away from the beleagered GOP minority in Massachusetts, to punish them for the political maneuvers of the other party.

Really, this appointment is a good thing. The Senate is actually working up their version, really going to put something through. With the GOP unable to stop cloture, the bill will go forward. So, they might as well stop stonewalling and make some constructive amendments, and vote for the thing. Or shut up and vote against it. Either way.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 24, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Jake D,

Any first year law student can tell you, courts don't issue "advisory opinion"s.

Posted by: MediaMurphy | September 24, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully, Glenn Beck begins a Boston Business boycott (no more Samuel Adams beer either : )

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Machiavelli said for a prince it is better to be feared than to be loved.

Here's my worry about Obama. Lots of people love him and he is indeed very lovable. But I wonder if anyone at all, anywhere in the world, really fears him.

Let's move forward a bit from Machiavelli for our strategic guidance. Let's refer instead to the great classic of American strategic pedagogy, Happy Days.

Happy Days pivoted around the friendship between two very different American teenagers, Richie Cunningham and Fonzie Fonzarelli.

Richie was clean-cut, wholesome, an absolute goody-goody, and everybody loved him. Fonzie, especially in the early series, was a tough nut. Greased-back hair, always astride his outlaw motorbike, decked out in Marlon Brando T-shirt, Fonzie inspired fear and envy in men, and swoons among the gals.

Everyone was frightened of Fonzie. He could banish bad guys with a look. In one episode, Fonzie tried to teach Richie his style. Richie practised the grimaces, the flexes, the stares, but alas the bad guys were not impressed and certainly not deterred.

In the midst of a desperate scrape, Richie turned to Fonzie imploringly and asked: Why are my deadly looks, threatening flexes and strategic grimaces having no effect?

Oh yeah, Fonzie replied, I forgot to tell you. For all that to work, once in your life you have to have hit someone. You cannot imagine a deeper strategic insight.

At some point, Obama is going to have to do something seriously unpleasant to someone.


Yet the striking thing, almost a year into the Obama presidency, is how little substantial talk with these enemies has gone on and how what talk has gone on has produced absolutely nothing. Nada. Zip. Diddly-squat.

You see, I don't think any of America's enemies, or indeed any of its friends, fear Obama. I hope they are making a grave miscalculation, but I have my doubts.


Posted by: snowbama | September 24, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Businesses based in Boston to boycott:

New Balance shoes, Mutual Libert insurance, Fidelity Investments, Sovereign Bank, State Street Corporation, Houghton Mifflin, Bedford-St., Martin's Press, Beacon Press, Little, Brown and Company, Pearson PLC, Gillette (now owned by Procter & Gamble) and Teradyne.

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - try this:

1. Kennedy could have resigned when he could no longer fulfill the job, that was about a year ago. Maybe Byrd should consider this now. Is it really about serving the people or ego? and if we are considering intellectual abilities, al Franken should also resign. and Peloony should consider less anasthesia next time she goes to the "beauty parlor". It is taking weeks to wear off.

2. I have no problem with a state choosing its Senator any way they like. It is the craven back and forth depending on party that disturbes most people. Except liberals. they have a very high tolerance for hypocrisy.

Posted by: snowbama | September 24, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

The rest of us right-thinking citizens who are upset about this rank hypocrisy should contact Sec. Galvin's office and urge him to NOT accept the Governor's emergency letter:

Tel: (617) 727-7030
Toll Free: 1-800-392-6090
TTY: (617) 878-3889
Fax: (617) 742-4528
E-mail: cis@sec.state.ma.us

I will also boycott Boston and never travel to / spend a single dime there again.

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Interestingly, CNN.com is no longer reporting about the 90 day requirement:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/24/kennedy.replacement/index.html

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD - do you ever have anything positive, substantial or interesting to say? you seem to have gone the way of the drindl/chris fox idiocy.

Posted by: snowbama | September 24, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"Indeed. "Taxachusettes" is suffering from white taxpayer flight, just like California. In few years, the fatherless welfare garbage constituency will be calling the shots. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Posted by: tjhall1 "

Jeez, and we wonder why minorities never vote Republican.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 24, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm still waiting for any of the hysterical ranters to come up with a better method for Senate succession. They hate this law, but they don't have any better ideas.

Posted by: Blarg | September 24, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

justjoeking:

As I said, before, I would be making that same call if it was a Republican legislature and governor doing the same thing, even if it was the last vote needed to prevent Obamacare.

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Whistling past the political graveyard R.I.P.:

- Karan English (D-Arizona

- Dan Hamburg (D-California)

- Richard H. Lehman (D-California)

- Lynn Schenk (D-California)

- George "Buddy" Darden (D-Georgia)

- Clete Donald Johnson, Jr. (D-Georgia)

- Larry LaRocco (D-Idaho)

- Dan Rostenkowski (D-Illinois)

- Jill Long (D-Indiana)

- Frank McCloskey (D-Indiana)

- Neal Edward Smith (D-Iowa)

- Dan Glickman (D-Kansas)

- Thomas Barlow (D-Kentucky)

- Peter Hoagland (D-Nebraska)

- James Bilbray (D-Nevada)

- Dick Swett (D-New Hampshire)

- Herb Klein (D-New Jersey)

- George Hochbrueckner (D-New York)

- Martin Lancaster (D- North Carolina)

- David Price (D-North Carolina)

- David S. Mann (D-Ohio)

- Ted Strickland (D-Ohio)

- Eric Fingerhut (D-Ohio)

- Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky (D-Pennsylvania)

- Jack Brooks (D-Texas)

- Bill Sarpalius (D-Texas)

- Karen Shepherd (D-Utah)

- Leslie Byrne (D-Virginia)

- Maria Cantwell (D-Washington, I had forgotten that she was tossed out by the GOP Revolution, so she at least made good)

- Jolene Unsoeld (D-Washington)

- Jay Inslee (D-Washington)

- Tom Foley (D-Washington)

- Mike Kreidler (D-Washington)

- Peter Barca (D-Washington)

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

I'll assume by "right-thinking" you mean "conservative." As I said before, both the Democrats and Republicans are hypocrits. Unless you can seriously say in your heart that you would be making that same call if it was a Republican legislature and governor doing the same thing, then YOU are a hypocrit for complaining about it.

