Massachusetts Two Step

[kandrathe]

Since the current governor of Massachusetts is a Democrat, the MA legislature is contemplating changing their Senate replacement law back (to how it was before Mit Romney) quickly to allow the governor to appoint a Kennedy replacement. Back in 2004, they argued that a special election to allow the voters to decide would be a more democratic process. During the Romney tenure, the legislature voted, in a display of pure partisanship, to change the law to deny him the ability to appoint a possible replacement for John Kerry when he assumed the presidency, but Kerry lost.

http://www.eagletribune.com/punews/local_s..._142002341.html

<blockquote>"Sec. 199. AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage. When the governor, however intitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion." -- John Locke, 2nd Treatise of Civil Government</blockquote>

For me it smacks of a capricious abuse of the system to maintain power, and not just for Massachusetts, but for implementing a filibuster proof majority in the Federal Senate. Even though there are perhaps 15% of the citizens of the State registered as Republicans, even the remote chance of losing total power by democratic means motivates the tyrannical to seize the power from the whimsy of mere citizens.

[weakwarrior]

For me it smacks of a capricious abuse of the system to maintain power, and not just for Massachusetts, but for implementing a filibuster proof majority in the Federal Senate. Even though there are perhaps 15% of the citizens of the State registered as Republicans, even the remote chance of losing total power by democratic means motivates the tyrannical to seize the power from the whimsy of mere citizens.

As you say MA is overwhelmingly democrat. The desire to avoid an expensive and time consuming election so that a state doesn't lose representation seems reasonable. Even more so since it's pretty clear that the chosen senator will be the of the same party as the one who would win an election.

[Jester]

For me it smacks of a capricious abuse of the system to maintain power, and not just for Massachusetts, but for implementing a filibuster proof majority in the Federal Senate. Even though there are perhaps 15% of the citizens of the State registered as Republicans, even the remote chance of losing total power by democratic means motivates the tyrannical to seize the power from the whimsy of mere citizens.

Stripped of your flowery pseudo-populism and anti-state mindset, I actually agree with you here. Changing the rules to meet circumstance is not something that is necessary or desirable in this case.

Not, of course, that the filibuster-proof majority is some kind of aberration. No matter how much you might not like it, the "whimsy" of "mere citizens" elected a large democratic majority last election. That their governance hinges on having not just a majority, but a 60 seat supermajority, shows just how bitter and petty the congress has gotten. It's why you're seeing both parties trying to pull tricks like this - if they can't work together, they're going to work the system.

But it's nothing new. It's just underhanded.

-Jester

[Roland]

Stripped of your flowery pseudo-populism and anti-state mindset, I actually agree with you here. Changing the rules to meet circumstance is not something that is necessary or desirable in this case.

Not, of course, that the filibuster-proof majority is some kind of aberration. No matter how much you might not like it, the "whimsy" of "mere citizens" elected a large democratic majority last election. That their governance hinges on having not just a majority, but a 60 seat supermajority, shows just how bitter and petty the congress has gotten. It's why you're seeing both parties trying to pull tricks like this - if they can't work together, they're going to work the system.

But it's nothing new. It's just underhanded.

-Jester

Echoing Jester's words. Of course, this is more than just a sign of the broad political times - this is very specific to just how far Massachusetts corruption has gotten. It really is sickening to me, more and more each day, how far this state is falling. They raised the sales tax from 5% to 6.25%, doubled the toll rates going into / out of Boston, and all this to pay for a failing budget? Oh, and they changed the meals tax to be open-ended - now each town can choose its own meals tax rate (I've heard reports of one place going as high as 12%, I think? It was over 7%, though, I know for sure). The stupidity of this states citizens is astounding. They voted for a PARTY, not a PERSON, in electing our (utterly laughable, corrupt, HORRENDOUS) Governor. Ironically, the very people who voted him in have turned on him in vast numbers because of his sheer incompetence in running this state. Now this happens. It's truly sickening.

This state is circling the drain at an alarming rate, and it's only getting worse. I honestly am worried about the next few years living here, because things only seem to be looking worse by the day. Of course, our own political debacles seem to be echoed in the grand stage (vote anti-partisan, instead of pro-representation).

I already know the Senate is going to do what they want: they'll pass the new legislature to reverse the changes they made for Romney, we'll get another corrupt politician thrust into a seat of power, and we'll have to suffer through until elections come around. By then, of course, he'll be incumbent, and no one will be able to run against him and succeed. So it goes. Nothing new in this state.

