Democrat Hypocrisy at it's finest

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • sadaist
    TOASTMASTER GENERAL
    • Jul 2004
    • 11625

    Democrat Hypocrisy at it's finest

    Then? Five years ago, Democrats changed the state law to block then-Gov. Mitt Romney from naming a fellow Republican to fill the seat if John Kerry, the Democrats' presidential nominee, won his White House campaign.

    Now? A Democrat Governor is seated, and they want the law changed again so they can fill Ted's seat with another Democrat.

    Why? Senate Democrats say they need as many votes as they can during the debate on President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

    Constantly changing laws to benefit your party based on the day's current situation? Is this acceptable behavior from elected officials?



    Gears move on possibly naming Kennedy replacement - Yahoo! News

    By STEVE LeBLANC, Associated Press Writer Steve Leblanc, Associated Press Writer – Mon Aug 31, 5:42 pm ET

    BOSTON – The push to name a successor to the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy gained momentum Monday, with state lawmakers scheduling a hearing on whether to allow an appointee to serve until a special election in January.

    Gov. Deval Patrick also said Monday that Kennedy's widow, Vicki Kennedy, told him she does not want to be appointed as an interim replacement.

    "Mrs. Kennedy is not interested in the position," Patrick said referring to the interim post.

    Before he died last week, Kennedy had asked Massachusetts lawmakers to change state law to let the governor name an interim appointee to serve until voters can choose a permanent replacement. Current Massachusetts law does not allow an interim appointee.

    "This is the only way to ensure that Massachusetts is fully represented," Patrick said, but cautioned that "I don't think by any means it is a certainty it will happen."

    Patrick said he agreed with Kennedy that the state needs two voices in the Senate during the intervening five months. State law requires a special election between 145 and 160 days after a vacancy; the special election was set for Jan. 19.

    Patrick said he has heard from top Democrats in Washington, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., both of whom support the change allowing an appointee. Senate Democrats say they need as many votes as they can during the debate on President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

    Patrick, a Democrat and friend of Obama's, had previously expressed support for the change. He declined to say whom he might name as interim senator.

    Lawmakers in the Democrat-controlled Massachusetts House and Senate announced Monday they would hold a hearing Sept. 9 on a bill that would allow the interim appointment.

    The speedy scheduling of the hearing was the clearest sign yet that lawmakers might change the law.

    Democrats are facing charges of hypocrisy from critics who point out that just five years ago, Democrats changed the law to block then-Gov. Mitt Romney from naming a fellow Republican to fill the seat if Kerry, the Democrats' presidential nominee, won his White House campaign.

    Before that change, the governor was allowed to appoint a nominee until the next general election. As part of the change, Democratic lawmakers also blocked the possibility of Romney naming an interim senator.

    "Changing the rules in the middle of the game is fundamentally wrong," said Rep. Brad Jones, the Republican leader in the Massachusetts House.

    The race to fill Kennedy's seat is expected to be crowded.

    The biggest question is whether another Kennedy will jump into the race. While family aides to Vicki Kennedy have said she is not interested in replacing her husband, she has not publicly taken herself out of the running.

    Kennedy's nephew and former U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II has also been suggested as a possible candidate but has not said whether he is interested in running for the seat held, also held by another uncle, former President John F. Kennedy.

    Other possible contenders for the seat were also keeping mum on Monday.

    On the Democratic side, those include state Attorney General Martha Coakley, who would be the first woman elected to the Senate from Massachusetts. Although Coakley has won statewide election, she would also need to raise money quickly.

    Several members of Massachusetts' all-Democratic congressional delegation have also been mentioned, including Reps. Stephen Lynch, Michael Capuano and Edward Markey.

    Lynch, a former steelworker first elected to Congress during a special election to succeed the late Rep. Joseph Moakley of South Boston in 2001, is considered more socially conservative than Capuano, the former mayor of Somerville, who holds the same seat in Congress once held by House Speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill Jr.

    Markey, chairman of the House Select Committee on Global Warming, is the longest-serving member of the Massachusetts delegation.

    All three have sizable federal campaign war chests, including $1.3 million for Lynch, $1.2 million for Capuano and $2.8 million for Markey as of June 30.

    One former Democratic member of Congress, Martin Meehan, has also been suggested as a potential candidate. Now chancellor of the University of Massachusetts at Lowell, Meehan has nearly $5 million in his federal account.

    Potential Republican candidates include former Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, former U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan, state Sen. Scott Brown, Cape Cod businessman Jeff Beatty and Chris Egan, former U.S. ambassador to the Organization for Cooperation and Development.
    “Great losses often bring only a numb shock. To truly plunge a victim into misery, you must overwhelm him with many small sufferings.”
  • Nickdfresh
    SUPER MODERATOR

    • Oct 2004
    • 49136

    #2
    Originally posted by sadaist
    ...

    Why? Senate Democrats say they need as many votes as they can during the debate on President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
    Um, that's not the reason actually. The think the reason has something to do with fucking having representation for one's state so they actually get back something (a little pork) for all the taxes sent to DC...

    Constantly changing laws to benefit your party based on the day's current situation? Is this acceptable behavior from elected officials?
    Yeah, I noticed all your threads several years back on how Texas Republicans in the state senate were essentially trying to gerrymander any Democratic representation out of their state by simply redrawing districts to marginalize any votes against them...