This issue is rightly between the voters of Massachusetts and their elected officials. They can vote their displeasure next November.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 24, 2009 12:38 PM | Report abuse

snowbama:

They will "care" like the Dems who were turned out in 1994 ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Some more 1824 / Mass. trivia:

The Quincy family name was pronounced /ˈkwɪnzi/ at the time, as is the name of the city in Massachusetts where Adams was born.

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 12:36 PM | Report abuse

"I'm also not a Massachusetts resident. Are you, JakeD? If not, clogging the phone lines of a government office in another state is a pretty odd move. My guess is they won't answer the phones.

Posted by: justjoeking"

Meh, he likes to pretend that he's personally involved in every topic brought up on here. According to him, he's given money to like ten candidates, protested against Henry Gates, plans to move to Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut to vote in their upcoming elections. And all that when I didn't skip what he wrote. I'm sure he's added a lot more lies since then as well.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 24, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - you really think Democrats care a whit what the voters think. It is all about amassing power and steamrollering us into socialism.

Just look at the brazen censorship of Humana, simply because they dare to print the truth.

We can fill the mall with a million citizens and they proclaim it is a handful of crazies.

Posted by: snowbama | September 24, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Look, I'm not doubting that Senator-Designate Kirk will be joining the chamber this year -- the Dems pushed this through just like the Texas GOP re-drew district lines in Austin -- just not until after 90 days from today ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Indeed. "Taxachusettes" is suffering from white taxpayer flight, just like California. In few years, the fatherless welfare garbage constituency will be calling the shots. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Posted by: tjhall1 | September 24, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

The rest of us right-thinking citizens who are upset about this rank hypocrisy should contact Sec. Galvin's office and urge him to NOT accept the Governor's emergency letter:

Tel: (617) 727-7030
Toll Free: 1-800-392-6090
TTY: (617) 878-3889
Fax: (617) 742-4528
E-mail: cis@sec.state.ma.us

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse

jakeD - I think the mad bombers that were caught this week should have been caught after the explosion. This would have maintained all their rights and been fully in line with liberal thought.

Posted by: snowbama | September 24, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats just change the laws, as their needs dictate them to be for their party.

It was Ted Kennedy, who got the law changed when John Kerry was running for President. He got it changed so that the, then Republican governor (Mitt Romney) could not appoint a replacement for Kerry, had Kerry won the Presidential race.

Democrats, the party of "We make the rules, as we go along."

Debra J.M. Smith
of
www.InformingChristians.com

Posted by: DebraJMSmith | September 24, 2009 12:28 PM | Report abuse

mm14:

I can indeed claim that we are better off after eight years of Bush policies and Republican control of Congress -- you are also not my friend -- perhaps it would be best if you stuck with your day job after lunch?

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 12:28 PM | Report abuse

BHO is sactioning Honduras for this kind of stuff. Chicago politics turned loose on all of us!

Posted by: RNELSON4 | September 24, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

"mascmen" all that means is you are easily frightened. Xenophobes are frightened by people who look and think differently. Don't let your imagination, untested assumptions, and misplaced fears run wild- Obama is making the tough calls to better this nation.

I'm sure you'd be less frightened by and rather have a beer with GW because he looks like you, but it was that prejudiced thinking that ran this country into the ground. No one can claim we are better off after eight years of Bush policies and Republican control of Congress. Yes my friends, it's time for the change Obama will bring.

Lunchtime folks- have fun

Posted by: mm14 | September 24, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

mm14:

In the 1824 Presidential election, no candidate had a majority of the electoral votes (or of the popular votes), although Jackson had been the winner of a plurality of both. Under the terms of the Twelfth Amendment, the Presidential election was thrown to the House of Representatives to vote on the top three candidates: Jackson, Adams, and Crawford. Clay had come in fourth place and thus was ineligible, but he retained incredible power as Speaker of the House. Crawford was inviable due to the stroke.

Clay's personal dislike for Jackson and the similarity of his American System to Adams' position on tariffs and internal improvements caused him to throw his support to Adams, who was elected by the House on February 9, 1825, on the first ballot. Adams' victory shocked Jackson, who had gained the plurality of the electoral and popular votes and fully expected to be elected president. When Adams thereafter appointed Clay as Secretary of State —- the position that Adams and his three predecessors had held before becoming President —- Jacksonian Democrats were outraged, and claimed that Adams and Clay had struck a "corrupt bargain." This contention overshadowed Adams' term and greatly contributed to Adams' loss to Jackson four years later, in the 1828 election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quincy_Adams#1824.E2.80.9325_presidential_election

I am not going to go through every Presidential election since then to prove a negative for you.

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

anything that upsets the Wilderness Party of No is A Number 1 with me and AOK with me...

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | September 24, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

On the Sunday talk shows a day before Woodward's story appeared, Obama said he had not yet decided on a strategy in Afghanistan. "I'm certainly not one who believes in indefinite occupations of other countries," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press," as if the U.S. were occupying a country against the wishes of most of its inhabitants to the detriment of "the people." Shades of those early 1980s Marxist Latin America tracts.

The reaction to the most recent moves has been harsh, and from unexpected quarters. Leslie Gelb, former head of the Council on Foreign Relations, and the editorial writers of The Washington Post have expressed astonishment at Obama's apparent switch on Afghanistan. Edward Lucas, former Eastern European correspondent for The Economist, wrote in the Telegraph of London: "The picture emerging from the White House is a disturbing one, of timidity, clumsiness and short-term calculation. Some say he is the weakest president since Jimmy Carter."

But on foreign policy as his record emerges -- as he reverses himself on missile defense and perhaps on Afghanistan -- his motivating principle seems rooted in an analysis, common in his formative university years, that America has too often been on the side of the bad guys. The response has been to disrespect those who have been our friends and to bow to our enemies.

Posted by: snowbama | September 24, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

@mascmen7

You, sir, are a hysterical idiot.

Posted by: drgrepper | September 24, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Paul Kirk ain't a U.S. Senator until his credentials are accepted and he's sworn in.