I grow weary of the follies of my state. The more I live here, the more I think the grass may truly be greener elsewhere - maybe Connecticut.:P

[kandrathe]

I grow weary of the follies of my state. The more I live here, the more I think the grass may truly be greener elsewhere - maybe Connecticut.:P

What is New Hampshire like?

[Nystul]

As you say MA is overwhelmingly democrat. The desire to avoid an expensive and time consuming election so that a state doesn't lose representation seems reasonable. Even more so since it's pretty clear that the chosen senator will be the of the same party as the one who would win an election.

I don't think it is reasonable in the least for the party with legislative power to change the rules at their whim to increase their political clout. It is, however, politics as usual. It's disappointing but not surprising, and certainly not something the Republicans would be above doing if the roles were reversed.

[weakwarrior]

I don't think it is reasonable in the least for the party with legislative power to change the rules at their whim to increase their political clout. It is, however, politics as usual. It's disappointing but not surprising, and certainly not something the Republicans would be above doing if the roles were reversed.

You're right.I harped on Kandrathe's language and missed his main point (rather it made me argue when objectively I agree). I agree with him that MA's conduct is inappropriate.

[Vandiablo]

Since the current governor of Massachusetts is a Democrat, the MA legislature is contemplating changing their Senate replacement law back (to how it was before Mit Romney) quickly to allow the governor to appoint a Kennedy replacement.

That's different from what Kennedy was promoting, IIRC. Didn't he advocate keeping the special election, but instead of having no senator in the interim, appointing someone by governor until the special election? (Hey, wasn't it customary for the dead guy's wife to take his seat? or was that the House only?) Maybe it's easier to revert to an old system rather than write up a new one.

Seems as though Kennedy's method makes the most sense. You're just whining about the fact that they're more likely to implement it under a Democrat. Ho hum.

I am sure you would have been whining about Romney being gov in the first place if he had been a Democrat and Democrats were only 15% of the state.

(I thought it was supposed to be liberals that were the whining ones. Not turning left on us, areya?)

For me it smacks of a capricious abuse of the system to maintain power, and not just for Massachusetts, but for implementing a filibuster proof majority in the Federal Senate. Even though there are perhaps 15% of the citizens of the State registered as Republicans, even the remote chance of losing total power by democratic means motivates the tyrannical to seize the power from the whimsy of mere citizens.

For me, it pales in comparison to redrawing districts in ridiculous ways in order to attain a Permanent Republican Majority. And yet when ol' Tom the Hammer did that, it was his God-given right, halleleuyeehah.

Abuses by the GOP are scary to me because the GOP is much more a lockstep, top-down, centralized organization fully willing and capable of transitioning us to a theocracy. Theocracies are scary because of their millenia-long tradition of tying suspected dissenters to a pole and setting them on fire. The Democrats, and the American left in general, are not centralized, despite your paranoid persecution fears, and can't even agree on relatively mundane things like health care.

Things like health care policy can simply be reversed by fair elections. If a health bill is passed, if people don't like it, the new Congress can countermand it. However, if you fill up the Justice Department with partisans, then all elections will go your way, and your party's policy can be written in stone.

I shed no tears for thee.

Conservative commentators used to talk about the left's "culture of victimhood" or somesuchcarp. Watch the events these days and it's the conservatives whining about being victims. And most of the carp is made up. That crazy Congresswoman (not a Senator, surely?) from Minnesota would be funny to watch except that she has a vote and that her stupidity rings true in too many ears. Maybe she could be Palin's VP running mate!! ooooo I can dream....

-V

[Jester]

You're just whining about the fact that they're more likely to implement it under a Democrat.

That may be true. But my left-wing dues are all paid up, and it still looks to me like they're playing partisan politics, with no regard for consistency in the rule of law.

-Jester

[swirly]

I look on this as two separate issues.

Issue 1: Is it right for them to make the law to keep out the other side and then change it when they need it to be changed? I think we all pretty much agree that it isn't right.

Issue 2: What should the law actually be? I think there is some logic to being able to appoint a replacement who is from the same party as the person who was elected instead of leaving the seat vacant. There also may very well be some logic to the other route as well. I honestly haven't looked into it enough to say which way I think is better or even to know specifically what the law was before and what it is being changed into.

