The Kennedy Rule: No GOP Senators Allowed

[Brat2002]

Republican House Leader Jones had the same idea in 2004 that the Democrats are proposing now. Only difference is that then it would have been beneficial to Republicans so was overwhelmingly rejected by Democrats. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly it’s a good idea.

Ailing Kennedy seeks to have seat filled quickly, if needed, as Congress eyes health overhaul
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-kennedy-massachusetts-senate,0,625759.story



The Kennedy Rule: No GOP Senators Allowed
Senator Ted Kennedy signs onto a Democratic power grab.

It's sad to see Senator Kennedy sign on to such an obvious ploy. Under the law he now proposes, he would likely not have become a U.S. Senator in 1962, after his brother became president. At the time, Ted Kennedy was too young to be appointed to JFK's seat. A faithful Kennedy ally was appointed by the state's Democratic governor for two years as a stand-in until Ted was old enough to run and win in 1962.
http://online.wsj.com/article/john_fund_on_the_trail.html

[Carol25]

Republican House Leader Jones had the same idea in 2004 that the Democrats are proposing now. Only difference is that then it would have been beneficial to Republicans so was overwhelmingly rejected by Democrats. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly it’s a good idea.

Ailing Kennedy seeks to have seat filled quickly, if needed, as Congress eyes health overhaul
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-kennedy-massachusetts-senate,0,625759.story



The Kennedy Rule: No GOP Senators Allowed
Senator Ted Kennedy signs onto a Democratic power grab.


http://online.wsj.com/article/john_fund_on_the_trail.html

Well again, we see the powerful above the law. Massachusetts law says there has to be and election to fill the seat of Ted Kennedy. But he wants the law to change for him, so the Democratic Governor can appoint a Democratic Senator for the Health Bill voting.


When those in Congress don't follow the laws, why should we allow them to make them?

[Patriot]

Well again, we see the powerful above the law. Massachusetts law says there has to be and election to fill the seat of Ted Kennedy. But he wants the law to change for him, so the Democratic Governor can appoint a Democratic Senator for the Health Bill voting.


When those in Congress don't follow the laws, why should we allow them to make them?


Imagine that - a Kennedy wanting special treatment. No way! :rolleyes:

[Brat2002]

Hello......... FYI there are a couple of threads about this on the Health Care board.

:)

Thanks, Goo. You know, it's hard to know where this thread goes because it's supposed to be about the law, which of course the Dems want to change back and forth to suit their needs, yet I fully agree that the request to change it yet again is clearly because of the healthcare reform. I saw a post where someone was claiming that this issue has nothing to do with healthcare. Yeah, right.

I think it belongs on both forums and I think the two issues are connected (the agenda causing them to request changing the law to help push it through) even though some liberals would insist otherwise.

[Brat2002]

:bored: NO ... the idea IS to return to the law.

Or, ya wanna continue down that road? invading at great $ cost, while Americans do without. :patriot: That's so noble. [/sarcasm]

Guess killing works for you. So sad for you, when bush2 goes the way of Bundy. :seeya:

The Dems are the ones who wanted the current law a few years ago because it benefitted them and they were able to use it to stop their opponents. Now that it works against them, they want to change it again. Maybe in a few years, they'll change it back if they need to. See how this works? It's hypocritical of them to keep changing it so it always favors them.

As for your other random comments that are irrelevant to this thread, I think you should calm down and not get all "wee-weed up".

IMO

[February]

Republican House Leader Jones had the same idea in 2004 that the Democrats are proposing now. Only difference is that then it would have been beneficial to Republicans so was overwhelmingly rejected by Democrats. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly it’s a good idea.

Ailing Kennedy seeks to have seat filled quickly, if needed, as Congress eyes health overhaul
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-kennedy-massachusetts-senate,0,625759.story



The Kennedy Rule: No GOP Senators Allowed
Senator Ted Kennedy signs onto a Democratic power grab.

http://online.wsj.com/article/john_fund_on_the_trail.html


Smart move on the Senator's part. We need to rebuild the country.

[snookums1]

The voters of Mass are in favor of an appointment since an election could not be held for at least 145 days and they do not want to go that long without representation. Also, if someone is appointed, they have to agree not to run for that seat when the election is held.

[Veritas]

The power belongs to the people. Let the people decide who takes his place. There should be an election.

It is not up to government to say who represents us.

Sad to see many here giving government that power.


JMHO

[orangetaffy]

"Until 2004, Massachusetts law allowed the governor to appoint an immediate replacement in the event of a U.S. Senate vacancy. The heavily Democratic legislature changed the law, however, after Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry became the likely Democratic presidential nominee -- when Republican Mitt Romney was governor."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/26/kennedy.replacement/

[flareon]

The Dems are the ones who wanted the current law a few years ago because it benefitted them and they were able to use it to stop their opponents. Now that it works against them, they want to change it again. Maybe in a few years, they'll change it back if they need to. See how this works? It's hypocritical of them to keep changing it so it always favors them.

