Kennedy Special Election Omnibus Thread

[Lunar]

you forgot this possibility:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/ma-senate-a-new-entrant.html

[Lunar]

big surprise: Lynch drops out, probably because the field didn't get crowded enough for him to win against Coakley

[RIP Robert H Bork]

big surprise: Lynch drops out, probably because the field didn't get crowded enough for him to win against Coakley

Too bad. I was hoping for Lynch to win.

[Lunar]

kind of surprised Lynch didn't just attempt to tack left on every issue the Unions care about like healthcare and then hold strong on his pro-life anti-Obama'ism too as kind of a schtick

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

big surprise: Lynch drops out, probably because the field didn't get crowded enough for him to win against Coakley

Looks like this thing isn't even going to be interesting.

[Landslide Lyndon]

big surprise: Lynch drops out, probably because the field didn't get crowded enough for him to win against Coakley

Looks like this thing isn't even going to be interesting.

You think Coakley will cruise against Capuano?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

big surprise: Lynch drops out, probably because the field didn't get crowded enough for him to win against Coakley

Looks like this thing isn't even going to be interesting.

You think Coakley will cruise against Capuano?

The suburb-friendly woman without a controversial vote history against the former mayor of Somerville?  I mean, I know how my CD will vote, but anything from Newton on west, Arlington on north, and Braintree on south will be going for Coakley in droves.

[Brittain33]

The suburb-friendly woman without a controversial vote history against the former mayor of Somerville?  I mean, I know how my CD will vote, but anything from Newton on west, Arlington on north, and Braintree on south will be going for Coakley in droves.

Yes, I'd decided this weekend I was voting for Coakley over Capuano. I wonder how many young and non-native liberals in our district even know who Capuano is or what his record is.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The suburb-friendly woman without a controversial vote history against the former mayor of Somerville?

You could, perhaps, have put it more diplomatically

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

This quote about the possibility of giving Deval appointment power says all you need to know:

"If they want to do it, they'll find a way to do it, and they'll squash us," said Senate minority leader Richard Tisei, a Wakefield Republican.

It also says something that it hasn't happened already.

(Hat tip to Blue Mass Group, who makes a terrific argument that said appointment may not be guaranteed.)

The suburb-friendly woman without a controversial vote history against the former mayor of Somerville?  I mean, I know how my CD will vote, but anything from Newton on west, Arlington on north, and Braintree on south will be going for Coakley in droves.

Yes, I'd decided this weekend I was voting for Coakley over Capuano. I wonder how many young and non-native liberals in our district even know who Capuano is or what his record is.

Not many, but that population in Somerville is inherently transitory.  Capuano is very well liked by "old" Somerville, but I bet Coakley will outpoll him amongst "new" Somerville.  Not that it's important what Somerville does, but so long as turnout is decent, the statewide primary electorate is going to look a lot more like "new" Somerville (politically, that is).

You could, perhaps, have put it more diplomatically

I can rewrite it and dumb it down a little: "Smart lady will beat slick man."

[Lunar]

http://wonkette.com/237494/mass-state-senator-unleashes-devastating-im-rubber-youre-glue-defense

hahaha, old story but a keeper  (could be mildly NSFW but definitely hilariously relevant)

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

http://wonkette.com/237494/mass-state-senator-unleashes-devastating-im-rubber-youre-glue-defense

hahaha, old story but a keeper  (could be mildly NSFW but definitely hilariously relevant)

Scott Brown is an egotistical, two-faced prick.  It will be satisfying to see him lose a race for once.

[Lunar]

I just like that he posed nude

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I just like that he posed nude

not nude, just in his underwear

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I can rewrite it and dumb it down a little: "Smart lady will beat slick man."

"Slick man". Hmm. "Slick man". Why do you hate Italians? You've made Phil cry, wherever he is. Shame!

[Lunar]

Coakley is a gaelic name right?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Coakley is a gaelic name right?

Taig

[Linus Van Pelt]

So, what's the deal with this Coakley? I mean, it's clear she's no leftist controversy-monger, but is she
(a) like the two Rhode Island senators, i.e. quite liberal by national standards while still being broadly respected and mainstream, or
(b) more like, say, Dianne Feinstein, a bit of a Moderate Hero who will make liberals upset that someone like that holds such a safe seat?

