N104UA
Topic Author
Posts: 296
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:27 pm

Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:57 pm

Today Gov. Patrick announced that long time Kennedy Friend Paul Kirk, former DNC chair and Kennedy Staffer for 8 years. This means that the Democrats have a 60 seat majority at least until the special election on 19 Jan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0...-vaccine-helps-preve_n_298250.html
"Learn the rules, so you know how to break them properly." -H.H. The Dalai Lama
 
sv7887
Posts: 1259
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 7:31 pm

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:30 pm

Hi All,
I think this is where as a conservative I'm supposed to whine about the hypocrisy of the Democrats since they changed the law to prevent Mitt Romney from doing the same thing...Not this time.

This is politics, and the GOP would have done the same thing. To the winners go the spoils. We'll have an election soon enough anyway.

-Sam
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:48 pm

Did Massachusetts change the law? When? How can they make it retroactive? So there is no election, now in January? I smell a GOP lawsuit coming.
 
dtwclipper
Posts: 6668
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:17 am

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:59 pm



Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 1):
Did Massachusetts change the law?

Yes.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
How can they make it retroactive?

It's not.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
So there is no election, now in January? I smell a GOP lawsuit coming.

Yes there will be an election in January.

Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 1):
This is politics, and the GOP would have done the same thing. To the winners go the spoils. We'll have an election soon enough anyway.

Correct. Thank you!
Compare New York Air, the Airline that works for your Business
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19751
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:02 pm



Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 1):

I think this is where as a conservative I'm supposed to whine about the hypocrisy of the Democrats since they changed the law to prevent Mitt Romney from doing the same thing...Not this time.

This is politics, and the GOP would have done the same thing. To the winners go the spoils. We'll have an election soon enough anyway.

OK. I'm impressed. Welcome to my RU list.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
cws818
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:42 am

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:11 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Did Massachusetts change the law? When? How can they make it retroactive? So there is no election, now in January?

The Massachusetts legislature passed a bill allowing the Governor to make an interim appointment pending an election to fill the remainder of Senator Kennedy's term.

The law is not retroactive. As the Governor said at his press conference, he signed the bill and sent a letter to the Massachusetts Secretary of State so that the law would take immediate effect.

There will be an election in January and both the Governor and interim Senator-Designate Kirk said that Paul Kirk will not be a candidate for the seat.
volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
 
PHLBOS
Posts: 6504
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:38 am

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:14 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Did Massachusetts change the law?

Not completely. The State House and Senate put the matter to a vote (for an interim appointment until the January 19 Special Election) amongst themselves.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1199475
Exerpts:

Beacon Hill lawmakers enacted legislation today allowing Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint an interim senator - but without a two-thirds majority - meaning Patrick will have to rely on a rarely used measure allowing him to declare the law an emergency.
...
House lawmakers originally tried to gather enough votes for a two-thirds majority this morning to ensure the bill would go into effect immediately. The measure then passed 95-59 without the super majority. The bill passed the state Senate 24-16 this afternoon.


Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
When?

Yesterday, see above-links and exerpts.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
How can they make it retroactive?

They can't. The Governor can make a request for an appointment to be retroactive to the State Secretary (William Galvin) if the matter is of (and here's where it gets dicey) an emergency. If approval was not granted the appointment would not take effect for 90 days.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
So there is no election, now in January?

No. There will still be a special election held this January 19. This manuver was done to occupy the seat BEFORE that time.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
I smell a GOP lawsuit coming.

This just in: The State GOP has indeed issued an injunction preventing such a measure.

The below-link says it all:
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/us...ointment/srvc=home&position=recent

First 2 paragraphs:

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

Lawmakers this week passed legislation giving Gov. Deval Patrick the power to appoint an interim replacement, but laws approved in Massachusetts usually take 90 days to go into effect. Patrick signed an emergency letter that he says allows the law to become effective immediately.


