Everyone is abuzz about Mass. Sen. Ted Kennedy's request to have Gov. Deval Patrick appoint a successor in the wake of his passing [it is clear from the letter that the "liberal lion of the Senate" is not long for the world ...].
The request has sparked headlines across the nation and controversy in the state due to the fact that in 2004, Kennedy was involved in a successful effort to strip then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, from having the same right to appoint.
I wrote about the controversy back in 2004 when I was editor of The Winchester Star and took the position that, yeah, Democrats on Beacon Hill shouldn't change the law and Romney should be allowed to make the appointment: ["Let Mitt make Senate appointment"].
Here is the pertinent section, at the end of the column:
Oh how things change.
More than five years later, an ailing Kennedy is on death's door and he is worried about the health care reform bill - his legacy at work - not being able to pass the 60 vote filibuster-proof threshold [if the seat is vacant, health care reform will only have 59 supporters]. It is doubtful that any of the Republican votes will change based on a phone call request from a dying Kennedy. In other words, the reform plan would be finished for this year in the wake of a vacancy.
There has been a lot of back and forth about the issue online with a lot of emotion. You have a dying but beloved senator, the worries and fears, pro and con, over the health care reform package, and the excitement and speculation of a future Senate race in Massachusetts where elections, especially bloody Democratic primaries, are a glorious spectacle. It is an emotional time in the state, indeed.
I think one of the best reports I have seen is one by Jon Keller last night at 11 p.m. on WBZ-TV 4 in Boston who stated that Kennedy had missed all but four of the last 151 roll call votes in the Senate during the last year: ["Spin-o-meter"]. Keller also has a blog post here about the situation: ["God Bless You, Ted...."]. Essentially, Massachusetts hasn't really been represented in the Senate, with all due respect to Ted. So, why the rush this time?
David Bernstein over at the Boston Phoenix has another pretty good take on the situation here: ["Theory: Lehigh Just Killed The Kennedy Plan"]. People might think this is wildly speculative but it is the Kennedys after all.
As we all know now, the law should not have been changed. Those of us who said so in 2004 were right then and have been proven right now. The Beacon Hill insiders and Democrats couldn't look beyond their own noses at what the future might hold. Now, the issue comes up again and the insider crowd wants it to be their way or the highway. It is not healthy for the laws to keep flipping around the way they are sometimes in the same way it is not healthy for the state to not have representation. In hindsight, Kennedy should have stepped down in 2006 and enjoyed his twilight years on his boat Mya instead of hanging on - to the detriment of his constituents. As Keller points out, the state has lived this long without his representation ...
As much as folks haven't been represented and can probably wait another five months, I really have to stand by my initial position. The safe thing to do would be to tweak the law, again, and allow the governor to make the appointment and then set a date for a special election to be held six months from the date of the resignation of the office holder.
It would also be good for Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint someone who might not be interested in running in the special election or makes a commitment not to run, similar to what Gov. John Lynch in New Hampshire tried to do when it looked like Sen. Judd Gregg would be taking a job in the Obama Administration. This would ensure that the state could have an open, honest, thoughtful primaries and elections with the stakeholders, the voters, deciding what is best for their futures.
[Disclosure: I was Sen. Kennedy's college coordinator in 1994, a paid position with the campaign.]
Update: Eric Fehrnstrom, the former Romney spokesperson, sounds off in this column on the Boston Herald Web site today: ["Kennedy late coming to succession principle"]. Note: Fehrnstrom is saying that it was nine of 270 roll call votes ... a much worse attendance record than most would expect.
The request has sparked headlines across the nation and controversy in the state due to the fact that in 2004, Kennedy was involved in a successful effort to strip then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, from having the same right to appoint.
I wrote about the controversy back in 2004 when I was editor of The Winchester Star and took the position that, yeah, Democrats on Beacon Hill shouldn't change the law and Romney should be allowed to make the appointment: ["Let Mitt make Senate appointment"].
Here is the pertinent section, at the end of the column:
Actually, it is kind of amazing that the Democrats - the people who are always lecturing the rest of us about the hallowed nature of democracy, inclusion, diversity, and other worthy virtues - are doing everything they can to keep millions of residents from having their second voice in the Senate for more than five months. And the fact that they have set up a special election which will pretty much limit the candidates to the all-white, all-male, contributor-connected insiders is even worse.In the end, Kerry lost the election that year and there was no need to worry about a, gasp, horrible Republican representing Massachusetts in the Senate.
Clearly, in the wake of a presidential victory by Kerry, the citizens of our state should not be without democratic representation just because partisans don't like that a Republican is making the appointment. Romney should be allowed to appoint a successor - it is the best thing for the people of Massachusetts.
Oh how things change.
More than five years later, an ailing Kennedy is on death's door and he is worried about the health care reform bill - his legacy at work - not being able to pass the 60 vote filibuster-proof threshold [if the seat is vacant, health care reform will only have 59 supporters]. It is doubtful that any of the Republican votes will change based on a phone call request from a dying Kennedy. In other words, the reform plan would be finished for this year in the wake of a vacancy.
There has been a lot of back and forth about the issue online with a lot of emotion. You have a dying but beloved senator, the worries and fears, pro and con, over the health care reform package, and the excitement and speculation of a future Senate race in Massachusetts where elections, especially bloody Democratic primaries, are a glorious spectacle. It is an emotional time in the state, indeed.
I think one of the best reports I have seen is one by Jon Keller last night at 11 p.m. on WBZ-TV 4 in Boston who stated that Kennedy had missed all but four of the last 151 roll call votes in the Senate during the last year: ["Spin-o-meter"]. Keller also has a blog post here about the situation: ["God Bless You, Ted...."]. Essentially, Massachusetts hasn't really been represented in the Senate, with all due respect to Ted. So, why the rush this time?
David Bernstein over at the Boston Phoenix has another pretty good take on the situation here: ["Theory: Lehigh Just Killed The Kennedy Plan"]. People might think this is wildly speculative but it is the Kennedys after all.
As we all know now, the law should not have been changed. Those of us who said so in 2004 were right then and have been proven right now. The Beacon Hill insiders and Democrats couldn't look beyond their own noses at what the future might hold. Now, the issue comes up again and the insider crowd wants it to be their way or the highway. It is not healthy for the laws to keep flipping around the way they are sometimes in the same way it is not healthy for the state to not have representation. In hindsight, Kennedy should have stepped down in 2006 and enjoyed his twilight years on his boat Mya instead of hanging on - to the detriment of his constituents. As Keller points out, the state has lived this long without his representation ...
As much as folks haven't been represented and can probably wait another five months, I really have to stand by my initial position. The safe thing to do would be to tweak the law, again, and allow the governor to make the appointment and then set a date for a special election to be held six months from the date of the resignation of the office holder.
It would also be good for Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint someone who might not be interested in running in the special election or makes a commitment not to run, similar to what Gov. John Lynch in New Hampshire tried to do when it looked like Sen. Judd Gregg would be taking a job in the Obama Administration. This would ensure that the state could have an open, honest, thoughtful primaries and elections with the stakeholders, the voters, deciding what is best for their futures.
[Disclosure: I was Sen. Kennedy's college coordinator in 1994, a paid position with the campaign.]
Update: Eric Fehrnstrom, the former Romney spokesperson, sounds off in this column on the Boston Herald Web site today: ["Kennedy late coming to succession principle"]. Note: Fehrnstrom is saying that it was nine of 270 roll call votes ... a much worse attendance record than most would expect.
No comments:
Post a Comment