November 24, 2012

"Power-hungry Bay State Democrats — eyeing another potential Senate opening if U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry joins the Obama Cabinet..."

"... are quietly discussing reinstating a 2004 law that would let Gov. Deval Patrick appoint a permanent replacement to help keep the seat under party control until at least 2014."
... The move comes eight years after Democratic lawmakers stripped then-Gov. Mitt Romney of his appointment powers in an effort to keep Republicans out of the office, and three years after they changed the law again to let Patrick appoint a temporary replacement.

54 comments:

Hagar said...

They should just enter this permanently into the state constitution; Democrat governors can appoint candidates to fill empty seats; Republicans no.

Pogo said...

Like the Iowa verdict, the SCOTUS ACA decsion, and the zero Romney votes in Philly and Chicago precincts, more evidence of the banana republic we've become.

Calypso Facto said...

Mohammed Morsi would feel right at home in Bay State politics.

Chip S. said...

it's a trial balloon.

A spokesman for House Speaker Robert DeLeo would say only, “The issue is not on the speaker’s radar at this time.” A spokesman for Senate President Therese Murray dismissed the idea, saying, “We’re not changing it.”

I can't believe there's not a provision in the state constitution about this.

Bob_R said...

Sometimes after a few drinks I think we should repeal the 17th amendment. But of course, that would require legislatures to actually take responsibility for the senate.

edutcher said...

And they say we'll all be like CA in 10 years...

AprilApple said...

Democrats quietly acting like dictators.

YoungHegelian said...

It's not that I really mind that the voters & polticos of Massachusetts do shit like this.

What bugs me is that these assholes actually have the gall to look down on Mississippi after they behave like this.

Is there any state in the union that sends more clowns to Congress again & again than these guys?

A buddy of mine who lived in Boston years ago said that he thought Bostonians were "the most provincial people on the planet who thought they weren't".

Gahrie said...

Democrats are actually proud to be scheming hypocrites.

samanthasmom said...

Ted Kennedy requested the change from appointment to election when he thought Kerry might become president and Romney was governor. The legislature complied. Kerry lost anyway. When Kennedy knew he was dying and Patrick was governor, he asked the legislature to change it back to appointment by the governor. The legislature declined, and we elected Scott Brown. I don't think there's overwhelming support for the legislature to return the law to appointment. I think the people of MA prefer the election process no matter which side of the aisle we support. Patrick would mostly likely appoint himself, and if we want him to be senator, we can elect him. Or we could choose Brown again. Wouldn't that be a hoot?

Lem said...

What if republicans could be persuaded to leave the state to prevent the legislature from voting on the measure?

I know... thats like from way out in left field.

edutcher said...

YoungHegelian said...

It's not that I really mind that the voters & polticos of Massachusetts do shit like this.

What bugs me is that these assholes actually have the gall to look down on Mississippi after they behave like this.

Is there any state in the union that sends more clowns to Congress again & again than these guys?

A buddy of mine who lived in Boston years ago said that he thought Bostonians were "the most provincial people on the planet who thought they weren't".


You (and he) broke the code.

virgil xenophon said...

A subset of the entire Eastern Seaboard north of the Mason-Dixon Line, i.e., "Atlantic Coast Provincials," YH..

rhhardin said...

Just let the legislature appoint the Senator again.

YoungHegelian said...

@edutcher/virgil

A subset of the entire Eastern Seaboard north of the Mason-Dixon Line, i.e., "Atlantic Coast Provincials," YH..

DC's full of them, so trust me, I know all too many.

SteveR said...

Seems like they should feel entirely confident with the direction of politics to not have to play these games but I suppose thats just the way they operate.

Michael K said...

" rhhardin said...
Just let the legislature appoint the Senator again."

Better yet, just let the governor sell the seat like Illinois does.

rcommal said...

This sort of rules- shifting is really corrupting and shameful. One hopes this trial balloon, if indeed it is, pops--and fast.

Lem said...

This sort of rules- shifting is really corrupting and shameful.

I know... no wonder gays, women and hispanics are leaving the republicans in droves.

Wait..

n.n said...

"Romneycare" became "Obamacare" after the Democratic lawmakers corrupted then-Gov. Mitt Romney's effort to create a universal Medicare. They failed to distinguish between contributory and net-negative contributory (i.e. welfare) entitlements and thus sponsored the corruption of a social entitlement.

Since their integration of the Progressive party, the Democratic party took what was a reactive movement and made it generational. This is the cause of progressive corruption. It is the evolution of good intentions which are internally inconsistent.

EDH said...

While there's an incremental advantage for Republicans in a special, off-year election, depending on the candidate, skipping the special election only slightly increases the Democrats advantage for the full term election in 2014.

Meanwhile, does Scott Brown really want to run two US Senate campaigns in two years yet again? As for the senate, might he prefer to run one, albeit slightly more difficult campaign against a hack hand-picked by the machine?