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

If present trends continue, the Kenyan messiah and his rump legislature called Congress will be thrown into the ash heap of history. This messiah scares me as much as Comrade Putin, his buddy.

Posted by: mascmen7 | September 24, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama was handed an economy on the verge of the next depression...George senior handed Clinton a far less disastrous economy and deficit

Posted by: mm14 | September 24, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

At his direction, his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, is doing her best to compel the new leaders of Honduras to violate their own constitution, under which the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court have removed the Castro and Chavez acolyte who was about to impose Fidelism on the Honduran people. Secretary Clinton et al. wants the deposed president restored to power -- after the fashion of American practice in, for instance, Haiti.

Contemplating these recent Obamanian words and actions, the mind recalls nothing quite so much as Jimmy Carter's marker for similar brilliance when he said, in effect -- regarding Afghanistan -- they never told me things were so nasty and mean.

Obama may understand the grim possible outcomes -- grim for America and what used to be called the Free World -- of the games he's playing in Honduras, with Israel and the Palestinians in the Middle East, regarding European missile-defense, and in Afghanistan -- or he may not. His mind may inhabit realms of genius vastly beyond the everyday rest of us. His high messianic brilliance may blind our low human comprehension.

Or the community organizer from Chicago may match in naivete -- and in laughable leftist idiocy -- the peanut farmer from Plains.

Posted by: snowbama | September 24, 2009 12:15 PM | Report abuse

mwallace8831 (and rmk1122):

Just as with the Florida Supreme Court decision to allow further recounting of hanging chads impacted every other American citizen, I have the First Amendment right to lodge my complaint with Sec. Galvin -- we are not residents of Mass., but my wife and I did protest in front of Prof. Gates's house with a Mass. resident last time we were there -- no one is saying that the GOP "legal opinion" is a ruling of any sort. I would imagine if the tables were turned and the GOP were getting the advantage in the U.S. Senate, you would be voicing your opinion against that too.

I also did cite my source.

justjoeking:

Please see my answer to "mwallace8831" above. Odd or not, the lady at Sec. Galvin's toll-free number answered the phone this morning and knew exactly what I was calling about. She said "I will put you down". I also e-mailed, if that's OK with you?

mm14:

Are you claiming that the reference to the Mass. statutes and General Court ruling set forth in Ms. Nassour's letter are not "facts" (and, as I just pointed out to "mwallace8831", a sufficient legal opinion)? Well, my "proof" then would be that Bush v. Gore was the most egregious power grab in American politics since at least 1824 -- you aren't disagreeing with that part, are you -- because the instant power play involves "only" the U.S. Senate, it is not as egregious. Or, do you want me to "prove a negative" that there have been no other, more egregious power plays in between?

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Put the polls in their proper perspective-

OK he has the worst rating of any president at this stage, other than Bill Clinton.

considering that starting piint, that is significant.

Posted by: snowbama | September 24, 2009 12:10 PM | Report abuse

"snowbama" Put the polls in their proper perspective- is there ANY politician with better polling numbers in this recession? How do the numbers compare to Bush or his predecessors during recession climates? Which Republicans have numbers even in the same zip code? Context matters- these numbers are better than any in the just-say-no party

Posted by: mm14 | September 24, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

awesome! now sign healthcare legislation with or without republicans. they dont like change. if Mass. elected a democrat to the senate, they should get that. the special election will decide if they like either a rep. or a dem. its their state.

Posted by: rmk1122 | September 24, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Bad editing, there, Cillizza. Earlier it said six "appointments" now you say sixth to join this year. Franken wasn't the only ELECTED Senator to join the Senate this year, only the tardiest.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 24, 2009 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Barry sinking fast:

Independent voters are turning away from President Obama and his fellow Democrats in droves. And if they can't find a way to get them back, the party could be in deep trouble for 2010 and beyond.

Independents gave Obama the White House last year with a vote for pragmatic competence. They have been repaid with partisanship and dithering. And unlike liberals who Obama has quickly re-energized after their summer doldrums, independents are devilishly hard to win back once they lose faith.

The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, the Rolls-Royce of public surveys, showed that for the first time, independents disapproved of the president's performance, 46 percent to 41 percent.

Posted by: snowbama | September 24, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

No confidence:

Finally, the poll suggests the public has growing doubts about the Obama agenda in general, and not just the president's handling of any single issue. The Journal asked "How confident are you that Barack Obama has the right set of goals and policies to be president of the United States -- extremely confident, quite confident, only somewhat confident, or not at all confident?" The number of people who are extremely or quite confident is 45 percent, down from 54 percent in February. The number of people who are only somewhat confident or not at all confident is 54 percent, up from 45 percent in February.

Breaking it down a little further, the number of people who say they are extremely confident in Obama's goals has fallen from 31 percent in February to 24 percent today, while the number of people who say they are not at all confident has risen from 19 percent in February to 31 percent today.

Posted by: snowbama | September 24, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, it's traditional to cite someone else's work when cutting and pasting into a comments section. RedMassGroup and other Web sites also posted this letter, written by the Chair of the Massachusetts Republican Party.

So no, to answer your questions, those aren't "facts"; they are the opinions of a politician from the opposing party. I don't go to Fox News for information about Obama's policies, and I don't go to the Mass. Republican Party for a legal ruling on how Ted Kennedy's Senate seat will be filled.

JakeD, do you live in Massachusetts? Seems you would have mentioned it by now if you have. If not, please let we Mass. residents handle our own Senate seats. I wouldn't write to your Sec. of State; please don't write to mine. It's a state matter, and we'll handle it. Thanks very much.

Posted by: mwallace8831 | September 24, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris,
Did you forget that Sen. Franken is also a new Senator???

Posted by: minnelusa | September 24, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm not Democrat or a Republican. I'd just like to see our elected representatives actually work toward good, commonsense legislation, instead of partisan trickery. In my opinion, it would be better not to use reconciliation on the health-care bill, but that would be better than dragging this out till next year. There are more important things to work on.

