All of a sudden....these Democrats think it's the public who can "get it right." Now.....who thinks that these Democrats in Massachusetts' legislature would have done this....changed the laws.... if they had a Democrat Governor???? Purely a partisan abuse of power.




Mass. lawmakers push Kerry successor bill

BOSTON (AP) — The Democrat-dominated Massachusetts House gave final approval Wednesday to a bill stripping Republican Gov. Mitt Romney of the power to appoint a successor to John Kerry's Senate seat if he is elected president.
The bill would require a special election within 160 days after a vacancy is created, with the winner serving the remainder of Kerry's unexpired term, which ends in 2008.
The issue has national implications in the narrowly divided U.S. Senate, with Republicans eager to pick up one of Massachusetts' two Senate seats and Democrats eager to hold on.

The House version of the bill, approved Wednesday by voice vote, goes back to the Senate for a final vote and then to Romney, who is likely to either veto the measure or send it back with amendments.

The bill previously cleared both houses by veto-proof majorities.

Romney has said a "shotgun" election would favor candidates with political organizations and deep pockets. He says he's not opposed to a special election, but should be allowed to appoint a replacement during the interim to ensure the state has full representation in the Senate. A spokeswoman for the governor declined to comment Wednesday.

"Why is this such a pressing issue? Ahh, because it's politics. It's all politics. Heaven forbid the governor gets to make an appointment," said Republican state Rep. George Peterson.

Democrats said it was Republicans who were motivated more by politics than policy.

"A governor is going to make some kind of calculus for political purposes. That is true of either party," said Democratic state Rep. William Straus. "We think the people can get it right."

Romney last week called on the campaigning Kerry to resign from the Senate immediately, saying he has missed key votes, one of which cost Massachusetts up to $75 million in federal unemployment insurance dollars.

A Kerry campaign spokesman said Republicans blocked the extension of unemployment benefits, not Kerry.

A poll Wednesday in the Boston Herald said Romney is the best hope for Republicans to win Kerry's seat, showing Romney in close races with the only two unofficial candidates — Democratic Reps. Edward J. Markey and Martin T. Meehan. The Boston Globe said Markey and Meehan each have raised more than $1 million for a potential Senate race.

The poll found 44% backing Romney compared to 41% for Meehan, with 15% of those surveyed unsure. In a Markey-Romney matchup, 43% backed Markey and 40% supported Romney, with 17% unsure.

The poll of 500 registered voters was conducted June 15-28 by RKM Research and Communications, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points."

I think that State Rep. Straus who is quoted in the article is right. This is something that either side would be trying to do if in the others shoes. Though that doesn't make it right. I agrre with you though, no one should be trying to change the rules for what is strictly political gains.

-Demosthenes

__________________
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

the peope of Massachusetts are without a senator right now. John Kerry has not done his job. Someone needs to take his spot, and that needs to be done NOW. This whole process is just bogging that down, and it is a real shame. It seems as if they don't care as much that no one is representing us as the chances of Romney appointing a Republican to take over. Shame on them!

Especially now. Especially DURING an election. Point is.....IF they think it necessary to change the law, that law should be changed in an off-election year when everyone is thinking more clearly. What do you bet they'll change it now.....and then IF the scenario is ever reversed, the Dems will change the law again?

This reminds me of what the Florida Supreme Court tried to do in the 2000 election. You DON'T change the election laws in the midst of an election.....all because it will benefit your side. It should NOT be allowed, IMO.

It's simply a case of liberal Democrats seeking to have their cake and eat it too.

but this sort of thing is tolerated in Massachusetts. It shouldn't be, but it is. If the reverse happened though, the liberals would be crying foul all day long. Everyone knows it.

Come one now, in all fairness do you think the Republicans would be so passioante about this if the Gov. of Mass right now was a Democrat and would most likely appoint a Democrat to relplace Kerry? I don't think they would.

-Demosthenes

__________________
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

it doesn't matter. The state of Massachusetts has really only had one senator for the last year. That upsets pretty much everyone to some extent. I wouldn't care so much if another Democrat replaced Kerry so long as Kerry is out. It's a shame that he is holding out even though he is SOOO confident that he will beat Bush. If he's that confident why doesn't he just quit right now? That's the REAL issue here. Kerry is holding out despite the fact that he's not doing his job.

Ahem.. Excuse me..

I was under the impression that each state had 2 senators. Why would you imply because Kerry is running for POTUS, he is shirking his duties? And I do believe Sen Ted Kennedy also represents MA? Because he has not shown up to vote on several occasions, you accuse him of being lax?

__________________
"Only a fool tests the depth of the water with both feet."

yeah, every state has two senators, but each one is supposed to represent the state, not just one.


second, on several occasions? Try 86% of this year's votes.... that's more than "several occasions". This is not even up for debate.