The text of Gov. Patrick's letter to Secretary Galvin stating his reasons for declaring emergency law can be found in the below web-link:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/pol...ency_law/srvc=home&position=recent

[Edited 2009-09-24 11:22:58]
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
 
dtwclipper
Posts: 6668
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:17 am

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:25 pm



Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 6):
No. There will still be a special election held this January 19. This manuver was done to occupy the seat BEFORE that time.

Oh, thanks for the correction, I thought there was still going to be a special election.
Compare New York Air, the Airline that works for your Business
 
sv7887
Posts: 1259
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 7:31 pm

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:08 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):
OK. I'm impressed. Welcome to my RU list.

Appreciate it Doc! I know we are on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but I do my best to be intellectually honest about these things. Politics is a business, I don't think either party has much "moral authority."

Strangely enough MA has had Republican governors nearly consistently since the early 90s, Bill Weld, Paul Celucci, Jane Swift, Mitt Romney, until Deval Patrick won a few years ago.

They had changed the law back in 2004 I think just in case John Kerry won the Presidential election. They didn't want then Governor Romney appointing a Republican to take his seat. That's where the so called "outrage" came from.

As for Senator Kennedy's seat, it is turning out to be an interesting race. So far none of the Kennedy's have stepped forward. Attorney General Martha Coakley is the early favorite, but I'm not impressed by her at all.

Politics is unpredictable, just a few years ago Barack Obama was considered a longshot for the White House (same with Clinton too in '92), You never know how these things might turn out.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19751
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:37 pm



Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 8):
Politics is unpredictable

As is death. And that means that sometimes, death is unfair. Sometimes, someone benefits from a death, even though that person might not be happy about the death. Sometimes, someone gets screwed by a death.

And apparently the Mass. GOP is in the latter group.

Really, guys. you can wait four months for an election, especially if the replacement isn't even running.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
PHLBOS
Posts: 6504
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:38 am

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:15 pm

Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 8):
Strangely enough MA has had Republican governors nearly consistently since the early 90s, Bill Weld, Paul Celucci, Jane Swift, Mitt Romney, until Deval Patrick won a few years ago.

Not to hijack the thread but as one who left the state in mid-1990, there was good reason for voters to elect a GOP candidate to the governor's seat (as well as Treasurer, remember Joe Malone?); the state was in economic shambles at the time. Since the Democrats were running EVERYTHING statewide, prior to the 1990 elections; they couldn't simply blame the GOP for any of the state's shortcomings.

Truth be told the economic cracks (primarily the State Budget) started to show before 1988 Presidential candidate and then-Governor Mike Dukakis was declared the front runner around March of that year but the only people (presswise) that mentioned/discussed it then were Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr, WRKO Talk Show host Jerry Williams and then-Citizens for Limited Taxiation Chairperson, Barbara Anderson. Dukakis '88 Campaigners John Sasso and/or Susan Estrich made darn sure that this info. did not leak outside the state until after November. Side Bar: Dukakis only carried 55% of the State's popular vote;, much lower than what Sen. Kerry carried in 2004, but still better than what then-Vice-President Gore carried in his home state of TN in 2000.  duck 

While the GOP occupied the Governor's chair for 16 years and Treasurer's desk for 8 years; the Democrats STILL had a power lock on everything else. Romney in his last 2 years in office faced a party-line VETO-PROOF House & Senate.

Another thing to keep in mind that most of the recent GOP governors (except for Romney) weren't exactly conservative in most issues.

Heck, Jane Swift wasn't even elected as Governor. She only became Governor because Gov. Celluci accepted was a position to serve as Ambassador to Canada offered from then-President-Elect Bush (43).

Swifty only joined the GOP in order to have a re-match for a State Rep. seat following a loss in the Democratic primary years earlier. She was a true RINO to the core IMHO; but that's another old topic for another day.

[Edited 2009-09-24 13:19:15]
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:49 pm



Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 3):
Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 1):
Did Massachusetts change the law?

Yes.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
How can they make it retroactive?

It's not.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
So there is no election, now in January? I smell a GOP lawsuit coming.

Yes there will be an election in January.



Quoting Cws818 (Reply 5):
The Massachusetts legislature passed a bill allowing the Governor to make an interim appointment pending an election to fill the remainder of Senator Kennedy's term.

