NRSC Hypocrisy on Filling Senate Vacancies

You're on shaky ground

Let's ignore the NRSC for a minute and take a look solely at the Democrat's actions.

1) Democrats led by Ted Kennedy changed the law in 2004 solely for their partisan convenience to prevent Romney from naming Kerry's successor if he won the presidential election.

2) Unhappy with the unintended consequences of changing the law in 2004, Ted Kennedy advocates for a nearly complete reversal of the law he fought for solely for his/their partisan convenience.

I know Massachusetts is the state where Gerrymandering was created, but this is a joke. Massachusetts Democrats would actually be best served by not changing the law in a rush for their own partisan convenience -- and more than likely creating even more unintended consequences.

Now on to your criticisms of the NRSC:

1) You've got to be kidding. Kennedy's proposal is nothing more than a transparent power grab and nothing else -- period. If it was done in the vacuum of not coming on the heels of the 2004 law, then you'd have a leg to stand on.

2) Both you and the NRSC are correct, and incorrect. Voters clearly would have 100% authority to pick the replacement under the current law, while they might get a Senator shoved down their throats if they law were changed. On the other hand, they will be without a Senator for several months. Truth be told, though, from every indication the sky didn't fall in Minnesota this year and Wyoming in 2007 -- they got along fine with just one Senator for awhile.

3) Your response is complete bs. You can't change the law after the fact. The only way Crist wouldn't be making the pick is if he resigned, but then it would be the Lt Gov making the pick -- so one way or another there would be a temporary appointment. Oh, and if he did resign, you'd then be trying to run with some stupid quitter meme. Unbelievable.

Now on to your claim of lies. From your perspective, I can see using the word hyprocrisy, self serving, partisan, etc .... but lies? Come on guru!?! You can do better than that.

---

by: DSCC Watch @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 01:44:22 AM CDT

Misinformed or totally partisan?

Senator Kennedy's proposal is no "power grab."  It's completely absurd.  The ONLY change to current policy in Senator Kennedy's proposal is a temporary appointment in between the vacancy and the special election.  There's no power being grabbed.  From whom is it being grabbed?  It's an absurd sentiment.  You can't say it's a power grab from the people since you're clearly comfortable with a pure gubernatorial appointment policy.  (I'd agree that the '04 policy switch was hasty - but, since we're in the real world here we can agree, it was done to prevent a GOP power grab by Romney, who would have appointed a partisan Republican against the wishes of the people, y'know, the actual voters.)

Truth be told, though, from every indication the sky didn't fall in Minnesota this year

Wrong, chief.  Did you not see the countless news articles that talked about how Senator Klobuchar's constituent caseload doubled and her staff was overworked to the gills (especially around the Fargo-area flooding that affecting constituencies in the Dakotas AND Minnesota, when the sky kinda did fall...)?  A state having just one Senator for a prolonged period of time was proven to be completely untenable by Minnesota's situation this year.  And Wyoming's one-Senator gap was less than one single month (June '07), so that example has no merit.

Any other weak examples you want to offer?

---

by: Senate Guru @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 10:37:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That is a power grab!

If every time there's a vacany in Massachusetts they go and change the rules for their convenience, that's a power grab (and poor legislating too boot).

Going back to the unintended consequences. That's one of the big reasons that conservatives don't like big government "solutions" to problems. Democrats want to pass a law for everything, and then they start figuring out that the unintended consequences are worse that the problem they were trying to fix in the first place -- leaving folks back home in an even bigger hole to dig out of.

---

by: DSCC Watch @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 15:49:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What does any of that mean?

It's just ranting against Democrats for doing anything.

Your comments have suggested that you're both for AND against all three options, the gubernatorial appointment, the special election, AND the temporary gub appointment w/ special election.

What policy are you actually for?!  Or are you just against whatever the Democrat suggests?

---

by: Senate Guru @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 16:09:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i don't care what the law is per se

i have no particular policy preference for senate appointments.

i think it should be left up to the state legislature (as the constitution allows), but that it shouldn't be mettled with solely for partisan convenience.

why you might ask?

the people don't have confidence in their government and laws when their "representatives" constantly change the laws to institutionalize more power in the current crop of elected officials.

more importantly, the more the government passes laws out of convenience, the more unintended consequences the people have to deal with.

if the massachusetts legislature really wants to change the law, they should start today on thorough analysis on how the other 49 states fill senatorial vacancies and take a look at the pros and cons of each. then write a good bill to amend the law, instead of some rushed bill that will leave the people with more unintended consequences.

guru, do you remember the hubbub down in mississippi with the timing of the special election to replace lott? that law was written in such a way that it left open the question as to the actual timeline for a special election (and even some questions as to whether candidates can have partisan labels next to their names). that's what i mean by bad legislation.  

---

by: DSCC Watch @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 22:12:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're inventing concerns

There's no "unintended consequences" with this policy suggestion from Senator Kennedy - just the filling of a gap.

The current policy leaves a gap in representation.  The policy suggestion fills the gap.  Simple as that.  It improves on an existing policy.

A partisan Republican who prefers a gap in representation in Massachusetts does so not out of high-minded principle but because it means one less Democrat voting.  That, "DSCC Watch," is a power grab.

I'm shocked, shocked! to learn that you don't actually have a policy preference - just a predilection toward bashing any action (or not even an action - just a suggestion) by a Democrat.

---

by: Senate Guru @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 23:53:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

if the legistlature rushed the new law...

... there will be.

look what happened the last time they did if you need any evidence of what will happen. they could have instituted a policy like wyoming -- with the state committee selecting 3 people and the governor picking from them when the governor is a different party than the member, with a special election after x days.

instead they chose the most self-serving option because they hated the thought of having romney even potentially part of the process.

stop trying to turn the table on this democratic hypocrisy. it's hypocrisy, and i would say so if some stupid republicans were trying to institutionalize more power in their family that has been dominating politics in the state for nearly 60 years.

---

by: DSCC Watch @ Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 13:19:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your criticisms are of the 2004 process/law

but you have not once criticized anything in the substance of Senator Kennedy's proposal.  Do you have any criticism of the substance of Senator Kennedy's proposal?  Do you think another approach would be more effective toward safeguarding Massachusetts' full representation in the U.S. Senate?

---

by: Senate Guru @ Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 14:03:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]