Instead, I wouldn't be surprised if Brown's eyes are on the governorship. It's a better fit for the hands-on retail politician he is, and like recent Mass Republican governors, he'd campaign as a moderate, fiscally conservative check on the Democrat-controlled legislature.

Combined with potential backlash, I suspect the Democrats won't change the rules. They'd like to see Brown run for senate and lose, which would all but eliminate his gubernatorial prospects.

Mary Beth said...

There were other Republican governors of Massachusetts before Romney, why did they wait until then to remove the governor's ability to make appointments? Were there just no opportunities for Massachusetts governors to make appointments during the '90s so there was no need to try to control the outcome?

Baron Zemo said...

YoungHegelian said:
A buddy of mine who lived in Boston years ago said that he thought Bostonians were "the most provincial people on the planet who thought they weren't"

My dear fellow I have two simple words for you.

Boston Sucks.

john said...

Why don't they just call them "ENDOWED CHAIRS"? They could let one of the university presidents, or perhaps one of the many endowing agencies, liberal to a one, decide who fills them.

The chair certainly fit the fully-endowed Ted Kennedy. Kerry is a bit scrawnier.

Michael said...

Were there just no opportunities for Massachusetts governors to make appointments during the '90s so there was no need to try to control the outcome?

Correct. Kerry took over for Tsongas in 1985 and Teddy was in his seat from 1962 until his death in 2009.

So, having a Dem in each Senate seat is clearly a divine right and the natural order of things. Change the rules as needed to ensure it. The plebeians have already shown their untrustworthiness and immaturity by voting for Brown once. Can't risk that again.

Titus said...

No Boston Love?

Titus said...

Were the Hub of The Universe

EDH said...

Young Heglain said...
A buddy of mine who lived in Boston years ago said that he thought Bostonians were "the most provincial people on the planet who thought they weren't".

Indigenous, yes, but much of the problem is the rest of the country sends us their moonbats.

Fauxcahontas Warren being a prime example.

cokaygne said...

You guys don't understand my native state at all. The only important elections are for state rep. MA has a lot of bureaucracy and rules. if you want to get something done in govt., you'd better be on good terms with your state rep. or your congressman if it is a federal issue. In turn, the rep. or Congressman better deliver or be gone. The other offices are there so that Bay State voters can feel good about themselves by leaving jobs like US Senator to high-minded egotistsic, low-IQ showboats beloved by the media.

I cannot believe that Kerry would be confirmed for SecDef. It also look as if Susan Rice has hurt her chances for State for saying with a straight face that Benghazi was a spontaneous outburst of film criticism; but aren't diplomats supposed to lie for their president? Kerry looks like a shoo-in for State. Like any successful Bay State politician he'll have no problem with the lying part of the job.

If Kerry gets the job, Patrick will resign and bequeath the "corner office" to the hack Lt. Gov whose claim to fame is that he did not get a ticket for totalling a state car while breaking just about every traffic law on the books.

Anyone who runs against Patrick for Senator is sure to be accused of being a Klansman by the media. It is a win-win. The Dems keep their majority in the US Senate. Patrick gets to be Senator for life and the hacks get one of their own into the governor's office to dole out lifetime jobs with lucrative pensions to the right people before the shit hits the fan.

Murray, DeLeo and the rest of the gang under the golden dome must be humming "Happy Days are Here Again."

Tim said...

edutcher said...

"And they say we'll all be like CA in 10 years..."

Probably sooner.

It isn't surprising that stupid is hard, if not impossible, to fix.

What is surprising is how infectious stupid is.

What happens if the Fed ever decides to stop monetizing the debt?

James Pawlak said...

The "Swift Boat Warriors" were right about that traitor.

I am sure that the Commonwealth will find some other anti-democracy clod for the US Senate.

alan markus said...

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

Welcome to the real world (Wisconsin).

Unknown said...

Anybody that doesn't like Boston should watch Oxymorons on Netflix.

On the other hand, Dean Barnett was from Boston and was a damn good man. I named my dog after him.

Titus said...

We love being detested by pubes.

elkh1 said...

A fake Indian woman who practised law without a Mass license was elected to replace a so-called moderate Republican, what do the Dems have to fear?

Guess they want desperately to prove how sleazy they are and can get away with their sleaze.

elkh1 said...

Tim: What happens if the Fed ever decides to stop monetizing the debt?

Pigs can fly.

Titus said...

Every libby city is gross.

Europe hugely gross.

Everything red rocks=Mississippi love it long time. Montgomery divine, Kentucky wonderful. UTAH incred. Hickory NC lovely-huge gift Takers.

Frisco, NYC, Boston, Windy City, disgusting & evil.

Titus said...

Philly horrible.

Cheyenne delish.

Boston hideous.

Provo incred.

