Erickson: "Obama's unicorn of hope and change is dying under Ted Kennedy"; Dems in "this position" because Kennedy wanted to be a "martyr for the cause"
January 19, 2010 9:14 pm ET
From the January 19 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
This isn't a vote about Kennedy by the way. If he were still alive, he'd not even come close to having anyone mount a challenge against him.
Before 2004, state law allowed the governor to appoint an immediate replacement in the event of a U.S. Senate vacancy. The heavily Democratic Legislature changed the law, however, after Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts was expected to become the Democratic presidential nominee.
Critics said the Legislature changed the statute to prevent then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, from picking a replacement for Kerry in the event he defeated President Bush later that fall.
"When this was an issue five years ago, Republicans pushed for an interim appointment, but it was overwhelmingly rejected," Massachusetts House GOP Leader Bradley Jones said in a statement Thursday.
"Out of political expediency and convenience, the Democrats are again considering showing a complete disregard of the democratic process and the laws of the Commonwealth by contemplating a change to the law to serve their partisan interests, as opposed to simply what is the best and most appropriate policy."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/20/kennedy.letter/index.html
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/08/20/kennedy_looking_ahead_urges_a_quick_filling_of_senate_seat/
"What Mr. Kennedy doesn't volunteer is that he orchestrated the 2004 succession law revision that now requires a special election, and for similarly partisan reasons. John Kerry, the other Senator from the state, was running for President in 2004, and Mr. Kennedy wanted the law changed so the Republican Governor at the time, Mitt Romney, could not name Mr. Kerry's replacement. "Prodded by a personal appeal from Senator Edward M. Kennedy," reported the Boston Globe in 2004, "Democratic legislative leaders have agreed to take up a stalled bill creating a special election process to replace U.S. Senator John F. Kerry if he wins the presidency." Now that the state has a Democratic Governor, Mr. Kennedy wants to revert to gubernatorial appointments."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204884404574362541012511408.html
Chew on that for a while.
And now wikipedia..
In 2004, the Massachusetts General Court withdrew the authority of the governor to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy by appointment, to prevent the then-Governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, from appointing a Republican to fill the remainder of Democrat John Kerry's Senate term, if Kerry were to win the 2004 presidential election. The legislation was enacted over Romney's veto.[17][18][19][20][21] At that time, Senator Ted Kennedy successfully made personal appeals to Massachusetts Democratic legislative leaders to pass the bill, which had been stalled prior to his request
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Massachusetts,_2010
And another source quoting the Globe, I guess everyone else is wrong , but you know it all.
Until 2004, Massachusetts had a law allowing the governor to appoint a Senator to hold a vacant seat until the next regular election. In that year, faced with the possibility Senator John Kerry succeeding in his bid for the presidency, the Democratic legislature balked at the idea of an appointment being made to fill his seat by then-GOP Governor Mitt Romney. When the legislature hesitated to pass such a blatantly self-serving bill, Senator Kennedy made two direct appeals to the state senate's president to revive the stalled bill, including a phone call to his home over a weekend. The Boston Globe reported in June 2004 that "prodded by a personal appeal. . . . Democratic legislative leaders agreed to take up [the] stalled bill" and eventually passed a law creating the special election process and taking away the governor's right to make a temporary appointment. Governor Romney vetoed the measure but was overidden by huge Democratic majorities in the legislature.
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/political-exasperations/4892-the-kennedy-rule-no-gop-senators-allowed
This isn't an online dating service.
Fairlib just loves to make points without admitting that his faithful movement conservative team made many mistakes in election proceedings, or policymaking. Once they do get called out on it, they come to defense and swear that is a lie!
You are either extremely naive, extremely stupid or extremely partisan. You make the call.
You are either extremely naive, extremely stupid or extremely partisan. You make the call.
And you know what, I'll take Obama, if we can get rid of those democrats in Congress. Dodd is gone soon and probably Reid, good riddance. If we can lock up president Pelosi on Alcatraz then we may get somewhere.
Obama is finally demonstrating some good judgement by telling the dims not to jam through the health bill without Brown being seated. He hasn't shown that kind of judgement since he picked that nice dog.I guess he does want a 2nd term.
smooch, smooch
All you libs are mr sensitivity when a liberal is concerned, when it is a repub, anything goes. You share that hypocrisy with kennedy.
if you disagree with me you like to eat p00pie
The republicans submitted their own health care bill that was less than 30 pages long. Do you actually think it was an actual attempt at doing something? That's silly to even think so. Who is blocking whom? The republicans have attached a filibuster to every bill going through the Senate since democrats won control of both houses of Congress back in 2006. I would submit that republicans are the ones doing the blocking, and preventing good governorship of the country.