    Comment

    • sadaist
      TOASTMASTER GENERAL
      • Jul 2004
      • 11625

      #3
      Originally posted by Nickdfresh
      Um, that's not the reason actually. The think the reason has something to do with fucking having representation for one's state so they actually get back something (a little pork) for all the taxes sent to DC...
      Why did they not want representation 5 years ago?
      “Great losses often bring only a numb shock. To truly plunge a victim into misery, you must overwhelm him with many small sufferings.”

      Comment

      • Nickdfresh
        SUPER MODERATOR

        • Oct 2004
        • 49136

        #4
        Originally posted by sadaist
        Why did they not want representation 5 years ago?
        The seat wasn't actually vacant, so they still had representation...

        Comment

        • Blackflag
          Banned
          • Apr 2006
          • 3406

          #5
          Originally posted by Nickdfresh
          The seat wasn't actually vacant, so they still had representation...
          That response was so ridiculously stupid, that I actually thought it made sense at first.

          Comment

          • sadaist
            TOASTMASTER GENERAL
            • Jul 2004
            • 11625

            #6
            Originally posted by Nickdfresh
            The seat wasn't actually vacant, so they still had representation...
            Come on Nick. You know as well as everyone else that they assumed Bush would not win a second term. Therefore the seat would have been vacated by Kerry.
            “Great losses often bring only a numb shock. To truly plunge a victim into misery, you must overwhelm him with many small sufferings.”

            Comment

            • Big Train
              Full Member Status

              • Apr 2004
              • 4011

              #7
              It's political bullshit at it's finest. I didn't want to mention it, since it was Ted's law and all..

              The fine people of MA really need Mike Dukakis keeping the seat warm to be "Represented"....

              Comment

              • Nickdfresh
                SUPER MODERATOR

                • Oct 2004
                • 49136

                #8
                Originally posted by Blackflag
                That response was so ridiculously stupid, that I actually thought it made sense at first.

                Well, you are easily befuddled as evidenced by your shallow, superficial pop-ideology dogmas...


                But which point didn't you understand? That while running for president, Kerry was still a Senator from MA? Or that there currently is no one representing MA in one of their allotted seats for the Senate because Kennedy has bought it?

                It's not really that fucking tough of a concept, is it? Brainiac...

                Comment

                • Nickdfresh
                  SUPER MODERATOR

                  • Oct 2004
                  • 49136

                  #9
                  Originally posted by sadaist
                  Come on Nick. You know as well as everyone else that they assumed Bush would not win a second term. Therefore the seat would have been vacated by Kerry.
                  Whether they "assumed" or not, it was a possibility and simply a contingency clause. Lawmakers can change the laws as they see fit within reason, and Democrats wanted a Dem seat to be held by a Dem, not "appointed" by the governor...

                  I'm not saying I agree totally with it, but I think in the end the will of the people of Massachusetts was clearly represented by the move as people that vote for federal politicians are voting for a party line to an extent.

                  What would have been so right about Mitt converting a Democratic seat to a Republican one had the national will douched Bush when they should have?

                  Comment

                  • Blackflag
                    Banned
                    • Apr 2006
                    • 3406

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Nickdfresh
                    But which point didn't you understand?
                    In either case, the law only matters when the seat becomes vacant. It's the same thing either way - they just reversed it depending on the party of the governor.

                    Comment

                    • FORD
                      ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

                      • Jan 2004
                      • 58759

                      #11
                      Considering the way the Republicans just recently kept Minnesota from having their duly elected Senator for about 8 months, I don't think they have any leg to stand on here.
                      Eat Us And Smile

                      Cenk For America 2024!!

                      Justice Democrats


                      "If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992

                      Comment

                      • Nickdfresh
                        SUPER MODERATOR

                        • Oct 2004
                        • 49136

                        #12
                        Or left it to the US Supreme Court to decide the 2000 vote, even though most voted for Gore....

                        Comment

                        • sadaist
                          TOASTMASTER GENERAL
                          • Jul 2004
                          • 11625

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Nickdfresh
                          Texas Republicans...
                          Originally posted by FORD
                          the Republicans ...

                          I was really hoping for a better argument than that. Tired old "but the Republicans did it too" reasoning. I thought Democrats were supposed to be better than Republicans. At least they are always claiming to be. Where's the change? Or is that what we're "hoping" for?

                          Considering the lack of the regular left wingers in this forum even attempting to support this speaks volumes.
                          “Great losses often bring only a numb shock. To truly plunge a victim into misery, you must overwhelm him with many small sufferings.”

                          Comment

                          • GAR
                            Banned
                            • Jan 2004
                            • 10849

                            #14
                            Originally posted by FORD
                            ACORNing the ACORN ACORN Republicans just recently ACORN'ed Minnesota from ACORNing their duly elected ACORNator for about 8 ACORNs, I don't think they have any ACORNs to ACORN on ACORN.

                            Comment

                            • hideyoursheep
                              ROTH ARMY ELITE
                              • Jan 2007
                              • 6351

                              #15
                              Originally posted by GAR
                              <a href="http://photobucket.com/images/aflack" target="_blank"><img src="http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll71/tripleaperson/aflack.jpg" border="0" alt="&amp;quot;aflack!&amp;quot; Pictures, Images and Photos"/></a>

                              HALFBLACK!
                              Fuck off GARgoyle.

                              Comment

                              Working...