JDoors Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Associated Press BOSTON -- Sen. Edward Kennedy asked Massachusetts lawmakers to change state law to give Gov. Deval Patrick, a fellow Democrat and supporter of President Barack Obama, the ability to appoint an interim replacement to Kennedy's seat should Kenneday be unable to continue serving. Under state law, an election is required within 145-160 days after a Senate seat becomes vacant. That would temporarily leave Massachusetts without a voice in the Senate -- and Senate Democrats potentially one vote short on any health care overhaul legislation. Kennedy said he supports the special election process, but wants to ensure the seat is filled during the course of the election. The state last changed its succession law in 2004 to require the special election. Before that the governor was allowed to name a successor. At the time, Democrats were worried that then-Republican Gov. Mitt Romney would be able to fill any vacancy created if Democratic Sen. John Kerry was elected president.[emphasis added] Politics. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sultan_emerr Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) I heard that Sen. Robert (KKK) Byrd(rhymes with turd) was going to move to Mass to replace Kennedy, and that Larry Bird was going to be appointed to replace Robert Byrd. Edited August 27, 2009 by sultan_emerr Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bozodog Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Why does the "royalty" always want to change the rules for themselves? Didn't Bloomberg just do the same in NYC? What was it momma said? "Do as I say, not as I do" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
irregularjoe Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Hmmmmm. I thought that political talk was not permitted here?But now that the door has been opened.......Uh, never mind. I was going to mention something about a former president. One that came in second in a national election but was appointed anyway. His brother being governor of the state where it was decided had nothing to do with it of course. The one that lied about the need to invade a sovereign nation and then invented reasons to do so. The same one that was "re-elected" (is that technically correct...can you be re-elected when you never were elected in the first place?) because the "terror level" was conveniently elevated on the eve of the election.But I not going to mention any names.I'm just going to muse about this hopeful scenario:JAIL.... Rhymes with NO BAIL. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jcl Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Hmmmmm. I thought that political talk was not permitted here?In the politics forum? It's fine. Here, watch:One that came in second in a national election but was appointed anyway.He was elected. The president is elected by the electoral college. The electoral college is selected by the state legislatures. Full stop. There is no national election. If you don't like it, propose a constitutional amendment.The same one that was "re-elected" (is that technically correct...can you be re-elected when you never were elected in the first place?) because the "terror level" was conveniently elevated on the eve of the election.The threat level was elevated in August for a few specific targets. The national threat level wasn't elevated at all in 2004. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
isteve Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 So lets say the president wasn't really elected (most people know better) but does that make it right for King Kennedy to rewrite rules so he can appoint a new senator with out any election. Well maybe it does in our new socialism. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Matt Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 but does that make it right for King Kennedy to rewrite rules so he can appoint a new senator with out any election.Just because he wants to doesn't mean its going to happen.Well maybe it does in our new socialism.Please... Anyway... yeah JDoors, *politics* Stuff like this happens on both sides of the curve. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sultan_emerr Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 "Kennedy request poignant but not fair." = patriotledger.com Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jcl Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 So lets say the president wasn't really elected (most people know better) but does that make it right for King Kennedy to rewrite rules so he can appoint a new senator with out any election.But if rewriting the rules is wrong, then Kennedy's proposal to undo the last rewrite would be righting a wrong. Ethics is hard Well maybe it does in our new socialism.I miss old socialism. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
martymas Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 if your politics is right wingthen naturallyyour against kenedyif it is best for your county then it should go ahead not so long ago a vice president and presidentmade there own rules and look how many people died and are still dyingfor 9 years the american public put up with itthen they changed there mindsand they are getting hell for trying to change the rulesso no more people need to dieamericans moan and groan about nine elevenbit look how many were killed in vietnam-.cambodiairaqectand many parts of the worldi happen to be a fan of this ted kennedy the others were war mongersted kennedy is popular outside of the usaand right now that is some thing americans could do withmarty Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jcl Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 if it is best for your county then it should go aheadIt doesn't affect the country. It's not even clear how it would affect Massachusetts.not so long ago a vice president and presidentmade there own rules and look how many people died and are still dyingFederal law requires that someone respond to that with snark about Chappaquiddick.ted kennedy is popular outside of the usaand right now that is some thing americans could do withThe world isn't high school. There are more important things than being popular. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sultan_emerr Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 Federal law requires that someone respond to that with snark about Chappaquiddick.More people have died in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car than were killed in the 3 mile Island disater. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
irregularjoe Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 Federal law requires that someone respond to that with snark about Chappaquiddick.More people have died in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car than were killed in the 3 mile Island disater.LOL. I guess the "no poltical talk" rule here on BT has been suspended.That's fine with me.Let the games begin! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
irregularjoe Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 Senator Kennedy (Chappaquiddick incident information included)George Dubya Bush Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jcl Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 Kennedy supported Vietnam long enough to put him ahead, I believe.Your turn to snark about Bush and Vietnam. Bonus points if you work cheerleading into it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
irregularjoe Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 (edited) Kennedy supported Vietnam long enough to put him ahead, I believe.Your turn to snark about Bush and Vietnam. Bonus points if you work cheerleading into it.Bush was drunk throughout the Vietnam war. But wasn't he in the reserves? Or was that preserves?In any case, here's a tribute to the "Man who didn't know much". Edited August 23, 2009 by irregularjoe Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JDoors Posted August 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) Why does the "royalty" always want to change the rules for themselves? Didn't Bloomberg just do the same in NYC? What was it momma said? "Do as I say, not as I do" Apparently that IS our system: Change the rules to favor themselves, then when it no longer favors them, change it right back. I like that Kennedy said, "Oh ... I 'support' the current rule -- But I want to change it." Huh? If that ain't doublespeak I don't know what is. IrregularJoe: The "World and Politics" forum was created a while ago, looks like you missed it when it came out. We've been warned to keep it from getting out of hand, but that's about it.***** Personally I'd rather the forum be used to have intelligent conversations regarding current events rather than just bash someone using links to sites created and maintained by crazies, but I don't run the place. Edited August 25, 2009 by JDoors Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Matt Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Hmmmmm. I thought that political talk was not permitted here?Info:http://www.besttechie.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=15235 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sethook Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) If Kennedy is really concerned about having 2 votes down the road from Mass., he needs to resign now. That will give the state more time to hold the required election. It's not like he's performing daily activities that go with the job now. Edited August 26, 2009 by sethook Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jcl Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Well, he's dead. So much for that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JDoors Posted August 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 If Kennedy is really concerned about having 2 votes down the road from Mass., he needs to resign now. That will give the state more time to hold the required election. It's not like he's performing daily activities that go with the job now. Resignation, no matter how obvious the need might be, isn't in some people's vocabulary (the guy DID remain in office after an incident that would have been, at the very least, the end of nearly any other politician's career). Not that it matters any more (R.I.P.), but I wonder WHEN the issue of succession first came up. I would think it should have been one of the first issues to be taken care of once the Senator became active again after his diagnosis. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Matt Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Well, he's dead. So much for that.RIP Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.