[Lunar]

I assume she'll be a solid liberal, but we don't have a good way of knowing what her old politics were.  And even if we did, people change.  Mark Udall sponsored the EFCA in 2007 but is not a current sponsor for the bill now I believe for example.

[Lincoln Republican]

The Democrats have only themselves to blame for now being in the position that the Senate vacancy is to be filled by a special election, which is to be held on January 19, 2010, which is about five months after the death of Senator Kennedy.

In 2004, The Massachusetts Legislature enacted the legislation providing for a special election to fill a Senate vacancy, in order to prevent then Republican Governor Mitt Romney from appointing a Republican to the Senate in the event that John Kerry were to win the Presidency, an extremely short sighted, self serving and partisan action.  At that time, Senator Kennedy himself made personal appeals to Massachusetts Democratic legislative leaders to pass the bill, which had been stalled prior to his request. 

So this autocratic and self serving legislation really came about to prevent the Republican Governor, who was Mitt Romney at the time, from making an appointment to the Senate, should John Kerry have been elected President.  In most states the Governor appoints a Senator to fill a vanancy.

Seven days before his death, it was this same Senator Ted Kennedy who sent a letter to the Governor and legislative leaders expressing his desire to change this very law, a law he himself urged the legislature to pass in 2004, this time in order to allow the Governor, now Democrat Deval Patrick, to appoint a Senator to fill the vacancy until the special election.

There is a definite disconnect here.  I guess it depends if the Governor is a member of your own party whether or not the Governor should have the power to appoint a Senator to fill a vacancy.

Senator Kennedy had known for at least a year that he was dying, yet never resigned from the Senate.  By resigning from the Senate six months earlier, for example, the Senate vacancy would have been filled in plenty of time for the health care debate, even with the special election legislation.           

It is time now for Massachusetts to look to a future beyond the Kennedys and to elect a non Kennedy to represent them in the United States Senate.  Although represented by Kennedys for some sixty years, this Senate seat never was, is not now, and never will be a Kennedy seat.  No family and no individual has veto power over democracy.  This Senate seat existed long before the ascent of the Kennedys and it will exist long after the decline of the Kennedys.   

All true, but the temporary appointment bill will be passed by the end of the week, and Patrick will make the appointment on October 21st, the day after the filing deadline. Its just as much of a done deal as the law was in August of 2004.

Had Romney maintained better relations with the legislature he might have been able to weasel a temporary appointment out of them in 2004. But by August he had no allies left who were willing to stand with him. My state senator was the only Democrat to vote against the law change.

Wait a minute.

Why does Governor Patrick get to make an appointment when this authority was expressly denied to Governor Romney?  This reeks of corruption.

Ted Kennedy did not want the Governor in 2004 to have the authority to make an appointment, yet, in 2009, he wanted the Governor to have this authority.  The Massachusetts legislature did not want the Governor in 2004 to have the authority to make an appointment, yet, in 2009, they want the Governor to have this authority.

What are they going to do, change the legislation every time there is a change in the party affiliation of the Governor?

Ted Kennedy's wishes should have nothing to do with this legislation.  He was not a member of the Massachusetts legislature.

This absolutely reeks.

This is America.  The law should apply equally to everybody, not simply changing the law when it suits you.

This is sickening.

Shame, shame, shame!

[Dan the Roman]

The Democrats have only themselves to blame for now being in the position that the Senate vacancy is to be filled by a special election, which is to be held on January 19, 2010, which is about five months after the death of Senator Kennedy.

In 2004, The Massachusetts Legislature enacted the legislation providing for a special election to fill a Senate vacancy, in order to prevent then Republican Governor Mitt Romney from appointing a Republican to the Senate in the event that John Kerry were to win the Presidency, an extremely short sighted, self serving and partisan action.  At that time, Senator Kennedy himself made personal appeals to Massachusetts Democratic legislative leaders to pass the bill, which had been stalled prior to his request. 