My point though is that one should separate blaming the party from the judgment of what is being done. Just because the party is doing it for the wrong reasons, doesn't mean that the result isn't actually a good law. It doesn't mean it is either. I just feel that there is a tendency for people to bash the law for the reasons it is being done instead of for it's own merits or lack there of.

P.S. Replying to Jester for this, but it is more just a general observation about this topic than at him specifically.

[kandrathe]

Seems as though Kennedy's method makes the most sense. You're just whining about the fact that they're more likely to implement it under a Democrat. Ho hum.

Actually, I'd be fine with either method, as long as it wasn't changed with the political winds. I'd prefer that ALL senators would be selected by nomination, deliberation, and vote by their legislatures, rather than by popular vote, or appointment by the governor (repeal the 17th Amendment).

The pertinent portion of the 17th amendment is; "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."

For me, it pales in comparison to redrawing districts in ridiculous ways in order to attain a Permanent Republican Majority.

I agree, there are shenanigans on both sides in redistricting.

I shed no tears for thee.

Tears are not necessary, I'm just pointing out what I perceive as injustice by an entire state legislature. It was capricious to change the law assuming John Kerry would win in 2004, and it would be capricious now to change it back assuming any republican could possibly win by their rules.

That crazy Congresswoman (not a Senator, surely?) from Minnesota would be funny to watch except that she has a vote and that her stupidity rings true in too many ears. Maybe she could be Palin's VP running mate!! ooooo I can dream....

Michelle Bachman?

It is interesting that the main tactic in attacking women politically, whether it be Pelosi, Palin or Bachman, is to proclaim either how crazy they are (hysterics), or how ignorant / stupid they are. Personally, in the political arena, I find Mark Dayton to be the biggest dull buffoon our state has produced lately.

Sen. Amy Klobachar, and Sen. Al Franken are bright people, even though I strongly disagree with their viewpoints.

[Jester]

Michelle Bachman?

It is interesting that the main tactic in attacking women politically, whether it be Pelosi, Palin or Bachman, is to proclaim either how crazy they are (hysterics), or how ignorant / stupid they are. Personally, in the political arena, I find Mark Dayton to be the biggest dull buffoon our state has produced lately.

I'm no fan of having a separate set of criteria or invectives for use with women only. It's generally something that pisses me off. But ... Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin *are* loopy. This isn't a judgement about their gender. They're as crazy as Crazy Glenn Beck - and largely for the same reasons. It has nothing to do with hysterics (Sarah Palin is cool as a cucumber... in fact, she's downright oblivious. Bachmann not so much...) and everything to do with publically supporting conspiracy theories, wingnut beliefs, and other assorted crackpottery. They're no crazier than, say, Rick Santorum or Tom DeLay, but that's putting the bar mighty low.

There are female Republican politicians who are perfectly sane. I don't agree with Condoleeza Rice about anything at all, but she's at least not off her rocker. Olympia Snowe is downright reasonable, although I suppose that's almost cheating to use her as an example. Sandra Day O'Connor was a solid justice, the complete opposite of ignorant or hysterical, but also a lifelong Goldwater Republican.

So, it's not just women, and it's not just women from the "wrong" party. It's the crazies that are crazy, and both Bachmann and Palin can stand up and be counted.

-Jester

[Zingydex]

I'm no fan of having a separate set of criteria or invectives for use with women only. It's generally something that pisses me off. But ... Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin *are* loopy. This isn't a judgement about their gender. They're as crazy as Crazy Glenn Beck - and largely for the same reasons. It has nothing to do with hysterics (Sarah Palin is cool as a cucumber... in fact, she's downright oblivious. Bachmann not so much...) and everything to do with publically supporting conspiracy theories, wingnut beliefs, and other assorted crackpottery. They're no crazier than, say, Rick Santorum or Tom DeLay, but that's putting the bar mighty low.

-Jester

I never actually got around to assessing Palin's sanity. I had already written off her being of any use to a functional government over her blatant hypocrisy and megalomania. Like her pulling every attention-whoring stunt in the book that wouldn't get her kicked out of the party and then complaining about media scrutiny. Or trying to portray herself as a down-to-earth sports mom while going on 4-5 digit shopping sprees at fancy boutiques. Or denying her resignation as Alaska Governor was an attempt to avoid another scandal - just before the latest scandal broke.