As for your other random comments that are irrelevant to this thread, I think you should calm down and not get all "wee-weed up".

IMO

You're exactly right. Nothing shows a person's true colors more than when a situation like this occurs. People who are truly rooted in fairness and have a innate sense of right and wrong would cringe at the thought of changing the rules strictly along party lines. But I don't think anyone should be shocked at the ones bleating for a change to the rules now...their sense of morality has always been subject to the winds of political maneuvering.

[watcher2005]

Wouldn't it be funny if it turns out to be Mitt Romney?

[Carol25]

The voters of Mass are in favor of an appointment since an election could not be held for at least 145 days and they do not want to go that long without representation. Also, if someone is appointed, they have to agree not to run for that seat when the election is held.

But the law is standing in the way. So the point is moot. You can thank the legislaure of 2004 for that. How clever they were. Not realizing the political maneuvering could turn around and bite them in the bottom.

Is it so hard for Comgressmen to be forward thinking and insightful? Guess so.

[orangetaffy]

As the saying goes: Sometimes you are the statue, sometimes you are the pigeon.

[momof6]

Excellent post GooBeGone! I'm not ashamed to say that I'm not in mourning for this man.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Simple question--


Are we to change law every 2 or 4 years to benefit one party?

If the democrats (read Kennedy and Co) had not changed the law in 2004 to take the appointment process away from the governor at the time ( Romney, republican) since they believed Kerry may win the election--- this would be a moot point.

IMO the law will be changed once again—5 short years later--- to assure that it won’t be what the people want ( an election) but the party wants… If this were republicans doing this there would be al kinds of outrage from the left.

[flareon]

Simple question--


Are we to change law every 2 or 4 years to benefit one party?

If the democrats (read Kennedy and Co) had not changed the law in 2004 to take the appointment process away from the governor at the time ( Romney, republican) since they believed Kerry may win the election--- this would be a moot point.

IMO the law will be changed once again—5 short years later--- to assure that it won’t be what the people want ( an election) but the party wants… If this were republicans doing this there would be al kinds of outrage from the left.

These people never learn. It is the same with the investigations into the so called "torture" and other aspects of the Bush administration. It is just being done to throw red meat to the rabid members of the party and to divert from questionable aspects of the current group.

Well, you know what will happen in the next administration. They will investigate lapses of ethics in the current group and judging from the ethical shortcomings of the current group it should be a long drawn out affair.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

These people never learn. It is the same with the investigations into the so called "torture" and other aspects of the Bush administration. It is just being done to throw red meat to the rabid members of the party and to divert from questionable aspects of the current group.

Well, you know what will happen in the next administration. They will investigate lapses of ethics in the current group and judging from the ethical shortcomings of the current group it should be a long drawn out affair.


What comes to mind?

The Law of Unintended Consequences.

I just read an aticle ( surprise, surprise) that Washington D.C. is now pressuring them to change the law back... :rolleyes:

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Link to DC pressuring MA to change law back:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/08/mass_governor_s.html


Again what happens to what the PEOPLE want NOT THE politicians! We pay them not the other way around. This fidgeting with the law for their benefit is outrageous. But will be accepted.. LOL.

[flareon]

What comes to mind?

The Law of Unintended Consequences.

I just read an aticle ( surprise, surprise) that Washington D.C. is now pressuring them to change the law back... :rolleyes:

Of course they do. LOL

Every time these people do these bone headed things, it is not surprising that the American people don't trust them to make important decisions. It is almost as though they think everything they do occurs in a vacuum.

No wonder they have made a mess out of tacking the important issues we are facing.

The Republicans are no better. They did the same thing when they were in power, which led to this crew being elected.

[orangetaffy]

Of course they do. LOL

Every time these people do these bone headed things, it is not surprising that the American people don't trust them to make important decisions. It is almost as though they think everything they do occurs in a vacuum.

No wonder they have made a mess out of tacking the important issues we are facing.

The Republicans are no better. They did the same thing when they were in power, which led to this crew being elected.

Yep, which is why America no longer stands for a dang thing.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Of course they do. LOL

Every time these people do these bone headed things, it is not surprising that the American people don't trust them to make important decisions. It is almost as though they think everything they do occurs in a vacuum.

No wonder they have made a mess out of tacking the important issues we are facing.

The Republicans are no better. They did the same thing when they were in power, which led to this crew being elected.


Oh I agree, I really wish there were politicians who were really for the people and not themselves.. All of them repubs and dems, independents, etc.