Note: This post was written before news of Sen. Kennedy’s death. We extend our sympathies to the family. What is written discusses political actions and not ad hominem attacks against the late Senator.
By asking the Massachusetts legislature to change the way vacant US Senate seats are filled, Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy is almost certainly seeking to insure that there are enough votes to pass a healthcare reform bill on Capitol Hill.—Tracey D. SamuelsonThe above statement is certainly one way of looking at Senator Kennedy’s request to change Massachusetts law to suit his fancy. Another way of looking at it is Kennedy is determined to control this whole health care debate and by extension this country whether he is a Senator or not. Liberal Democrats, it seems want to have their political desires met regardless of the consequences and Kennedy is just an example of that.
Democrats seem to be willing to move heaven and earth for their goal of universal health care and they seem to want to do it with no input from the American people. But one thing is for certain and that is Sen. Edward Kennedy shouldn’t be lionized for disrespecting the American people which he does by this request.
However that is exactly what Tracey D. Samuelson does in his piece, “Kennedy succession request is ‘all about healthcare.’ Samuelson seems to think that manipulating the system to get what one wants is commendable in Sen. Kennedy’s case. (see story)
It’s unfortunate that Sen. Kennedy is ailing and he has our sympathies but he doesn’t have the right and neither should he attempt to control the American people if he is unable to serve in his senate seat. And controlling the American people is exactly what the Senator’s request amounts to!
The Boston Globe reported Thursday that Senator Kennedy has asked Massachusetts lawmakers to allow the governor to appoint a temporary replacement to fill any empty senate seat. Under current law, senators can only be selected through special elections that must be held in a two-week window 145 days after the vacancy occurs.
Following is the duplicitous way that Kennedy uses to hide his true intent;
“I strongly support the law and the principle that the people should elect their Senator,” Kennedy wrote in a letter to Gov. Deval Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray, and Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo. “I also believe it is vital for this Commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate.”
If Kennedy strongly supported the law and the principle of the people electing their Senator then he should not attempt to affect that process in anyway if he is unable to vote. However, because he is attempting to affect the vote, I am force to believe that Kennedy like most Democrats have issued a calculated statement in order to gain some ulterior goal.
That goal is to impose a government socialized medical system on the United States of America which in actuality would produce less quality care at greater expense.
This is manipulation of the system it should not be commended. No one man or no one Party is above our Constitution or the People of the United States of America. Health care is secondary in Kennedy’s machinations this is about passing Kennedy’s pet project by any legislative means necessary.
The Massachusetts legislature should reject the Senator’s special request what is at stake is what is best for the country not just a political special favor even is the requestor is Sen. Kennedy.
Sen. Kennedy is not above the Constitution or the American People.
"The Swimmer" may have been above the law,
ReplyDeletebut he's no longer above ground. Good Riddance!
"Note: This post was written before news of Sen. Kennedy’s death. We extend our sympathies to the family. What is written discusses political actions and not ad hominem attacks against the late Senator."
ReplyDeleteYou might want to say that a little louder, Alaphiah; apparently RC2 didn't hear you.
With regard to your post, this is an issue for the people of Massachusetts to care about. Your opinion is somewhat ironic, in that of writing of gubenatorial interim appointments, you focus on Kennedy for making the request and not your problem with what it is he's requesting: You're condemning Kennedy for his free speech. If you support lobbyists, the why wouldn't you support Kennedy? They're each doing what they're Constitutionally protected to do, i.e., make their case to try to advance their cause. It seems to me that your beef would be with Governor Patrick and the Massachusetts State House, should they change the law to allow the Governor to choose someone to represent the interests of the people of Massachusetts in the US Congress, until a special election is held.
And don't you think the times warrant that?
In most states, Governors do make interim appointments when seats to the US Senate become vacant. Massachusetts was one of those states until 2004. Massachusetts's Democratically-controlled state legislature changed the law when Romney was the Governor. Was and is it political? Sure.
Is there any doubt that were the parties reversed, if these were Republicans and there was a major piece of legislation pending in the US Congress, that Republicans would be clamoring for an interim appointment?
None whatsoever.
In RC's defense his comment was made before I posted the note. I heard of the Senator's death only this morning and apparently RC reads my post when it is first issued.
ReplyDeleteNow to your other mistaken point of view my post is concerning the attempted manipulation of the system that Kennedy and his Party are so infamous for.
Republicans have been so outclassed in this regard that there is not even the remotest comparison.
I don't support lobbyist and I don't prescribe to your definition of what you think Kennedy was doing.
Kennedy was clearly attempt to exert his influence on a process that he had manipulated before if you had read the story that my post was based on you would have understood that Tracey D. Samuelson was focusing on Kennedy's attempt to influence Massachusetts law that is what I was commenting on.
But I did learn something from your post, you as most Liberal never let facts determine your perspective!
"Now to your other mistaken point of view my post is concerning the attempted manipulation of the system that Kennedy and his Party are so infamous for."
ReplyDeleteSuch as?
Do you think Republicans don't manipulate, or attempt to manipulate, the system? Doesn't everyone?
Obviously I think so, but I think you're really trying to say that it was the manner that you find offensive? Or something else?
Such as? Someone's not keeping up with the subject I see: By asking the Massachusetts legislature to change the way vacant US Senate seats are filled, Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy is almost certainly seeking to insure that there are enough votes to pass a healthcare reform bill on Capitol Hill.
ReplyDeleteThis is the manipulation that Tracey D. Samuelson wrote of and which I referred to. Geez!