I'm also not a Massachusetts resident. Are you, JakeD? If not, clogging the phone lines of a government office in another state is a pretty odd move. My guess is they won't answer the phones.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 24, 2009 11:59 AM | Report abuse

justjoeking:

Apparently, sometime after Sept. 15 (at least according to the State GOP Chairman in the letter I just excerpted), the General Court rejected the emergency preamble language; and, the Governor does not have the Constitutional authority to file with the Secretary of the Commonwealth a letter, in accordance with article 48, The referendum, II, declaring that the preservation of the public convenience requires that the law be immediately effective.

Sounds like enough to get the GOP in the U.S. Senate ready for a filibuster ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 11:49 AM | Report abuse

JakeD you posted a response to me saying this was the most egregious power grab since bush v gore-- proof?

The just-say-no party is particularly impotent in MA- turns out Galvin is fairly chummy with democrats. Good luck with your campaign to stall the interim appointment.

Posted by: mm14 | September 24, 2009 11:47 AM | Report abuse

The rest of us right-thinking citizens who are upset about this rank hypocrisy should contact Sec. Galvin's office and urge him to NOT accept the Governor's emergency letter:

Tel: (617) 727-7030
Toll Free: 1-800-392-6090
TTY: (617) 878-3889
Fax: (617) 742-4528
E-mail: cis@sec.state.ma.us

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Got that from Boston Globe dated Sept 15. I doubt there was a change in the wording. Regardless, if Patrick wasn't willing to declare it an emergency he wouldn't have gone down this path in the first place. The only thing worse than being a partisan hack is being a failed partisan hack.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 24, 2009 11:40 AM | Report abuse

mm14:

Was that enough "facts" for you?

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 11:39 AM | Report abuse

The Mass. State GOP is urging a legal challenge as well (but Galvin is a Dem -- so this probably won't stop it -- might as well start making a record):

The Honorable William Francis Galvin
Secretary of the Commonwealth
One Ashburton Place, Room 1611
Boston, Massachusetts 02108-1512

Dear Secretary Galvin:

I am writing to urge you to reject Governor Deval Patrick's expected letter attempting to invoke article II of amendment 48, The Referendum, II, declaring an emergency to enact the law allowing for an interim senator to fill a vacant U.S. Senate seat. The General Court rejected an emergency preamble; and, the Governor does not have the Constitutional authority to file with the Secretary of the Commonwealth a letter, in accordance with article 48, The referendum, II, declaring that the preservation of the public convenience requires that the law be immediately effective.

This is not a political opinion, this is a legal decision so issued by the Supreme Judicial Court in an Opinion of the Justices to the Governor (368 Mass 889, October 27, 1975). In following said SJC's 1975 opinion, Governor Patrick is not within his constitutional powers, and accordingly, this letter respectfully request that you do not accept said emergency declaration for filing with your office

The Supreme Judicial Court has set forth that the Governor's letter to the Secretary declaring an emergency law can only be used when a law is subject to a referendum; and further, only when the law could be subject to suspension of its operation under The Referendum, III, Section 3. In such an instance, the Governor's letter declaring an emergency law would have the effect of terminating that suspension. No such suspension of law threat is viable in this case. The law, as signed, cannot be subject to a referendum petition or a request for suspension. According to the Secretary of the Commonwealth's web site, submission of original petitions to Attorney General to originate an initiative petition for a constitutional amendment were due August 5, 2009. That date has passed, and with a special election slated for January 19, 2010 a referendum cannot be had.

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 11:38 AM | Report abuse

JakeD -

respectfully (and I really don't have anything against Kennedy per se) but his job is not to hold on at all costs. His job is to serve the people of his state. There is no way that anyone dealing with dire and fatal health condition had the physical or mental capacity to fulfill their sworn duties. Kennedy (like Byrd and a host of other Senators) should know when to hang 'em up. The Senate needs to be refreshed.

Posted by: ballgame | September 24, 2009 11:38 AM | Report abuse

(cont.)

In the SJC's opinion referenced herein, the Court explained that the Governor's declaration of emergency can only be used to close the threat of a referendum suspension of the law. As that is not the case in this instance, the people of the Commonwealth do not have The Referendum III, section 3 suspension as an option, as was intended by the authors of our constitutional protections and processes. So, no such threat exists.

According to the SJC: "The gubernatorial authority to forestall or undo the suspensive effect of a referendum petition was imported into article 48 as one of the means of providing some check on the power of a small minority of the voters to nullify adopted legislation until the next eligible Statewide election." As stated, there is no circumstance of such a referendum suspension threat regarding the current matter. As explained, this cannot even be in this case; therefore, the Governor is acting outside of his constitutional authority of protecting the citizen's from a "small minority of the voters." Moreover, the Governor is acting outside his authority to unilaterally overrule the will of the General Court, our Commonwealth's representatives.

Therefore, I respectfully implore you to exercise your Constitutional authority and to not accept the Governor's letter. Or, at the least, please seek an SJC advisory opinion regarding the Constitutionality of your accepting a patently unconstitutional letter from the Governor.

Mr. Secretary, you are our Commonwealth's final line of defense in upholding the Constitution on behalf of its citizens. We are grateful for your service to our state.

Respectfully submitted,


Jennifer A. Nassour
Chairman
Massachusetts Republican Party

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 11:37 AM | Report abuse

JakeD, you're entitled to your opinion. Do you care to support your position with any facts, evidence, or context?

Posted by: mm14 | September 24, 2009 11:34 AM | Report abuse

ballgame:

I am glad that the Lion of the Senate held on to the bitter end (and am praying for Sen. Byrd to hang in until at least January ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

justjoeking:

CNN.com is reporting that the measure "would not go into effect for 90 days —- a period that ends just a month before the scheduled special election for a permanent successor to complete the remainder of Kennedy's Senate term –- unless two-thirds of the state House voted to bypass the delay and enact the measure immediately.

Democrats fell just short of that mark, with a final state House vote of 95-59. But Patrick also has the power to declare an emergency, which would allow the provision to go into effect right away."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/24/mass-governor-to-name-kennedy-replacement-today/

Perhaps you are quoting an amended bill that didn't pass?