[Hammerskjold]

I never actually got around to assessing Palin's sanity. I had already written off her being of any use to a functional government over her blatant hypocrisy and megalomania. Like her pulling every attention-whoring stunt in the book that wouldn't get her kicked out of the party and then complaining about media scrutiny. Or trying to portray herself as a down-to-earth sports mom while going on 4-5 digit shopping sprees at fancy boutiques. Or denying her resignation as Alaska Governor was an attempt to avoid another scandal - just before the latest scandal broke.

Ya know, I think for my standards at least it doesn't change things one bit if Bachmann and Palin are male instead of female.

They made it into the Ignoramii Club (and proud of it!) all on their own words and action. Despite what some folks want or thinks, the Ignoramii doesn't discriminate on things like sex, skin colour, political stripe, length of socks etc.

To deny or shield the 'weaker' sex from such a club is well, sexist. 'Sides. Palin can run circles around Beck in a crazy vs crazy match any day of the week.

[Roland]

What is New Hampshire like?

From what I hear, all the rich yuppies from Mass are moving up there and ruining it all. Connecticut is well-known for its strong schools, and is close enough to Mass to be a viable option. Not that I'm actually going to move, but if I was going to it'd be the first place I looked into.

[Vandiablo]

(Ugh, why did I spend time on this?)

First of all, did you notice that your link is from over a year ago and involves a single Democrat. He's Speaker, but he's just one guy. You said, the legislature IS thinking, not the Speaker WAS thinking. That is a big difference. Is there any more recent stuff about dropping the special election, or is this another GOP Talking Point thingie where you take something outdated and/or out of context to make your own story?

The pertinent portion of the 17th amendment is; "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."

So there it is, if I'm understanding it properly. It is the legislature that has the power here. The governor gets the ability to appoint ONLY if the legislature trusts him to do so. If they feel the gov will thwart the will of the people they can revoke that ability. So they didn't trust Romney, good for them. Hurray Massachusetts. If I'm reading it right, it's not "underhanded" at all, it's one of the "checks and balances". (Jester, I'm interested in your response to this, if you have one.)

Now, compare it to Illinois... was it in the constitution of Illinois that the legislature couldn't stop Blagoasandvich from appointing? Or am I reading the 17th amendment wrong??

I agree, there are shenanigans on both sides in redistricting.

There is the matter of scale and frequency. To match Delay in the Democrats, you have to go back to the 1880's or so. And those were conservatives, too.

Tears are not necessary,

Tears are what I've had 26 years out of the last 29. Time for someone else to cry. The GOP is trying to restage 1994, even using the same lines, I just hope the voters won't be as stupid this time around.

I'm just pointing out what I perceive as injustice by an entire state legislature. It was capricious to change the law assuming John Kerry would win in 2004, and it would be capricious now to change it back assuming any republican could possibly win by their rules.

I think the 17th amendment was more concerned with the corruption of a governor rather than an entire legislature, viewing the legislature as more "of the people" than the governor. It seems to me that govs have been little kingdoms, so I think having the legislature check that ability makes sense. Again, look at Illinois and Blago.

Michelle Bachman?

See? you knew who I was talking about!

It is interesting that the main tactic in attacking women politically, whether it be Pelosi, Palin or Bachman, is to proclaim either how crazy they are (hysterics), or how ignorant / stupid they are.

Pistols at dawn, sir! You have insulted my Liberal Sensitivities, sir, and you shall pay the price! You will hear how I have never ceased championing causes such as the right to be in combat, the right to play football, the right to pee standing up, etc. etc. You will hear it until you use the pistol on yourself so you won't have to hear more. (We won't have any bullets though, since the nutjobs are hoarding them. If you bring your own bullet, make sure it's not lead, we don't want you to contaminate the local groundwater.)

You've got your semantic funnel backwards. Hysterical is crazy, but crazy is not hysterical. If I had said Bachmann was overemotional maybe you'd have a point. But I didn't, and you don't.

You forgot beechiness. That's the big one for Clinton.

The big problem for females in politics or corporate leadership is similar to that of Democrats: if they show some spine then they're trying to "act tough" or "act like a man" or is just a mean old beech; if they are cautious or deliberative, they are "weak". Examples for Democrats being Obama's deliberate inaction on Iran's elections, and the entire Carter administration.