The law is not retroactive. As the Governor said at his press conference, he signed the bill and sent a letter to the Massachusetts Secretary of State so that the law would take immediate effect.

There will be an election in January and both the Governor and interim Senator-Designate Kirk said that Paul Kirk will not be a candidate for the seat.

Thanks Dtwclipper and Cws818, I had not scene that news before this afternoon.

But, it does seem like the GOP has a case as the Governor really signed a letter declairing this situation an emergency. That brings up some questions;

Why is this an emergency today, and not three weeks ago when Sen. Kennedy died?

Why wasn't it an emergency when Sen. Kerry was not present, for a year, in the Senate during his 2004 Presidential run?

Why was it not an emergency when Sen. Kennedy was not present, for two years, to vote on bills in the Senate after he was diagnosed with brain cancer?

Why didn't Senator Kennedy say this was going to be an emergency when he wrote his last letter to the Governor and State Ligislature to change the law back to what it was before he had it changed in 2004?
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:05 am



Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 1):
This is politics, and the GOP would have done the same thing. To the winners go the spoils. We'll have an election soon enough anyway.

Have to agree with that. Anybody think a Republican will win that seat in the special election? Didn't think so.

I guess the only question now is, how long before we see wind turbines off the Hyannis Port coast line?  scratchchin 
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
N104UA
Topic Author
Posts: 296
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:27 pm

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:09 am



Quoting DXing (Reply 12):
I guess the only question now is, how long before we see wind turbines off the Hyannis Port coast line? scratchchin

That will never happen. There is still a lot of money in Hyannis Port and the Kennedy's still live there and they still have lots of money and influence just because Ted died does not mean the family will not still be on the national stage

Quoting DXing (Reply 12):

Have to agree with that. Anybody think a Republican will win that seat in the special election? Didn't think so.

NO that will not happen
"Learn the rules, so you know how to break them properly." -H.H. The Dalai Lama
 
Pyrex
Posts: 4044
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:24 am

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:47 am

This law is a freaking joke, and just another example of Kennedy-esque dirty politics. Why weren't they just more honest about it and passed a law that simply said "all senators from Massachusetts need to be members of the Democratic party"? With 140 out of 160 seats in the State house, it is not like they couldn't do it.
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
 
WestWing
Posts: 1133
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:01 am

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:25 am

The last time Massachusetts elected a Republican senator was in November 1972.

It is not unreasonable, in my opinion, to posit that, of the present citizens of Massachusetts,

(a) a plurality of citizens would want their own state to be represented by two senators during the health care debates; and therefore be supportive of an interim appointment,

(b) a plurality of citizens would want the interim second senator to be a member of the democratic party.

Hence, in my opinion, representative democracy will be served by this legislation and interim appointment.
And, that is a good thing.



(Edited - to correct the date, which was wrong)

[Edited 2009-09-24 21:32:04]
The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:31 am



Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 1):
To the winners go the spoils.

Well, not always, given that we live in a Constitutionalist system, but there is nothing unconstitutional about this law.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 14):
This law is a freaking joke, and just another example of Kennedy-esque dirty politics.

No it isn't. It was a duly passed law. Nothing dirty about it.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 14):
With 140 out of 160 seats in the State house, it is not like they couldn't do it.

Except when that little thing called the Constitution gets in the way.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Pyrex
Posts: 4044
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:24 am

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:47 am



Quoting N1120A (Reply 16):

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 14):
With 140 out of 160 seats in the State house, it is not like they couldn't do it.

Except when that little thing called the Constitution gets in the way.

When was the last time they gave a sh*t about that?
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4636
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:54 am



Quoting Cws818 (Reply 5):
sent a letter to the Massachusetts Secretary of State

Not just any old letter:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 6):
if the matter is of (and here's where it gets dicey) an emergency

Which is dicey. I don't agree with it one bit.