(Hat tip to Bubbette ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 11:32 AM | Report abuse

FLVet wrote: mm14 I don't want one hack appointment by your ultra liberal state deciding for the other 49 states the economic fate of our children and grandchildren when the cost spiral out of control as any government program does.
-----
It is not one person but a majority of 60...most of whom were duly elected...you know, like when the Republicans controlled Congress and had their way.

Posted by: FactChecker1 | September 24, 2009 11:31 AM | Report abuse

So, of course, the Republicans are upset with the fact that MA. will have the two Senators the Constitution calls for. You wouldn't want to undermine the Constitution and the represntation the people of MA. are allowed, would you? You love to point to the Constitution to deny the people of D.C. a vote in Congress. Get over it.

Posted by: jckdoors | September 24, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Kennedy - knowing his health concerns, should have stepped aside to allow for his replacement to be in place in a timely manner. As a statesman, even though he fought for health care for many years, he shouldn't have selfishly held on just so his name could be attached to it. he should have put the principle ahead of his own need for accompalishment.

If anything the whole situation should remind us that Senator term limits are very much needed.

Posted by: ballgame | September 24, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Hopefully, the GOP in the U.S. Senate move to block Kirk from being sworn in.

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

FLvet wrote: "I don't want one hack appointment by your ultra liberal state deciding for the other 49 states the economic fate of our children and grandchildren when the cost spiral out of control as any government program does."

Sounds like another Republican/Conservative who is only concerned with deficits when Democrats are in the majority.

Conveniently forgetting the huge appropriations for the war in Iraq and going back to Saint Ron Reagan who increased the deficit in an enormous way.

Posted by: lcdrrek | September 24, 2009
========================

Wow! another clueless liberal, lcdrrek

You should know thats its the Legislative Branch that controls the spending and thus deficits........NOT the Executive Branch.

Take less courses in "Saving the Planet 101" and take more on "US Government 101"

Posted by: allenridge | September 24, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse


"An Act Relative to Filling a Temporary Vacancy in the United State Senate

Whereas, The deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat its purpose, which is forthwith to provide for the full representation of the commonwealth in the United States Senate pending a special election, therefore it is hereby declared to be an emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health and convenience.

SECTION 1. Section 140 of chapter 54 of the General Laws, as appearing in 2008 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after subsection (e) the following new subsection:-
(f) Upon failure to choose a senator in congress or upon a vacancy in said office the governor shall make a temporary appointment to fill the vacancy; provided, however, that the person so appointed shall serve until the election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill such vacancy pursuant to paragraph (a) or paragraph (c); and provided further, any person so appointed shall be of the same political party as the person vacating the office and thereby creating the vacancy."

Nothing saying the appointee can't run.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 24, 2009 11:27 AM | Report abuse

FLvet wrote: "I don't want one hack appointment by your ultra liberal state deciding for the other 49 states the economic fate of our children and grandchildren when the cost spiral out of control as any government program does."

Sounds like another Republican/Conservative who is only concerned with deficits when Democrats are in the majority.

Conveniently forgetting the huge appropriations for the war in Iraq and going back to Saint Ron Reagan who increased the deficit in an enormous way.

Posted by: lcdrrek | September 24, 2009 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Bottom line; the Massachusetts legislature knew that Romney didn't have the integrity to appoint a democrat to replace Kerry. They knew he'd do the sleazy thing and appoint fill a Democrat-vacated seat with a Republican against the will of the voters. It was a measure taken to prevent a specific opportunistic Gov. from flouting the will of the voters. And it was probably the right call.

Posted by: CraigBettenhausen |
============================

Hard to believe a flaming liberal, CraigBettenhasen, is actually out here supporting corruption........sad.

BTW Hasen........Mitt Romney was a Republican and he was elected by the people of Massachusetts, so why shouldn't he pick a Republican?

Let the "people" decide not an old corrupt left-ist party

Posted by: allenridge | September 24, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

mm14:

It the most egregious since Bush v. Gore.

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

allenridge:

The ACORN does not fall far from the tree ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Brsdad, good manners are a sign of a good education. I think we both clearly know your labels are misplaced and misinformed.

Perhaps you should enroll in a college level course at Harvard or MIT addressing the American Political Process- both schools have conservative and liberal scholars, take your choice of courses. It sounds like you'll be enlightened, perhaps, disheartened to discover that this senate appointment is not even close to the most egregious power grab in American politics. Spare me your hyperbole and false outrage.

Posted by: mm14 | September 24, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

CraigBettenhausen:

Then why didn't the Dems pass a law requiring Gov. Romney to select an interim Senator from the same party as the vacating Senator?

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 11:21 AM | Report abuse

....... THE FIX........certainly is appropriate in this case.

The Democrats "talk" a good game but their actions are usually 180 degrees away from there "talk".

In this case the Democrats work there way around We The People...............sad.

Posted by: allenridge | September 24, 2009 11:21 AM | Report abuse

What's up with the comments section today? I assume I'm not the only one seeing center justified text. Ah, just saw a few comments on this point.

Having a former aide is the right kind of place holder. The same party or agrees not to run, I'm not so in tune with that. If there's an appointment process, I prefer nominated by the governor and approved by the State Senate.

Now, the Byrd watch begins.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | September 24, 2009 11:20 AM | Report abuse

What happened to "We The People" what a bunch of BS change the law to suit the high and mighty. Where is the vote of the people wait don't tell me it cost too much money to hold a special election. Why hell Teddy want mind use some of his millions he lined his pockets w/ for years. What a bunch of phony people. Crooks of the highest level a complete embarrassment to not only the People of Ma. but to the whole country.
We have an ILLEGAL ALIEN masquerading as POTUS tell the Gov. of New York not to run and now another bunch of crooks changing the law, must be drinking out of the same bottle w/ obama.
All of those that cannot abide by the law or the Constitution need to be thrown from office TERM LIMITS!!! IMPEACH obama NOW!!!

Posted by: WRH51 | September 24, 2009 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Glory Be!...And Praise the Lord!

Another election run by Democrats where:

1) Every voted counted.

2) There Were No lobbyists.

3) It makes Senator Burris look like a Saint.

4) Total Transparency & Change.