And being a**holes.
OMG!!!!! :):):)):):):):):):):):):)):)::):):)) LOLZ !!!!
Besides, I think the wingnuts were using the same "whistling past the graveyard" theme when Palin was announced as VP candidate, and we were all having a good laugh. They just like something to cling to, and jokes are one of the few things they believe in recycling.
Do you know what an underdog victory is? No, of course you don't.That's part of the stoopid.
one to eat the possum
one to watch for traffic coming from one direction
one to watch for traffic coming from the other direction.
Chin up chicken dipper! Stiff upper lip. Never let them see you cry!
Cry me a river...health care is getting done, one way or another. Harharhar...
And BTW, I am not crying tonight, it is you and your pals who are shedding the tears. Not to mention Obama, reid and Pelosi.
Yep keep supporting a party who does not care about the middle class and caters to corporations. The republicans is no better then the Democrats. So your bashing of Pelosi, Obama, and the rest of the Democrats is no good, when you have the same right across the aisle.
Then why are you the one who sounds so angry...?
Very similar to their cable outlet, isn't it?
I'm assuming that's me, Koko. I'm fine, I've tried to plan things so that I'm ok, even with a worst case scenario (i.e., you morons elect people who want to destroy the country).
I take care of myself, and don't have kids, so I can laugh at you suckers rather than cry. I just feel sorry for your children. If you get your way, they'll enter a world that you've been chumped into ruining for them. If the smarter people prevail your kids will be made into village idiots, unless they completely rebel against what you've taught them.
No class.
Go for a hike on the Appalachian Trail - Following a Dream and be forgiven!!
And, fairliberal, attacking the dead is a low-blow. Clearly, you have no sense of decency.
Have you spoken out against that?
Are you that dishonest that you would deny that Reagan is attacked regularly here? But poor Teddy no one should pick on him. You sound like Obama whinning about Fox.
I attack policies not personally, unless that same person uses personal attacks then I get personal in my responses. Reagan has never resulted to personal shots as far I know, but if did I will attack him personally. Fair is fair.
Oh, she was being sarcastic, and pretending that the rebuttals didn't beat her ? Hahahahaha... never mind.
Please cite your evidence that he let her suffocate. Kennedy said he made attempts to dive down and rescue her. I am not saying that is fact, just curious as to your evidence saying it is not so.
There are plenty of accounts of the days events on line, perhaps you should do some research on that fine fellow.
Of course the air ran out, and probably fairly quickly. You are saying that it lasted for hours, until Kennedy was snug in his bed? That's nuts. Your comment about his drinking - and pretty much everything else - comes out of a "what can I possibly write to make Kennedy look as bad as possible" mentality, and is not established fact.
Look, Kennedy acted horribly and, perhaps, could have been charged with more than leaving the scene of an accident. No need to embellish it with unproven speculation, as you have.
Of course the air ran out, and probably fairly quickly. You are saying that it lasted for hours, until Kennedy was snug in his bed? That's nuts. Your comment about his drinking - and pretty much everything else - comes out of a "what can I possibly write to make Kennedy look as bad as possible" mentality, and is not established fact.
Look, Kennedy acted horribly and, perhaps, could have been charged with more than leaving the scene of an accident. No need to embellish it with unproven speculation, as you have. Consider taking the "fair" part out of your name.
Its funny though how upset you frauds were when O'Reilly poked fun at Helen Thomas, an elderly lady. With Nancy Reagan, it is perfectly acceptable.
It's funny how you think that attacking Helen Thomas is so wonderful but are on your high horse about Nancy Reagan.
Face it, Mass.: you just got punk'd, hardcore, by a teabagger.
So there's only one thing to say to the people of Bagachusetts:
OPEN WIDE
Randy
Good ship obama taking on water...better abandon ship, but there be sharks about!
We control the Senate.
We control the Presidency.
And you were saying...
Do not read the following if you just like thinking you won something;
If eating feces and being a useless freeloader is considered a "win" in Right Wing World, you're a champ.
Bagachusetts, you just made your retarded neighbor Connecticut look like Einstein.
Randy
So Colonel the folks of Massachusetts are "stoopid", eh? Are these the same folks that kept re-electing Kennedy & Kerry? Or did they all leave the state?
Ah Colonel you do know you sound like a poor loser. I don't know why, but I expected more from you than insulting the good people of this very Liberal state. Eating your own, are ya?
Maybe Obama & the Dems should look at this election as a wake up call & make adjustments. Start really listening to what people really want instead of just pushing an agenda you think they should want. If they don't, their arrogance will be their Achilles heel.
Dems outnumber Republicans up here as you all know. But it was the Independents that assured Brown's victory.