That's not Bachmann's problem. Her main problem is divorce. That is, she is divorced from reality. The "facts" she chooses to believe (or at least parrot), as Jester affirmed, come from the RW nutjobs. It's a common GOP problem, but it's easily remembered in her case because she's an attractive youthful woman. Now that's the sexist part, and I will agree that it is -- her craziness is more easily noticed and remembered because of her looks.

And as Hammerskjold said, if they are crazy, and you couldn't say that because they are female, that would be sexist. Stupid and crazy are two criticisms a lot of males get, so females should get it too, when appropriate, in order to be equal opportunity.

-V

edit: forgot Hammerskjold's j

[Jester]

So there it is, if I'm understanding it properly. It is the legislature that has the power here. The governor gets the ability to appoint ONLY if the legislature trusts him to do so. If they feel the gov will thwart the will of the people they can revoke that ability. So they didn't trust Romney, good for them. Hurray Massachusetts. If I'm reading it right, it's not "underhanded" at all, it's one of the "checks and balances". (Jester, I'm interested in your response to this, if you have one.)

First, legislative bodies in democracies have almost unlimited power. If the congress wanted to amend the constitution to delete free speech, that is within their powers. What they legally can do within their powers does not determine what they should do.

Second, I have no problem with the executive and the legislative branches of a state negotiating whatever balance of power they want. But once they've decided on it, they should stick to it unless there is some good structural reason to change it, or there is a serious crisis. I'm no fan of Mitt Romney, but giving him the power to appoint a senator is hardly a crisis. And it's obvious there was no structural issue, or else they wouldn't be changing it back again.

This is a legislative body acting arbitrarily for the partisan group that controls it. That is a very dangerous road to walk down. It seriously erodes the trust in the overall process. That trust is the thing which makes parties concede power gracefully when elections are held. This is absolutely critical for a democracy. See Latin America for a wealth of contrary cases.

-Jester

[Vandiablo]

Thank you.

[kandrathe]

See? you knew who I was talking about!

There are some political people who seem to know exactly how to step on the that progressiveberal/conservative nerve that makes people stop listening, and start looking for ammo. I think former Gov. Palin, Rep. Bachman, Ms. Coulter are those anti-Sirens of the right wing. Being of neither persuasion, I just find them all tedious. So, for example, even though on the issues Mr. Beck and I seem to be similiar in some of our views, I've never been able to stomach more than a few minutes of his blather. Less for the right wing pompous ones, such as Mr. Limbaugh. But, I know in my heart of hearts that even though that I might feel instant hatred for someone like Mitt Romney, or Harry Reid, that they probably are decent people who you could probably sit down with over a cup of coffee. It's just we always see them in somewhat hostile frames, promoting or defending their cockeyed ideas.

You forgot beechiness. That's the big one for Clinton.

I believe her emotional response to the question asked of her in Kinshasa said so much about her. A states(wo)man might have handled that teachable moment with more grace.

That's not Bachmann's problem. Her main problem is divorce. That is, she is divorced from reality. The "facts" she chooses to believe (or at least parrot), as Jester affirmed, come from the RW nutjobs. It's a common GOP problem, but it's easily remembered in her case because she's an attractive youthful woman. Now that's the sexist part, and I will agree that it is -- her craziness is more easily noticed and remembered because of her looks.

Nutjobs come in all flavors. That doesn't sound right.

[Hammerskjold]

I believe her emotional response to the question asked of her in Kinshasa said so much about her. A states(wo)man might have handled that teachable moment with more grace.

When I first heard about that, 2 things immediately came to my mind.
First was, that's spectacularly bad timing. Second was, is it possible that things were fudged around to save face, as in the question was not lost in translation and 'Bill\Mr. Clinton' really was in the question.

Not that you see much of that angle in most of the news, at best it's examined later and when everybody had their potshot chance. 'Clinton needs a midol LOL'

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08...-in-the-jungle/

Frankly, in that context I can certainly understand her reaction. If it wasn't a mistranslation at all, it was quite an inappropriate question.

So yeah, there's a teachable moment there all right. But maybe not the one you had in mind.


*And no, I'm not a Clinton apologist. I still remember the AWB, and what a fine example of magical thinking that was. Because the problems of urban crime revolves greatly around rifle bayonets and rifle attached grenade launcher. The absence of drive by bayonetting speaks greatly of the success of the AWB.

Policy and politics wise, for the most part I loathe, -loathe- the Clintons. That still doesn't give me license to attack Bill or Hillary on a personal level disguised as just a 'political difference'.