Kennedy's Spite Leaves Him a Bit Uptight.
 

Good ole Ted ... fearing Mitt Romney would replace John Kerry with a republican ... the legislature stripped him of that power. Romney vetoed the bill which was then overridden.

So now that his days are numbered - he would like to restore that right to the governor because now it's a democrat he can trust - Deval Patrick. He paints the picture of this being the honorable thing to do.:rolleyes:
http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/T...221_6262-2.pdf

Well if he really would like to talk of honorable then he should have resigned a while ago. He has missed most of the 270 roll calls in the last 15 months. If Ted really cared about representation ... he would just resign - the honorable thing to do instead of just worrying about 2 yea votes for the probable healthcare bill. Classic Kennedy - party & power over people ... too bad it took this many years for people to see it.

Kennedy should resign - The Boston Globe

Re: Kennedy's Spite Leaves Him a Bit Uptight.
 

Teddy the Swimmer is a filthy hypocrite. No surprise. What is surprising is how this man constantly got re-elected as our Senator in Massachusetts.

Re: Kennedy's Spite Leaves Him a Bit Uptight.
 

The rule of law is for other people not Teddy the swimmer.

Re: Kennedy's Spite Leaves Him a Bit Uptight.
 

Kennedy's completely in the right here. He's fooling no one. Of course it's a political move, just as it was a political move when the MA legislature changed the rules to prevent Romney from appointing himself, since not honoring it is basically serving the political interests of the Republicans. Feigning fairness on this issue won't fool anyone.

Re: Kennedy's Spite Leaves Him a Bit Uptight.
 

Rules about how political vacancies are filled shouldn't be modified to fit the whim of a specific political situation.

Sad you think it is OK to change the rules whenever it fits the partisan ambitions of either party.

As usuals with dems the ends justify the means regardless of the laws, and they wonder why the people don't trust them with their health care.

Re: Kennedy's Spite Leaves Him a Bit Uptight.
 

He would be more in the right if he stepped aside when he was diagnosed with the cancer. Massachusetts has had 50% representation in DC ... that didn't seem to bother him until now.

What I would love to see ... is mandatory representation laws for Congress and Senate people. if you can't be there to vote at least 90% of the time you lose your seat regardless of why you are not there.

Re: Kennedy's Spite Leaves Him a Bit Uptight.
 

Screw the will of the people, if they don't like the laws at the time they go out and change them then when the winds change they go and change them again back to where they were in the first place. Next they will try to claim that it would be too expensive for the state since it would mean two elections for the same position in just over a year :eek:

And before someone brings that issue up remember that they paid for multiple special elections to fill the vacancies from the resigned and the deceased. Marty Meehan's in 2007, Joe Moackley's seat in 2001, Tom Finneran's seat in 2005, Robert Travaglini in 2007, and Sal DiMasi's this past June.

They are in a hurry, they know if they tried changing the law next year they would face angry voters in November.

Re: Kennedy's Spite Leaves Him a Bit Uptight.
 

I don't think there's much issue with regard to the will of the people. I would bet most people in MA support Kennedy and support health care reform. I would think most people in the state even support cap and trade. Those are critical bills, and I think we ought to be represented.

Re: Kennedy's Spite Leaves Him a Bit Uptight.
 

I think both the bills Patters mentioned are critical and their positive influence will be talked about 100 years from now in every state but Texas. It would be unfortunate if MA doesn't get its fair share of the votes.

Some might call the switching capricious, but the only judgment on that that matters is done by the voters.

Re: Kennedy's Spite Leaves Him a Bit Uptight.
 

That's not what they were claiming before when they removed the direct appointment. They deliberately kept a three month window after January 20th 2005 so that nobody would be "representing" the state, the same people who want to remove the law to go back to appointments.

This is from one of the stalwarts who forced the change: