Does the name Kennedy still have power even after death?
In the coming days and weeks ahead we'll see from beyond the grave what power the Kennedy legacy has behind it. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has endorsed the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's final wish which was that Massachusetts lawmakers choose to empower Gov. Deval Patrick to place an interim successor in his Senator seat until special elections can be held. Obviously Kennedy knew that important votes are coming and even as he grasped for life, he sought to seek healthcare for those less fortunate.
It'll be an interesting battle. Using basic logic, one would imagine an interim Senator makes sense. It helps gives the people of Massachusetts another voice on many important issues, not just healthcare. However when it comes to politics, much basic logic and common sense need to be checked at the door. The constitution does allow such a measure in it's provisions however it can be twisted for political gain. Several years ago many Democrats fought to make sure this same act didn't happen. Now they have a different opinion, admitting under different circumstances as this was Kennedy's wish as acting Senator.
It may be a tough road for Democrats to cross. They'll need that vote that would have been Ted Kennedy's. It's not as if an interim Senator will make that much of a difference in the long run, as it's almost a forgone conclusion that someone of a similar ilk will be elected to Kennedy's seat come the time of special elections. Still, Republicans are likely to fight this, on principle alone as the battle for healthcare reaches a fever pitch.
For those who are looking for one final piece of the Kennedy legacy, how this judgement plays out could speak volumes.
which is why they should wait for a special election, as if u had a problem with it 4 years ago, to appoint a seantor, if kerry got elected, u can now not change the rules in the middle of the game, just have the special election, if a dem wins great, if a republican wins its devastating, although the way the #'s look, the repubs could make big gains and even unseat the majoirty leader although yes republicans are leading in polls, but were still 15 months out, so reid could switch his poll #'s
Posted By: coby preimsberger (Guest) on August 28, 2009 at 01:56 AM
Really? The Democrats are okay with it now, but weren't a few years ago? That sounds very familar.... One example would be the war in Iraq, another would be calling for Governor Sanford's resignation, but not wanting President Clinton impeached. How about the democrats taking a position and sticking with it for once.
Posted By: JWestmoreland (Guest) on August 28, 2009 at 07:58 AM
I agree that getting an interim senator makes sense. With that said, it was politicized when Romney had the chance to pick a Republican Senator. It would be pretty hypocritical (or blatantly bipartisan) to try to swap it up now. Perhaps in 2010 it would be less hypocritical... but to do so now sends the wrong message in my opinion.
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on August 28, 2009 at 08:42 AM
At 32, the whole Kennedys fascination has always bothered me. They are the unofficial royal family, something a democracy isn't supposed to have. I have nothing against them at all, but the way they are placed on a pedestal and given special treatment seemingly due to their name alone has always been disconcerting to me. Wealth and nepotism are always frowned upon by the left, with this glaring exception. Was it their spirit of giving back? Their politics? The fact that JFK did Marilyn Monroe? I'm serious, if you're emotionally invested in the Kennedys, please help me get it.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on August 28, 2009 at 09:42 AM
I think that it does make sense to simply appoint someone. With that said, it is the height of both partisan politics and hypocrisy to want to swap things up simply because your party is in charge now.
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on August 28, 2009 at 10:28 AM
While, I have a lot of respect for Ted Kennedy and I'm am very typically against petty political nitpicking and fighting this is an issue where if the Republicans fought against the appointment of an "interim" Senator, I would not be against it (Hell I'd be all for it). The Rules is the Rules. If they are going to bitch about the Republicans trying it 4 years ago, guess what, they have to hold to the same standard. Fair play.
Posted By: MydniteSon (Guest) on August 28, 2009 at 10:30 AM
"How about the democrats taking a position and sticking with it for once."
Yeah because taking a stubborn position and not changing your position as facts and circumstances dictate is unamerican right?
One needs to be pig headed and just stay with your position no matter how bad it may be that way people like JWestmoreland will like you even if you are running things into the ground; at least you kept your position the same.
Posted By: mango (Guest) on August 28, 2009 at 10:49 AM
As usual, the democrats want the rules to apply to everyone but themselves. This party and the complicit media are a disgrace.
Posted By: Guest#4893 (Guest) on August 28, 2009 at 12:13 PM
A lot of people respect the Kennedys for all they did in regards to minorities in America. As they were Irish-Catholic, in the early years the Kennedys were faced with a lot of discrimination (that's why the Kennedy compound is in Hyannis Port and not in Newport, RI which was the playground for WASPy elite). The fact that they overcame discrimination to achieve the greatness they have is possibly the greatest example of what the American Dream is all about.
" Twenty years after an Irishman
couldn't get a job, we had the
presidency." -Frank Costello (The Departed)
Posted By: Guest#3339 (Guest) on August 28, 2009 at 01:13 PM
"How about the democrats taking a position and sticking with it for once."
Yeah because taking a stubborn position and not changing your position as facts and circumstances dictate is unamerican right?
One needs to be pig headed and just stay with your position no matter how bad it may be that way people like JWestmoreland will like you even if you are running things into the ground; at least you kept your position the same.
Posted By: mango (Guest) on August 28, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Yeah because things are SO much different between Clinton and Sanford right? No infact Clinton's was worse because A) He was in a higher position and B) He lied about it in a federal court. Im okay with changing a position as facts dictate, but doing it just to keep your party in power or get it more votes is just pure bullshit. But Democrats have always and will always be full of shit, just like you.
Posted By: JWestmoreland (Guest) on August 28, 2009 at 01:35 PM
"Yeah because things are SO much different between Clinton and Sanford right? No infact Clinton's was worse because A) He was in a higher position and B) He lied about it in a federal court. Im okay with changing a position as facts dictate, but doing it just to keep your party in power or get it more votes is just pure bullshit. But Democrats have always and will always be full of shit, just like you."
I find it interesting that, on a topic where many Democrats and liberals are saying that a switch would be wrong, we still get statements such as the one above about being "full of shit". Not the best look by the "distinguished opposition".
BTW - I'll preface this by saying that I don't think Sanford should have to step down, but there are a number of key differences between Clinton and Sanford besides potential perjury, including usage of taxpayer funds and abandoning his post...
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on August 28, 2009 at 02:49 PM
The Kennedy's faced a lot of discrimination. My goodness that is funny stuff. Especially with a fortune built off importing booze and selling it to the poor oppressed Irish in America.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on August 28, 2009 at 02:55 PM
Sorry Ted you fought to have the rule changed when it help the Dems.......NO GO
Posted By: Mary 69 (Guest) on August 29, 2009 at 07:22 PM
MR. KENNEDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
KENNEDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted By: Guest#8981 (Guest) on August 30, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Typical Democrats: Want to change the rules after the game has been played. Buncha pussies.
Posted By: Guest#2617 (Guest) on August 30, 2009 at 11:38 AM
STAY CURRENT