But, as Sv7887 so eloquently put it, that's politics.
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
N104UA
Topic Author
Posts: 296
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:27 pm

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:38 am



Quoting Pyrex (Reply 14):
This law is a freaking joke, and just another example of Kennedy-esque dirty politics. Why weren't they just more honest about it and passed a law that simply said "all senators from Massachusetts need to be members of the Democratic party"? With 140 out of 160 seats in the State house, it is not like they couldn't do it.

Well the people of Massachusetts wanted 140/160 in the state House in Wyoming it is 70% Republican so they could do the same thing there. If the people want a majority for one party there is nothing wrong with that because obviously something had to go wrong with the other party to get a super majority


Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 18):
Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 6):
if the matter is of (and here's where it gets dicey) an emergency

Which is dicey. I don't agree with it one bit.

You can argue that it is because it does not give the citizens of MA a second senator that the are constitutionally guaranteed.
"Learn the rules, so you know how to break them properly." -H.H. The Dalai Lama
 
PHLBOS
Posts: 6504
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:38 am

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:55 pm

Here's an update regarding the State GOP's injunction:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1199989

First 4 sentences:

A Suffolk Superior Court judge will decide by noon on a Republican Party appeal for an emergency injunction to block the appointment of Kennedy family confidant Paul G. Kirk Jr. as interim U.S. senator.

The state GOP contends Gov. Deval Patrick overstepped his authority by attaching an emergency preamble to the Senate vacancy law signed yesterday so the legislation would be enacted immediately. The usual waiting period for enactment is 90 days.

Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly took the matter under advisement this morning and said he will make a decision by noon today.


Apparently the State GOP aren't the only ones unhappy w/Gov. Patrick's pick:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/us...925pick_fuels_political_firestorm/

First 2 paragraphs:

Gov. Deval Patrick’s Kennedy-backed selection of Paul G. Kirk Jr. to the U.S. Senate sparked outrage on both ends of the political spectrum, as Republicans fired off a legal challenge to halt the temporary appointment and liberal supporters of former Gov. Michael Dukakis vowed payback.

Meanwhile, Kirk deflected questions yesterday about his special-interest ties as national Democrats fast-tracked his swearing-in ceremony for 3 p.m. today.


The saga continues. Stay tuned.

[Edited 2009-09-25 07:03:51]
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:03 pm



Quoting N104UA (Reply 19):
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 18):
Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 6):
if the matter is of (and here's where it gets dicey) an emergency

Which is dicey. I don't agree with it one bit.

You can argue that it is because it does not give the citizens of MA a second senator that the are constitutionally guaranteed.

No, it doesn't "guarantee" that each state will always have two US Senators. It just allows it. It is up to the state to fill any vacancies. Why wasn't the two US Senator "guarantee" allowed when MN was going through their almost endless recount process?

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 20):
First 4 sentences:

A Suffolk Superior Court judge will decide by noon on a Republican Party appeal for an emergency injunction to block the appointment of Kennedy family confidant Paul G. Kirk Jr. as interim U.S. senator.

The state GOP contends Gov. Deval Patrick overstepped his authority by attaching an emergency preamble to the Senate vacancy law signed yesterday so the legislation would be enacted immediately. The usual waiting period for enactment is 90 days.

Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly took the matter under advisement this morning and said he will make a decision by noon today.

Like Yoge Beara said, "it ain't over 'til it's over".
 
PHLBOS
Posts: 6504
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:38 am

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:07 pm

This just in, the Kirk appointment delay has been denied:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/po...00032&format=comments#CommentsArea

Exerpt:

A Suffolk Superior Court judge today denied a motion by state Republicans to delay Gov. Deval Patrick’s appointment of an interim senator by 90 days.
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:39 pm

Well, looks like Massachusetts just rammed national health care down our throats.

At least there is still an election coming in January.
 
Pyrex
Posts: 4044
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:24 am

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:51 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
Well, looks like Massachusetts just rammed national health care down our throats.

At least there is still an election coming in January.

Correction: sleeze-ball MA "democrats" rammed a lackey Kennedy follower down the throats of every citizen in that state.
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
 
N104UA
Topic Author
Posts: 296
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:27 pm

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:15 pm



Quoting Pyrex (Reply 24):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
Well, looks like Massachusetts just rammed national health care down our throats.