5) Legal retroactive precedence.

6) It was done for the children, universal health care, fairness, end all wars and to save the world's environment.

and, most importantly,

7 through 1 billion) No conflict of interest.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is an ignorant racist hater, anti-state's rights, ReThuglican, ReKKKuglican; it's Bush's fault, Haliburton, War in Iraq, Cheney, blahBlahblah.

Posted by: bob59 | September 24, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Bottom line; the Massachusetts legislature knew that Romney didn't have the integrity to appoint a democrat to replace Kerry. They knew he'd do the sleazy thing and appoint fill a Democrat-vacated seat with a Republican against the will of the voters. It was a measure taken to prevent a specific opportunistic Gov. from flouting the will of the voters. And it was probably the right call.

Posted by: CraigBettenhausen | September 24, 2009 11:17 AM | Report abuse

king-of-zouk:

Welcome back!!!

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 11:17 AM | Report abuse

"The newly revised Mass law is the best of all worlds and should be considered by EVERY state.
1)The governor appoints an interim senator of the same party as the the departing/departed senator---consistent with the voters' wishes who elected the previous incumbent.
2)The people of the state have nearly continuous , full representation in the Senate.
3)A special election is scheduled in 4-5 months which allows an appropriate primary/general election process for the voters to make an informed selection for the long term.
4) The interim is NOT a candidate in the special election so there is no political advantage to him/her in that election."

It's part of the law that the interim can't run for the special election?

Posted by: DDAWD | September 24, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

The problem with term limits is that, as Massachusetts has so aptly demonstrated, the method of selection of Senators is a state issue. It would not be in a state's interest to pass term limits and thus have perpetually the most junior senators.

The US Congress can't pass a term-limit law--it would have to be a Constitutional Amendment. There is no will of the people to do such a thing. Everyone wants term limits for everyone else's (or the other party's) congressmen, but not their own.

Individually, the voters in a given state may vote out an old geezer in the primary or the general election. For example, I would expect Senator Byrd (D-WV) not to run for re-election in 2012, if he lives that long. If he DOES run, I would hope the voters would look at recent events and vote him out.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 24, 2009 11:13 AM | Report abuse

mm14:

I too am a Massachusetts citizen and voter and a member of the largest bloc of voters--unenrolled. Most unenrolled voters are watching this display of political arrogance with disgust.

Why do I think I am subsidizing your life? You are either on welfare, a teacher or another union member. Right?

Posted by: brsdad | September 24, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse

jmsbh:

Why didn't the Dems allow Gov. Romney that power. They took it away from him completely just five (5) short years ago.

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 11:08 AM | Report abuse

What's really funny is because I think it's wrong that MA goes against it's own law that I must be for the GOP. I've been a Dem all my life. BTW I thought it was wrong when they changed the law the first time. If we'd quit reelecting the same old hacks they wouldn't keel over. Term limits.

Posted by: FLvet | September 24, 2009 11:04 AM | Report abuse

jwestlake: Yes, Massachusetts has voted in Republican governors. Other states have voted in governors from the less dominant party; Hawaii has a Republican, Kansas had a Democrat, etc.

But people look for different things in a senator than a governor. If the people of a state vote for a Democratic senator, they want a Democratic senator, even if they also voted for a Republican governor. It's not fair to let the Republican governor appoint a member of his party and overrule the will of the people.

The requirement that the replacement senator be of the same party is the best thing about the MA law. It prevents all kinds of political trickery. If the people of the state want the seat to change hands, they can vote for that during the special election.

Posted by: Blarg | September 24, 2009 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Paul Kirk...another loony lib.

Posted by: king-of-zouk | September 24, 2009 10:48 AM | Report abuse

One reader comments that Massachusetts "lectured the country about ethical good government for years." Were it only so.

In the summer of 1964, then-Sen. Barry Goldwater visited and held a rally of his fervent supporters at Fenway Park. When he told his audience he was delighted to be speaking in the cradle of America's traditions of government the crowd howled.

Massachusetts was the home of Boston Mayor Curley, the "rascal king" once re-elected from jail. It was then in the pits of a long corruption scandal, prompting creation of the Cabot commission in 1953, followed by the Massachusetts Crime Commission under Chapter 146 of the Acts and Resolves of 1962, then the Ward commission in 1978.

One of the many episodes involved John "Iron Duke" Thompson of Ludlow, former Speaker of the Massachusetts House, who was indicted for bribery in May, 1964, but nevertheless re-elected. Later, in the 1980s, State Sen. Vinnie Piro resigned. A political opponent got hold of a tape recording asking for "some walkin' around money...gotta grease a few guys."

For better or worse, that's a much longer Massachusetts tradition than the "good government" spirit promoted by the three Dukakis administrations.

Posted by: AppDev | September 24, 2009 10:47 AM | Report abuse

The newly revised Mass law is the best of all worlds and should be considered by EVERY state.
1)The governor appoints an interim senator of the same party as the the departing/departed senator---consistent with the voters' wishes who elected the previous incumbent.
2)The people of the state have nearly continuous , full representation in the Senate.
3)A special election is scheduled in 4-5 months which allows an appropriate primary/general election process for the voters to make an informed selection for the long term.
4) The interim is NOT a candidate in the special election so there is no political advantage to him/her in that election.

How is this in any way unfair or "undemocratic" ? If this were in place in many more states , we wouldn't have had teh Illinois, Florida, etc messes. It would also make it possible for seriously ill senators to step aside more easily , knowing that a rational , orderly and truly democratis process would unfold.
While this Massachusetts process cannot be implemented by federal law, since states have the right to determine how seantors are elected/replaced, it is a model for others to adopt---before it is needed. I will be writing my state of Maryland representatives to enact such legislation in the next session of the Maryland General Assembly.

Posted by: jmsbh | September 24, 2009 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Check out todays Boston Herald and read about Kirks ties to the Hartford insurance group as well as lobbyist for large pharmaceuticals. I wonder if the WAPO and others will look into this conflict of interest?

Posted by: livefreeordie2 | September 24, 2009 10:41 AM | Report abuse

While it is too easy to throw bricks at this situation, it is worth noting that Massachusetts has made progress in undoing what was a terrible move in 2004. The power of appointment should never have been taken away from the governor in the first place.

