June 30, 2004
MA House Passes Kerry Replacement Act
By Karl-Thomas Musselman
The Massachusetts State House overwhelmingly passed a bill similar to that of the State Senate which would strip Republican Governor Mitt Romney of being able to appoint a succesor to Kerry (when he wins the Presidency :) Romney, a Republican, probably could not have resisted the urge to appoint a Republican, even though the seat very obviously would have been held by a Democrat, but remember, politics over logic.
So now the State Senate has to go back and repass the new version, which is will, and send it off to the Gov. who will either veto it, or send it back where it will get repassed by both houses anyways. (It passed with veto-proof majorities in each).
Checks and Balances.
Posted by Karl-Thomas Musselman at June 30, 2004 08:37 PM
| TrackBack
Good to see. Call it partisan politics all you want. The GOP did this to keep their senate seat in Alaska two years ago by striping Democratic Gov. Tony Knowles the ability to appoint a Democrat to the U.S. Senate after Frank Murkowski had to give up his seat after winning the open seat for governor. What comes around goes around. We'll have a good junior Democratic senator to Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts soon after John Kerry is elected. Massachusetts just doesn't send Republicans to Washington, because the Republican caucus is so far to the right outside of the Massachusetts mainstream. Mitt Romney pretends to be a moderate, but he'd appoint a senator that would caucus with Bill Frist, Trent Lott and Rick Sanatorum. The people of Massachusetts won't stand for it.
I GUESS WE OUGHT TO STRIP ALL GOVERNORS OF THAT RIGHT. NO DEM ZELL MILLER TO REPLACE REP PAUL COVERDALE. NO MRS CARNAHAN TO REPLACE HER DEAD HUSBAND. YOU GUYS SURE HAVE POOR MEMORIES. AS FAR AS MITT IS CONCERNED, I HEAR HE CAN WIN AN ELECTION TO THE SENATE ANYWAY. BUT, ALAS WE WONT NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THIS. KERRY'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE.
Learn to use the "shift" and "caps lock" key, Young Grasshopper.
I am always amazed when the Republicans initite playing hard ball (like the Senate replacement bill in Alaska, redistricting in Colorado, Texas) and when Democrats fight back, Republicans cry foul. When I grew up, we had a word for these type of hypocrits: p**sies.
Why all the fuss? Appointed senators who run for reelection in their own right only win 39% of the time.
Senate seats are inherintly self-correcting to the partisan tenor of a state. That's how Kay Bailey Big-Hair won in 1993 . . . inherent self-correction to the partisan tenor.
I do agree, though, that gubernatorial appointment is an outmoded concept, especially if it is for the entire balance of a term. Better to use vetting commissions or to require legislative confirmation at least, to prevent corrupt bargains.
"Better to use vetting commissions or to require legislative confirmation at least, to prevent corrupt bargains." - Keith G
<tinfoil_hat> Or assassinations. Mel Carnahan? Paul Wellstone? Just how much tragic coincidence are we expected to accept? </tinfoil_hat>