So this autocratic and self serving legislation really came about to prevent the Republican Governor, who was Mitt Romney at the time, from making an appointment to the Senate, should John Kerry have been elected President.  In most states the Governor appoints a Senator to fill a vanancy.

Seven days before his death, it was this same Senator Ted Kennedy who sent a letter to the Governor and legislative leaders expressing his desire to change this very law, a law he himself urged the legislature to pass in 2004, this time in order to allow the Governor, now Democrat Deval Patrick, to appoint a Senator to fill the vacancy until the special election.

There is a definite disconnect here.  I guess it depends if the Governor is a member of your own party whether or not the Governor should have the power to appoint a Senator to fill a vacancy.

Senator Kennedy had known for at least a year that he was dying, yet never resigned from the Senate.  By resigning from the Senate six months earlier, for example, the Senate vacancy would have been filled in plenty of time for the health care debate, even with the special election legislation.           

It is time now for Massachusetts to look to a future beyond the Kennedys and to elect a non Kennedy to represent them in the United States Senate.  Although represented by Kennedys for some sixty years, this Senate seat never was, is not now, and never will be a Kennedy seat.  No family and no individual has veto power over democracy.  This Senate seat existed long before the ascent of the Kennedys and it will exist long after the decline of the Kennedys.   

All true, but the temporary appointment bill will be passed by the end of the week, and Patrick will make the appointment on October 21st, the day after the filing deadline. Its just as much of a done deal as the law was in August of 2004.

Had Romney maintained better relations with the legislature he might have been able to weasel a temporary appointment out of them in 2004. But by August he had no allies left who were willing to stand with him. My state senator was the only Democrat to vote against the law change.

Wait a minute.

Why does Governor Patrick get to make an appointment when this authority was expressly denied to Governor Romney?  This reeks of corruption.

Ted Kennedy did not want the Governor in 2004 to have the authority to make an appointment, yet, in 2009, he wanted the Governor to have this authority.  The Massachusetts legislature did not want the Governor in 2004 to have the authority to make an appointment, yet, in 2009, they want the Governor to have this authority.

What are they going to do, change the legislation every time there is a change in the party affiliation of the Governor?

Ted Kennedy's wishes should have nothing to do with this legislation.  He was not a member of the Massachusetts legislature.

This absolutely reeks.

This is America.  The law should apply equally to everybody, not simply changing the law when it suits you.

This is sickening.

Shame, shame, shame!

I don't disagree with your concerns, and in fact, I would be willing to venture that Therese Murray wants Patrick to make the appointment only marginally more than she would have wanted Romney to. But Obama and Reid are involved, and Democrats want to sock it to the national GOP, especially in light of Wilson's comments. As such, the combination of a desire for federal favor and the current national environment is likely to assure the passage of bill, albeit in a form that prevents the interim senator from filing.

Not that it matters. Coakley has all but one this race, and the delay in the appointment served its purpose in scaring off Kennedy.

Anyway, fair in politics was nonsense. Was the way Delay went about the Texas redistricting in 2003 fair? No. Was the behavior of either the Bush 41 or 43 Justice Departments in redistricting or elections generally fair? Of course not. Many Democrats have gotten tired of being battered, at least in their perspective. Not a large majority, hence they are only vindictive in Massachusetts or other states where they dominate. But the point stands.

[Lunar]

Who will Patrick pick?  Still that Kennedy guy? Vicki Kennedy?  Dukakis?

Surely not Coakley.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

By the way, it looks like the temporary appointment bill will require future appointments to be the same party as the person who was elected, and does not include a "cannot run for re-election" provision.

[Brittain33]

Lunar was right. The Globe reports that Lynch lost union support with his finger-in-the-wind stand on health care, which led to his snub, which led to his dropping out, which led to several unions endorsing Coakley today.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Lunar was right. The Globe reports that Lynch lost union support with his finger-in-the-wind stand on health care, which led to his snub, which led to his dropping out, which led to several unions endorsing Coakley today.

Meanwhile, Coakley's issues page is wonderfully issue-free, though she does support health care reform if you just dig deep and extrapolate enough (there's something on her calendar about attending a pro-reform rally.  It'll be interesting to see how long she can slide towards the finish line on simple, positive name ID.