It is a shame that this restoration is tarnished by the requirement that the appointment be someone from the same party. The people "own" the seat, not any given party. Despite the overwhelming Democratic party composition of the state, they have amazingly voted in a number of opposing party governors over the last 40 years (7 out of the last 12 were Republican).

Perhaps a future court challenge will remedy this glaring example of political ham-handedness. Or perhaps, this will be one more addition to Massachusetts' political legacy to the nation, listed somewhere near "Gerrymandering."

Posted by: jwestlake | September 24, 2009 10:37 AM | Report abuse

The "FIX" is in.

Politicians are the scum of the earth!

Posted by: JAH3 | September 24, 2009 10:36 AM | Report abuse

TO: "ATrueChristian" @ 10:17 a.m.

Something about your handle leads me to wonder if I'm not looking at a "spoofed" page that's not going out to WaPo computers...

Or are you on another type of crusade?

Sorry to CC for the off-topic... if this gets to him at all..

Posted by: scrivener50 | September 24, 2009 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Scrivner, your experience with the page not properly refreshing is something I also experience, especially when I have browsed away from the page and then return. I now refresh when I return to the page. I'm not having to hit refresh twice, but I often have to hit the back button twice to get it to register.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | September 24, 2009 10:34 AM | Report abuse

That all these conservatives are all suddenly advocates of good government shows the hypocrisy and opportunism of their ilk. These successional issues never arose when Republican vacancies in Republican states arose.

What the4 Repubs are trying to do is to cloud history and pretend that the appointment is a historical anomaly. It is not. What is also true is the history of minority powers waiting for political leaders to die so that they can gain narrow political advantage. Here the GOP was hoping to one, stall the seating of a new Senator so they can kill health care (is that representative of the state's will?). Secondly they hope take advantage of the situation to build resistance to the Democratic governors re-election next fall. You see, Republicans are happy to support crass political moves - if they advantage THEM!

Posted by: chuck2 | September 24, 2009 10:32 AM | Report abuse

One must also realize that each of the last 3 senate leaders is either a felon or is being prosecuted as we speak. Just last week the state rep who voted to increase sales tax 25% and start taxing alcohol was found buying booze in tax free New Hampshire ! That about sums up Mass politics. The people of that state should be embarrassed for themselves. Allowing the state government to change the laws without their consent. Barney Frank, Kennedy, Kerry...that says it all.

Posted by: livefreeordie2 | September 24, 2009 10:30 AM | Report abuse

JohnnyApple, incorrect yet again. Civil Rights and Voting Rights are Federal matters- when you deny your residents basic protections afforded by the constitution, the grownups need to get involved.

Posted by: mm14 | September 24, 2009 10:29 AM | Report abuse

True Christian and FlVet, the home called and if you phone in the next hour they'll send the truck and you'll be back in time for lunch.

"Praise the Lord, there's yeast in dem cotton fields and dat South's gonna rise again." GOP="Goofy Old Philanderers"

Posted by: NotBubba | September 24, 2009 10:25 AM | Report abuse

mm14: Yes, it's a state matter, just like civil rights legislation and voting rights should be a state matter, like the 1960's, right??

Massachusetts = Backwards!!!

Posted by: johnnyapplewhite123 | September 24, 2009 10:24 AM | Report abuse

FalseChristian, Romney was an exception not the rule. The legislature in MA was and is overwhelmingly democratic. At the time, polls showed the residents of Massachusetts STRONGLY favored a democrat replacing Kerry should a vacancy occur. Those are the facts. It was not the will of the people to elect a republican senator to represent an overwhelmingly democratic state.

Posted by: mm14 | September 24, 2009 10:20 AM | Report abuse

scrivener50,

Same thing for me, its coming across as centered vs. left. Kind of harder to read but...

Posted by: ATrueChristian | September 24, 2009 10:17 AM | Report abuse

FLvet look at it from my point of view- I need a hack to offset your hack in the Senate, neutering your hack's vote. As an economist, I actually do not need a lecture on public economics from you. Thanks.

Posted by: mm14 | September 24, 2009 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Staterights,
I find your name ironic since you spent your post lambbasting a State for excersizing its rights and changing the law as it sees fit.

Posted by: AndyR3 | September 24, 2009 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Shocking that a state would alter its election laws for partisan purposes. Oh, wait a minute, states do that all the time. Don't worry wingnuts - this is just for a few months. Then you can register your disapproval by voting Republican in the Special Election in January. Good luck with that!

Posted by: ElrodinTennessee | September 24, 2009 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Once again, we see that this is how the demoncrats work. Hillary who had no connections to NY whatsoever is able to run for Senator of NY and WIN despite never having lived in, nor even having relatives in, NY prior to her decision to run for the Senate seat there (it was AFTER she decided to run, that she and Bill actually "bought" a house in NY state [and I use "bought" loosely since it was actually purchased by a supporter and "donated" to the Clintons]).

And to MM, it was the WILL of the PEOPLE of Mass who voted in a REPUBLICAN governor, but it was the will of the demoncrats to make sure he could not automatically appoint someone for a Senate seat had one come open under his term (i.e. had Kerry actually won the Presidency). Therefore your argument holds no water, as most demoncratic arguments tend not to.

I find it ironic that although the party's name is "Democratic", they are the least democratic party of the two. At least the repubs try to game the system by gerrymandering, demoncrats don't bother with the games, they just change the rules to suit the time. Both parties value control over what's right for the people, that's why its time for a viable third and even a viable fourth party to spice things up and re-democratize the election process.

Posted by: ATrueChristian | September 24, 2009 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Now, let's get public option health care passed.

Posted by: glenglish | September 24, 2009 10:12 AM | Report abuse

I love a state that has situational ethics. In other words we only pretend to have ethics and moral standards when it benefits us finanacially and in our power. I imagine that the same comments here about legislating the will of the people were praising the move to take the power away from the governor when it did not meet their needs. There is only one word for the people and legislature of the pitiful state of massachusetts --hypocrites.