Coakley ran on Obama's agenda. Folks here rejected it.
I'm sure this victory will be spun by the White House into a pretzel before the day is over but if Obama & the Dems refuse to understand & accept that the good people of my state are sending a message of their disapproval & frustration then they will have learned nothing from this defeat & they will continue to be voted out of office by "stoopid people".
"Coakley ran on Obama's agenda. Folks here rejected it."
Somewhat true, but what lesson do we take from this? My impression is that Mass progressives stayed home in droves because the agenda that Obama has pressed so far has been far from progressive. Healthcare reform, as it now stands, has been compromised to the point that progressives are as disenchanted with it as any Tea Partier (though for different reasons). Are you arguing that Obama should now tack even farther to the right?
"...if Obama & the Dems refuse to understand & accept that the good people of my state are sending a message of their disapproval & frustration then they will have learned nothing from this defeat..."
What message should Obama and the Dems be taking away from this? That they should be reaching out even more to appease the obstructionist Republicans?
Thanks for the kind words, I also appreciate your posts even when we are on opposing sides of an issue.
While some Massachusetts Progressives/Liberals may have stayed home, I haven't heard or read anywhere that it was in droves, or even heard anyone suggest that might have happened. And I would find it difficult to believe that they would prefer to allow a Republican/Conservative to be elected rather than a Democrat/Liberal/Progressive. Sounds a bit like biting off your nose to spite your face to me. While there are folks on the far Left upset with the President, there was no organized movement here in Massachusetts that I know of pushing for Dem/Libs/Prog to stay home & not vote.
Healthcare reform as it now stands is a punctured mishmash of a bill. It needs to be re-done. And this will take compromise, which includes listening to the American people of which only roughly 35% are happy with the current pending bill. And I do believe part of the disenchantment with it, & with Obama, are all the backroom deals brokered to obtain Democratic votes. If this bill is so great, why the need to pay folks off to vote for it? The American people were expecting better from a President that promised change in the way things had been done in Washington.
What message should Obama and the Dems be taking away from this? That they should be reaching out even more to appease the obstructionist Republicans?
Well now if automatically labeling those that disagree with you "obstructionist", then of course nothing will ever get done. And no you don't need to "appease", but compromise might work? I think folks would welcome Healthcare Reform, but not if it will be a bloated bill that could end up costing us all more for our healthcare than it does now. Instead of trying to rush a bill through, I would prefer to see both sides sit down & work out a compromise bill. If the Republicans offer nothing but roadblocks, then folks will see that.
I guess it was beyond your intelligence to even consider I might not have lived in Massachusetts my entire life? That maybe I was a NY fan because I once lived there? Tends to make me think that you don't think....
I understand disappointments with this administration, I have a lot of my own. It's just my opinion that voting for a teabagger- approved candidate like Brown in an emotional show of spite doesn't seem like the brightest move to me.
What do you see as Brown's most attractive feature as a candidate, besides being "not the incumbent party" ? Is it nostalgia for the Bush agenda ? The pickup truck?
I don't think this had anything to do with "spite". Now that would truly be stoopid. As I wrote a lot of folks here are frustrated & disapprove of some Obama/Dem policies, or proposed policies. And I'm not just reporting what I'm reading in the local paper or hearing on local tv/radio. I'm also telling ya what I've heard from family, friends & co-workers. Some of whom are Democrats.
What do you see as Brown's most attractive feature as a candidate, besides being "not the incumbent party" ? Is it nostalgia for the Bush agenda ? The pickup truck?
Cute Colonel ;-) Speaking for myself I wanted to send a Republican/Conservative to the Senate to represent me & others who oppose some of Obama/Dem policies. Come on, we deserve at least one voice don't we?
About as ugly as Erickson and his ilk.
In order for us to be whistling through the graveyard, we'd have to be in trouble, and we're not. Not yet. November will tell us more, and if we lose more seats, and lose the majority, THEN we can revisit the whistling through the graveyard scenario.
Actually proudcon has posted it here more than twice. He's a one-trick pony with an extremely lame cartoon.
I'm just now looking at responses to my comments yesterday about the Mass. election. Brown's win is something I found more amusing than anything, and I hope it's a wake-up call to any other Dems who take too much for granted, but it's not a real front burner item in my life.
I thought I made my opinion of that race clear, but so far, I've been called a "sore loser", had it suggested that I may need something to "dull the pain", and a couple of other remarks implying that this senate race a few thousand miles away from me is some great personal loss for me.
I don't know if it's the natural wingnut instinct for projection, or they're just following instructions from the man on the radio, but expect more of it. They get something they like, and they cling to it.