At least there is still an election coming in January.

Correction: sleeze-ball MA "democrats" rammed a lackey Kennedy follower down the throats of every citizen in that state.

Sen. Kennedy was elected through January 2013 so I totally support Paul Kirk because he is very politically aligned with Kennedy so it only makes since for him and it even allows the Republicans to try to get a Senate seat in MA (cough.. like that will happen... cough) 3 years before they could have otherwise.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
Well, looks like Massachusetts just rammed national health care down our throats.

What about the Republicans ramming a war many Americans did not want down our throat and if you do not want national health care you could move to Europe (but not Western Europe they have universal health care... maybe you could go to China if you don't want national health care)
The American people spoke last November saying that they wanted to end the War in Iraq and wanted Universal Health Care, by electing a congress that will vote for it and if America does not like it they can elect a new congress in 2010 or 2012 to repeal it, but if you want to repeal all National Health Care please do not forget to repeal Medicare and Medicaid and SCHIP, and the Veterans Health Care System
"Learn the rules, so you know how to break them properly." -H.H. The Dalai Lama
 
PHLBOS
Posts: 6504
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:38 am

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:59 pm



Quoting N104UA (Reply 25):
What about the Republicans ramming a war many Americans did not want down our throat

Last time I checked, the GOP has NEVER had a 60-seat majority in the Senate for decades if ever. The Iraq War vote (I'm assuming that's the war you're referring to) could NOT have passed WITHOUT some Democrats (including then-Senator Hilary Clinton) voting for to authorize it.

Quoting N104UA (Reply 25):
The American people spoke last November saying that they wanted to end the War in Iraq and wanted Universal Health Care, by electing a congress that will vote for it and if America does not like it they can elect a new congress in 2010 or 2012 to repeal it, but if you want to repeal all National Health Care please do not forget to repeal Medicare and Medicaid and SCHIP, and the Veterans Health Care System

While I do not doubt that there were those that used the above-reason(s) for voting the way they did; there are also those who voted more as a referendum on the status quo rather than a full-blown mandate.

To be fair, many may have indeed voted for 'Change' but are now not liking what they're seeing in terms of the exent of the change.

As far as the current health care debate is concerned, the only reason WHY it hasn't come to a vote as of yet is NOT because of the GOP opposition but because there are some Democratic senators in some 'swing' states that view the current package as over-reaching and they could be out of a job next year if they approve the package as it presently stands. I won't even go into the fact that many of them haven't even read the contents and details (roughly 1000 pages IIRC) of the bill that they're going to be voting on.

If Senator Reid did indeed have the votes in his party to pass it but less than 60; he could (and possibly still) invoke a vote via Reconciliation, which would only require 51 votes to pass legislation. Again, that still come to pass.

The bottom line here, at least as far as Masschusetts in concerned, is that had the State Democratic party not been too over-confident of Sen. Kerry being elected to the Presidency 5 years ago and hastily changed the law (regarding a vacant Senate seat) in the first place; they could've avoided the political and outright embarassing (IMHO) tactic that recently played out following Senator Kennedy's passing.

Quoting N104UA (Reply 25):
Sen. Kennedy was elected through January 2013 so I totally support Paul Kirk because he is very politically aligned with Kennedy so it only makes since for him and it even allows the Republicans to try to get a Senate seat in MA (cough.. like that will happen... cough) 3 years before they could have otherwise.

Be careful with that over-confidence, my friend. If there are enough Bay State voters p.o'd. w/Gov. Patrick to cross party lines; this special election this January could very well be a initial referendum against his administration with the Nov. 2010 gubernatorial election potentially delivering the final blow.

Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 1):
This is politics, and the GOP would have done the same thing.