Posted by: staterighter | September 24, 2009 10:11 AM | Report abuse

mm14 I don't want one hack appointment by your ultra liberal state deciding for the other 49 states the economic fate of our children and grandchildren when the cost spiral out of control as any government program does.

Posted by: FLvet | September 24, 2009 10:11 AM | Report abuse

I love a state that has situational ethics. In other words we only pretend to have ethics and moral standards when it benefits us finanacially and in our power. I imagine that the same comments here about legislating the will of the people were praising the move to take the power away from the governor when it did not meet their needs. There is only one word for the people and legislature of the pitiful state of massachusetts --hypocrites.

Posted by: staterighter | September 24, 2009 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Johnapplewhite123, I'll join mm14's response. Governor Miner, in Delaware, made the right choice in nominating Ted Kaufman. Senator Kaufman has long experience as a Senate staffer. The voters of DE, and I hope to be one soon, will make the choice of who serves a full six year term.

Massachusetts has had it's share of whatever you wish to call it. It is not, however, a cesspool of reactionary thoughts, words and deeds like some of the states that are the every shrinking GOP base.

Mr. Kirk is a fine human being and will represent the Commonwealth with great distinction.

Posted by: NotBubba | September 24, 2009 10:10 AM | Report abuse

What a shameful and disgusting display by the Dems in Massachusetts. Another stain in US history.

Posted by: ArlingtonHokie | September 24, 2009 10:09 AM | Report abuse

The new law states that the governor must appoint someone of the same political party as the departing Senator. So Massachusetts now has a system that guarantees full Senate representation while allowing the people to choose their new Senator, and it prevents a hostile governor from screwing with the process.

For all of you that whine about hypocrisy and shame and chutzpah: Describe a better system for filling a vacant Senate seat.

Posted by: Blarg | September 24, 2009 10:08 AM | Report abuse

I thought Burris was appointed in December 2008? Not seated until sometime in January of course.

All the hue and cry about hypocrisy and fairness is just sour grapes. If the GOP hadn't been using stalling tactics on healthcare all summer, Ted could have voted on it then and this would be a moot point.

But the GOP crassly hoped that the Dems would be without a 60th Senator until January--more stalling, putting it into an election year, hoping to squeeze more out of it or kill it.

It's all politics, yes. You can call it hypocrisy, but the Mass. leg. did its job, the guv is doing his job, and the voters of Mass. can judge them on that next year. Meanwhile the US Senate will function as it would have if Senator Kennedy had not died.

The Dems may be hypocrits. But so are the GOP--and ghouls on top of that.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 24, 2009 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Hopefully, there is a successful legal challenge.

Posted by: JakeD | September 24, 2009 10:07 AM | Report abuse

POINTS OF INFORMATION:

"The Fix" is coming out on my computer "centered" this morning -- not flush left as per usual.

Also, when I type "blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix" it shows up as "VOICES.washingtonpost.com/thefix. When I re-enter the "blog" prefix, sometimes it comes out "blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix" and sometimes it does not.

Also, sometimes hitting the browser "refresh" button updates the pages, and sometimes it does not.

Is my connection being tampered with, perhaps by government surveillance operatives on a witch-hunt -- as described in the article linked below?

http://nowpublic.com/world/govt-fusion-center-spying-pretext-harass-and-censor

Is anyone else experienced these phenomena?

Thank you.

Posted by: scrivener50 | September 24, 2009 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Johnnyapple, I live in the great state of Massachusetts, a state that is 62% DEMOCRAT and counting... The selection of a democratic senator is UNQUESTIONABLY the will of the people of Massachusetts. It's smart politics to legislate the people's will. We know who we want to represent us- Kirk will do a great job representing my fellow residents. Frankly this is a local matter- your views are not relevant.

Posted by: mm14 | September 24, 2009 10:00 AM | Report abuse

It's "THE FIX" alright.

From a WSJ Editorial this past August:

"Senator Ted Kennedy, who is gravely ill with brain cancer, has sent a letter to Massachusetts lawmakers requesting a change in the state law that determines how his Senate seat would be filled if it became vacant before his eighth full term ends in 2012. Current law mandates that a special election be held at least 145 days after the seat becomes available. Mr. Kennedy is concerned that such a delay could leave his fellow Democrats in the Senate one vote short of a filibuster-proof majority for months while a special election takes place.

"I therefore am writing to urge you to work together to amend the law through the normal legislative process to provide for a temporary gubernatorial appointment until the special election occurs," writes the Senator.

What Mr. Kennedy doesn't volunteer is that he orchestrated the 2004 succession law revision that now requires a special election, and for similarly partisan reasons. John Kerry, the other Senator from the state, was running for President in 2004, and Mr. Kennedy wanted the law changed so the Republican Governor at the time, Mitt Romney, could not name Mr. Kerry's replacement. "Prodded by a personal appeal from Senator Edward M. Kennedy," reported the Boston Globe in 2004, "Democratic legislative leaders have agreed to take up a stalled bill creating a special election process to replace U.S. Senator John F. Kerry if he wins the presidency." Now that the state has a Democratic Governor, Mr. Kennedy wants to revert to gubernatorial appointments.

Beacon Hill has long sported heavy Democratic majorities, so the state legislature has the votes to grant Mr. Kennedy's wish. But does it have the chutzpah? An election is the more democratic option. After witnessing recent attempts by incompetent Governors in Illinois and New York to fill Senate vacancies, Massachusetts voters may have soured on such appointments. Especially when Mr. Kennedy's motivation for changing the law is so obviously born of partisan interest, not principle."

Posted by: nestor21 | September 24, 2009 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Changing the law to suit the needs for one political party is now considering par for the course.

I would say something about shame, but that is something politicians have no concept of anyway.

Posted by: Chuckled | September 24, 2009 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Massachusetts gets the political sleazy award for CRONYISM and HYPOCRISY.

These are the people who have lectured the country about ethical good government for years, yet they'll change their own laws for political reasons.

This is almost as bad as the governor of Delaware nominating a Biden political hack to hold the Senate seat for his son.

Posted by: johnnyapplewhite123 | September 24, 2009 9:48 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company