And I'm not going to play your little Republicans are just as bad game. If that were the case 1994 when Republicans gained the majority they would have eradicated Democrats and fundamentally changed the system that Democrats would never regain power ever again and we would not be having this conversation right now. So no it's not all relative.
"And I'm not going to play your little Republicans are just as bad game."
ReplyDeleteI'm not playing any game; just trying to have a dialogue, find common ground. We do have to share the planet, after all.
If that were the case 1994 when Republicans gained the majority they would have eradicated Democrats and fundamentally changed the system that Democrats would never regain power ever again and we would not be having this conversation right now. So no it's not all relative."
How would Republicans have done that? And how would we not be having this conversation had Democrats never regained power "ever again"? Eradicate = ? Ended free speech? Outlawed the internet? Executed all dissenters?
Btw, in 2003, when Republicans kept the vote open in the House 2 hours and 45 minutes beyond the House's '15-minute'-rule in order to pass the Medicare Reform Act by one vote (during which time Republican leaders bribed members, threatened their seats, cajoled, twisted arms to get votes for passage), wouldn't you say that was manipulation of the system?
How would Republicans have done that? [...]
ReplyDeleteEnded free speech? Outlawed the internet? Executed all dissenters?
Yes if they were as bad as the Democrats they would have done all of the above because what you just named is what Democrats are planning to do. So by your own example you've proven Republicans and Democrats aren't the same!
Your 2003 example is Republicans working within the system according to congressional rules. What Democrats are now proposing is as President Barry Soltero said will, "fundamentally change America!" Huge, huge difference!
You know Anonymous, dirty politics IS dirty politics
ReplyDeleteand it's always a Good Riddance to anyone who pretends
to be a patriotic American while aiding a Marxist administration by hook or by crook.
What really needs to be done is to find out who
the authors of 1017 pages of this anti-American
healthcare bill are and make them explain themselves
along with the Cap and Tax bill.
The government is nothing more than a tool for special self-interest groups and it would be interesting to
find out what groups stand to gain the most from
ramming these bills down our throats.
Your 2003 example is Republicans working within the system according to congressional rules.
ReplyDeleteNo, breaking the rule is what happened in 2003.
If Republicans did today what they did in 2003, it would have more accurate to say they bent the rules, because the rule they broke has been changed and goes like this:
"Under Rule XX, clause 2(a), the minimum time for a record vote by electronic device is 15 minutes in either the House or the Committee of the Whole. The 15-minute period is the minimum, rather than the maximum, time allowed for the conduct of a recorded vote. The chair has the discretion to hold the vote open longer. A new 110th rule states that votes are not to be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of a vote. However, this rule seems difficult to interpret in practice. There are also occasions in the House (see Rule XX, clause 9) when the Speaker has the discretion to reduce the voting time to not less than five minutes. The Speaker also has the authority under Rule XX, clause 8, to postpone and cluster certain votes. Votes in the Committee of the Whole may also be reduced to five minutes, as noted in Rule XVIII, clause 6(f)."
http://www.rules.house.gov/lpp/Floor%20Procedure%20and%20Voting.pdf
In 2003, Republicans held the vote in the middle of the night, and when they couldn't get votes for the bill to pass, they kept the vote open for as long as it took them to change the minds and votes of congressman who had already voted against the bill, by threatening and bribing them. It took Republicans 3 hours to do it. http://web.mit.edu/polisci/research/Campbell/APSA%202006%20MMA%20final.pdf
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3049newt_medicare.html
That's not how things are done in Congress, or not how it (or anything like it) had been done prior to this generation of Republicans.
Now, what Kennedy did was to try to get the law changed. He didn't tell the Governor to break the law and appoint someone. He asked the Governor to work with the Massachusetts state legislature to change the law so that the Governor could make an interim appointment.
See the difference?
Anon your source said “It has been customary” (see your own source)
ReplyDeleteIt has been customary to keep a vote open for 15 minutes after it is tallied, and then to declare it final.
That does not indicate that a House rule was broken if that were the case the language would have been more exact. Likely “It was a House rule.” So you didn’t make your point with this example. At most the Republicans that you hate so much did not keep custom which is not the same as breaking a rule. Sorry!
I didn’t take you for a congressional parliamentarian, you would have to be one to understand all of the convoluted customs, rules and regulations of parliamentary procedure.
For instance the new rules for the 110th House of Representatives are as follows:
Under Rule XX, clause 2(a), the minimum time for a record vote by electronic device is 15 minutes in either the House or the Committee of the Whole. The 15-minute period is the
minimum, rather than the maximum, time allowed for the conduct of a recorded vote. The chair
has the discretion to hold the vote open longer.
A new 110th rule states that votes are not to be
held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of a vote. However, this rule seems
difficult to interpret in practice. There are also occasions in the House (see Rule XX,clause 9)when the Speaker has the discretion to reduce the voting time to not less than five minutes.
The Speaker also has the authority under Rule XX, clause 8, to postpone and cluster certain votes.
Votes in the Committee of the Whole may also be reduced to five minutes, as noted in Rule XVIII,
clause 6(f).
The 110th Congress was sworn in January 4, 2007 which means that the rule that you accuse the 2003 Republicans of breaking wasn’t enacted until 2007. You’re not very good at this are you?
Nevertheless, what is clear is that Democrats changed Massachusetts Law 5 years ago to prevent Gov. Mitt Romney for appointing a replacement for John Kerry Senate seat in case he would have vacated his seat by beating George Bush.
Now that Democrat Gov. Patrick Duval, a Barack Obama supporter is in office Senator Kennedy is asking Democrats to change the law back