While that may be true, in principle; let's be honest here. If the GOP, in Massachusetts or elsewhere, attempted to pull a similar stunt; they would not have been able to get away with it because the press, nationwide, would've been all over them like flies on dung.
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
 
NIKV69
Posts: 10889
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:29 pm



Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 1):
I think this is where as a conservative I'm supposed to whine about the hypocrisy of the Democrats since they changed the law to prevent Mitt Romney from doing the same thing

As often the case with the DNC they want the country to do as they say, not as they do. This is no exception. Ted was a hypocrite when it came to this big time but then again he had a win at any cost attitude but judging by how the health care bill is going this won't make much difference.
Hey that guy with the private jet can bail us out! Why? HE CAN AFFORD IT!
 
N104UA
Topic Author
Posts: 296
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:27 pm

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:48 pm



Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 26):
The Iraq War vote (I'm assuming that's the war you're referring to) could NOT have passed WITHOUT some Democrats (including then-Senator Hilary Clinton) voting for to authorize it.

That was also a war where the Bush Administration lied to the country about Iraq and if Then Sen. Clinton did not vote for it she would have been branded as a terrorist supporter by the right wing, and she did not vote for any more funding after she was informed about the lies

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 26):
To be fair, many may have indeed voted for 'Change' but are now not liking what they're seeing in terms of the exent of the change.

No they are not liking the change in the right wing where they are calling the President a Terrorist and saying that he is not an American. But Pres. Obama has been working on almost all of his campaign promises

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 26):

While I do not doubt that there were those that used the above-reason(s) for voting the way they did; there are also those who voted more as a referendum on the status quo rather than a full-blown mandate.

When Health-Care Reform and ending the War in Iraq were his two biggest platforms he was running on if you voted for him you knew that he was going to get health care reform

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 26):
As far as the current health care debate is concerned, the only reason WHY it hasn't come to a vote as of yet is NOT because of the GOP opposition but because there are some Democratic senators in some 'swing' states that view the current package as over-reaching and they could be out of a job next year if they approve the package as it presently stands.

yes, tell that to Sen. Hatch (R-UT) who added an Amendment that said 'this bill will not cover states that start with the letter 'U''
"Learn the rules, so you know how to break them properly." -H.H. The Dalai Lama
 
PHLBOS
Posts: 6504
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:38 am

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:18 pm



Quoting N104UA (Reply 28):
When Health-Care Reform and ending the War in Iraq were his two biggest platforms he was running on if you voted for him you knew that he was going to get health care reform

Speaking of Health Care Reform, a new recent poll now shows that only 41% of voters nationwide favor Health Care Reform as currently proposed:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ.../september_2009/health_care_reform

Exerpt:
Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan.


Quoting N104UA (Reply 28):
yes, tell that to Sen. Hatch (R-UT) who added an Amendment that said 'this bill will not cover states that start with the letter 'U''

Could you kindly care to post a source to confirm your-above statement?

Here's a list of some of Sen. Hatch's proposed ammendments in the below-link:

http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index...257082-1b78-be3e-e09b-32f8a27c14ce
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
 
N104UA
Topic Author
Posts: 296
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:27 pm

RE: Paul Kirk Named To Sen. Kennedy's Seat

Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:32 pm



Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 29):
Speaking of Health Care Reform, a new recent poll now shows that only 41% of voters nationwide favor Health Care Reform as currently proposed:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...eform

Yes but 65% favour a public while only 26 oppose it, that is one one the reasons that only 41% do not favour the current bill, and I am one of them because it does not have the public option, but that might change after the Sen. Finance Cmte. votes on Sen. Schumer's and Sen. Rockefeller's amendments today.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 29):
Quoting N104UA (Reply 28):
yes, tell that to Sen. Hatch (R-UT) who added an Amendment that said 'this bill will not cover states that start with the letter 'U''

Could you kindly care to post a source to confirm your-above statement?

Here's a list of some of Sen. Hatch's proposed ammendments in the below-link:

Sorry I was wrong on his exact wording it is
"That would be Utah Senator Orrin Hatch’s amendment to provide transitional relief from the excise tax “for any state with a name that begins with the letter ‘U’.”

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.c...-state-four-letters-starts-with-u/
"Learn the rules, so you know how to break them properly." -H.H. The Dalai Lama

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aesma, Braybuddy, n229nw and 17 guests