Okay, so the representatives of MA stepped in it. They thought Lurch was going to win in 2004, and were aghast at the prospect of Governor Romney {spit} possibly appointing a {GASP} REPUBLICAN (imagine it said with the same distaste one would normally use for "barbarian" or, in MA, "gun owner") to Kerry's seat.
At the eleventh hour, they changed state law that had been in place for years that allows the governor to choose a successor should a Senate seat become vacant, insisting instead on a popular election. "Let the will of the people be heard" was a common refrain, appealing to the sense of Democracy upon which this country was based.
And it lasted all of five years, when a change in the political party of the governor and the death of a Senator made all their maneuvering blow up in their faces. Ted Kennedy went to face his eternal judgement, and Democratic Governor "Cadillac" Deval Patrick is sitting in the governor's mansion utterly unable to fill the position.
Now the cries are "MA should have full representation!" as they stumble over themselves to reverse the five year old policy. The raw, naked hypocrisy goes all but unnoticed; the sheer rank partisanship dismissed as a "political side".
So here's my crazy idea: If it's so all-fired important that MA have two Senators, as they're all saying; and if the person who would be appointed to the position would be ineligible to run at the conclusion of the term, as they're all saying, prove you mean what you say:
Appoint a Republican.
[Waits for laughter to die down]
Yeah, I didn't think you were serious...
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Jay, my idea is that if they want to prove they are not doing this to screw us than go ahead and change the law. . . but make it so the changes don't take effect until the next vacancy. . . .
A. The Democrats had no problem letting Tim Johnson lie in a coma (so much for not having representation) in order to avoid losing his seat to an appointment.
B. If Teddy K's ego wasn't as large as his waistline, he would've stepped down months ago and allowed the process to move as it should. Instead, he wanted to die a senator. His perogative, of course, and I'm not slamming him for trying to "fight the good fight", but that is one of the outcomes of someone fighting that fight: they're going to lose and they sometimes need to think of others intsead of their ego.
C. Since they're acting as sleazily in MA as they can, they should appoint Bob Torricelli.
As I understand it, the 2004 law isn't actually being reversed so much as modified, in that the special election it set up is still to be held (January 19?) to fill out the rest of the term to 2012. The appointment this modification would create would only be for the 4 months between now and January, not till 2012.
As far as who, if the people of MA had originally voted in a republican on 2006, then to respect the peoples' choice, the appointee should absolutely be a republican, until the people are allowed to change their mind in January. This should apply to RW's point A as well.
All that said, I think JD has the right idea, this only goes into effect the next time.
Post a Comment