 Oregon disgusting.

Okie wonderful.










SGT Ted said...

A buddy of mine who lived in Boston years ago said that he thought Bostonians were "the most provincial people on the planet who thought they weren't".

This describes most city dwellers, when it comes down to it.

Steven said...

Sometimes after a few drinks I think we should repeal the 17th amendment. But of course, that would require legislatures to actually take responsibility for the senate.

Note that, as a Constitutional matter, state legislatures still get to pick presidential electors however they like. Is there a state legislature in the country that would dare have the state legislature replace election?

Mere repeal of the 17th would be met with state constitutions institutionalizing elections for Senate. Which is how we wound up with enough directly-elected Senators to pass the 17th in the first place anyway.

Maguro said...

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

It would save the taxpayers even more money if Massachussets just cancelled elections altogether and awarded all its elective offices to the Democrats in perpetuity. Democrats are totally fab, maybe even fierce. I say let them do whatever they want to. If the Democrats don't game the political process, Massachussets will turn into Alabama or something. End justifies the means, bitch.

jr565 said...

They did the same thing, or tried to do the same thing with Tex Kennwdy's seat. Change the rules to benefit him, them change the rules again when
The circumstances change.
The cravenness if these dems knows almost no bounds.

Titus said...

CITIES r horrible.

Titus said...

We still own Mississippi

Maguro said...

So would Mississippi be "fab" if they got with the program and elected some Democrats?

Maguro said...

East St Louis elects Democrats, is it fab? Or fierce?

Maguro said...

All those precincts in Philadelphia where Obama got 100% - fab or unfab? Inquiring minds want to know.

Maguro said...

How can you vote 100% for Obama and still be unfab? I don't see how it's possible.

And yet, I've been through Philly a few times...

Maguro said...

Not that I'm an expert in fabness - that's why I'm asking the questions!

Maguro said...

The horrible 'pubes (so gross!) don't even bother to field candidates in East St Louis. Needless to say, it's a progressive utopia. A veritable wonderland administered exclusively by wise, caring Democrats.

Douglas said...

When I was growing up in Boston, the natives commonly referred to it as the "Hub," meaning, the "Hub of the Universe." It really is quite provincial and always has been.

FleetUSA said...

Democrats have often proven they prefer the dictatorial class to genuine democratically elected office holders. Just look at IL, NJ, MA, CA

And the rest of us have to pay for their follies.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

There were other Republican governors of Massachusetts before Romney, why did they wait until then to remove the governor's ability to make appointments?

Because Romney was uniquely corrupt in his narrow partisanship and personal ambition. MA is a state biased toward Democrats, but has had no problem letting decent Republicans run and be in charge of things. Romney quickly proved to be nothing of the sort, though.

jr565 said...

O Ritmo wrote:
Because Romney was uniquely corrupt in his narrow partisanship and personal ambition. MA is a state biased toward Democrats, but has had no problem letting decent Republicans run and be in charge of things. Romney quickly proved to be nothing of the sort, though.

Oh for god sakes, will you shut up? We have the dem hypocricy dead to rights, and you're offering the lamest justification for what is so readily apparent that even a toddler would know that the dems were being complete hypocrites.
And if Dems have a problem with Romney, of all republicans where they have to change the rules in midstream imagine how they'd act if they had to deal with a REAL republican.
Also, what makes it worse is that that was only part one of the story. Part two of the story is when Ted Kennedy was going to die, and HE asked that the rule be changed BACK to what HE had aked to be changed earlier.
He's the guy who wanted the rules to be changed twice both times to benefit democrats.

From John Fund about the incident The Boston Globe now notes Mr. Kennedy’s current request “puts lawmakers in a delicate position.” They “are nervous about being accused of engineering a self-serving change to help their party” just a few years after ramming through a similar self-serving change.

It’s sad to see Senator Kennedy sign on to such an obvious ploy. Under the law he now proposes, he would likely not have become a U.S. Senator in 1962, after his brother became president. At the time, Ted Kennedy was too young to be appointed to JFK’s seat. A faithful Kennedy ally was appointed by the state’s Democratic governor for two years as a stand-in until Ted was old enough to run and win in 1962. Under the changes Mr. Kennedy now wants, a special election would instead have been held in early 1961 — an election he would not have been eligible to run in — and he likely would have faced a formidable incumbent if he chose to run as a novice when the seat next came up in November 1962. In the event, Mr. Kennedy secured the Democratic nomination only after his brother’s operatives convinced most of the state’s prominent Democrats not to run. Even so, young Teddy managed to win only 53% of the vote in the general election in a strong year for Democrats with his own brother in the White House.

Self serving is right. Some might call that hypocritical. THe ONLY vice that libs recognize is hypocricy, yet even when they are caught in some of the most blatant examples of it STILL put up lame excuses like you just did.
Hypocrite. Hack.