Keukasmallies Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I'm thinkin' it's only a hop, skip and a jump from NYC to MA; how 'bout Caroline Schlossberg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I love how the People's Republic of Massachusettes changed the rules in '04 to prevent a Republican gov from naming a Republican senator because they were so sure John Kerry would become President Now that there's the prospect of the proles electing a Republican they want to go back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I love how the People's Republic of Massachusettes changed the rules in '04 to prevent a Republican gov from naming a Republican senator Wait...what??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Wait...what??? Speaking of "what???", I've been meaning to ask what the hell is that "mistake" quote in your sig? It sound pretty idiotic, and that level of idiocy could only come from a Joe Biden, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I love how the People's Republic of Massachusettes changed the rules in '04 to prevent a Republican gov from naming a Republican senator because they were so sure John Kerry would become President Now that there's the prospect of the proles electing a Republican they want to go back Actually, when Romney was in they changed the rules so that a Gov. could not appoint someone to server out the remainder of a Senator's term (a la Rod B. in Illinois) - most people, regardless of political mindset support a special election over a Gov. appointment (although in '04 the driving force was to make sure a Republican Gov. didn't choose a replacement if Kerry went to the White House). The proposal now is to allow the Gov. to make an appointment UNTIL A SPECIAL ELECTION CAN BE HELD, not for the remainder of the senator's term. The problem is that it takes months to hold a special election and all that time the state is without 2 members of the Senate. There will still be a special election and the voting public will still decide who will fill a vacant seat to the end of the term, but the goal is to not have a gap in representation. The Gov. will appoint someone to the seat until the special election can be held because that is about the only way to have an immediate replacement. Kennedy is also recommending that anyone the Gov. selects for this short term replacement give a personal commitment NOT to run in the special election (although I'm not sure you could make that part a law). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Speaking of "what???", I've been meaning to ask what the hell is that "mistake" quote in your sig? It sound pretty idiotic, and that level of idiocy could only come from a Joe Biden, yes? Actually, it was The Dean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Actually, when Romney was in they changed the rules so that a Gov. could not appoint someone to server out the remainder of a Senator's term (a la Rod B. in Illinois) - most people, regardless of political mindset support a special election over a Gov. appointment (although in '04 the driving force was to make sure a Republican Gov. didn't choose a replacement if Kerry went to the White House). So they ratified the 17th Amendment. Does anybody ever read the Constitution any more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Actually, it was The Dean. To-ma-to, to-mah-to. (Relax, Dean. I'm just kidding.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 To-ma-to, to-mah-to. (Relax, Dean. I'm just kidding.) you know what they say, behind every joke, there's a little bit of truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I love how the People's Republic of Massachusettes changed the rules in '04 to prevent a Republican gov from naming a Republican senator because they were so sure John Kerry would become President Now that there's the prospect of the proles electing a Republican they want to go back Same way as the Republicans putting term limits on the Presidency after FDR only to get stuck with them when they wanted Raygun as President-for-Life. Politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Actually, when Romney was in they changed the rules so that a Gov. could not appoint someone to server out the remainder of a Senator's term (a la Rod B. in Illinois) - most people, regardless of political mindset support a special election over a Gov. appointment (although in '04 the driving force was to make sure a Republican Gov. didn't choose a replacement if Kerry went to the White House). The proposal now is to allow the Gov. to make an appointment UNTIL A SPECIAL ELECTION CAN BE HELD, not for the remainder of the senator's term. The problem is that it takes months to hold a special election and all that time the state is without 2 members of the Senate. There will still be a special election and the voting public will still decide who will fill a vacant seat to the end of the term, but the goal is to not have a gap in representation. The Gov. will appoint someone to the seat until the special election can be held because that is about the only way to have an immediate replacement. Kennedy is also recommending that anyone the Gov. selects for this short term replacement give a personal commitment NOT to run in the special election (although I'm not sure you could make that part a law). Like the one Kennedy himself has exhibited since his diagnosis? Keller@Large on WBZ was saying last night that you can count on one hand the number of times he's been to the Congressional building since last year. Kennedy's main concern would seem to be for a certain specific piece of legislation that now needs all the Dem support it can get, don't you know. That is a bit of an honorable mitigation to have the replacement ineligible for the special election. But it would be more honorable if whatever method decided upon was kept no matter which party would get the 'upper hand.' As it is, the dominant party in the state historically likes to play Calvinball and change the method willy-nilly to their advantage. Word is that such a change is receiving a cool reception in the Mass. legislature. So, I'll give them that. As for the last part, no, there doesn't appear to be a way to enforce that the fill-in could not run. That would be a matter of keeping his or her word. But it brings up memories of the Mass. congresscritter (Massey?) who signed a pledge to limit himself to two terms, and wound up staying for six. How can you tell when politicians are lying? When their mouths move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Like the one Kennedy himself has exhibited since his diagnosis? Keller@Large on WBZ was saying last night that you can count on one hand the number of times he's been to the Congressional building since last year. Kennedy's main concern would seem to be for a certain specific piece of legislation that now needs all the Dem support it can get, don't you know. That is a bit of an honorable mitigation to have the replacement ineligible for the special election. But it would be more honorable if whatever method decided upon was kept no matter which party would get the 'upper hand.' As it is, the dominant party in the state historically likes to play Calvinball and change the method willy-nilly to their advantage. Word is that such a change is receiving a cool reception in the Mass. legislature. So, I'll give them that. As for the last part, no, there doesn't appear to be a way to enforce that the fill-in could not run. That would be a matter of keeping his or her word. But it brings up memories of the Mass. congresscritter (Massey?) who signed a pledge to limit himself to two terms, and wound up staying for six. How can you tell when politicians are lying? When their mouths move. They all do it. How the hell old was Strom Thurmond when he finally kicked? He never retired either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fastback Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 They all do it. How the hell old was Strom Thurmond when he finally kicked? He never retired either. Did Strom Thurmond try to change the rules before he kicked? Because, they all do it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fastback Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Oh, and if you liked the deification of Michael Jackson when he kicked, I'm sure you'll love the Sainting of Old Drunk Uncle Teddy when he dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Oh, and if you liked the deification of Michael Jackson when he kicked, I'm sure you'll love the Sainting of Old Drunk Uncle Teddy when he dies. I'm sure we'll hear about the right wing 2nd amendment nuts that killed his brothers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Actually, it was The Dean. Indeed it was. And I stand by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Why do we even need to name a replacement for Teddy? Can't we just save the time and effort of an election and declare one vote for the Senate Democratic Leadership? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Oh, and if you liked the deification of Michael Jackson when he kicked, I'm sure you'll love the Sainting of Old Drunk Murdering Uncle Teddy when he dies. Fixed it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Oh, and if you liked the deification of Michael Jackson when he kicked, I'm sure you'll love the Sainting of Old Drunk Uncle Teddy when he dies. That is uncalled for and disgusting. When people die, they lose control of their faculties including their bowels. Granted, Ted is old and fat and his deification is likely to be incredibly gross, and yes Michael Jackson was all drugged up and his probably smelled awful, but still these are private things. Talking about stuff like this robs people of their dignity, even in death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 That is uncalled for and disgusting. When people die, they lose control of their faculties including their bowels. Granted, Ted is old and fat and his deification is likely to be incredibly gross, and yes Michael Jackson was all drugged up and his probably smelled awful, but still these are private things. Talking about stuff like this robs people of their dignity, even in death. You are absolutely correct, he deserves as much dignity in death as Mary Jo Kopechne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts