|
Post by einebierbitte on Sept 1, 2009 10:40:02 GMT -4
In the newspaper today, there is an article about the Democrats manuevering for Kennedy's seat. The Legislators seelk legal change to allow for interim appointment by the Governor In other words, they want the law to change so the Governor can appoint someone prior to the January 19th election. Here is what is crazy... 5 years ago the Dems lobbyied and won to change the law disallowing the governer to make such an appointment, why? Because the Governor then was Republic Mitt Romney and they didn't want him to appoint a fellow repbulican in the event that Sen Kerry (D) won the presidential election. I am sure other states do the same thing, but I just found this laughable out loud this morning!!
|
|
|
Post by shoregurrl on Sept 1, 2009 10:54:40 GMT -4
I also saw this in the newspaper and thought how crazy it was. It's like little kids playing games - changing the rules when things aren't going in their favor or they want to make sure things go in their favor. My nephew used to do this all the time with board games. Anyway, I too laughed out loud when I read this.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Sept 1, 2009 12:27:08 GMT -4
In 2002, two years before the Democrats changed the rules in Mass. they pulled the same kind of stunt in NJ. Democratic Senator Torricelli was up for re-election. Just 4 or 5 months before the election he had a double didgit lead. Then some financial ethics issues came up and 2 months before the election he was trailing by double digits. The Democrats had a one seat majority in the Senate at the time, and to try to preseve that majority, New Jersey Democrats changed candidates and put Lautenberg on the ballot instead, about 35 days before the election. NJ election laws at the time said any ballot changes (other than for a candidate who dies or becomes medically incapacitated) had to be done no later than 50 days prior to the election. I don't believe the Democrats even bothered the change the rules after the election.They just fought this case out before the State Supreme Court where most of the justices had been appointed by Democratic governors, won the election, and didn't worry about the rules any more after the election than they had before the election.
Another irony was that 3 years later, one year after the first Mass rules change (because we will see a second one soon!!!) Lautenberg introduced a bill that he said would "Prevent partisan activity by election officials". Why not, after all, his seat was safe by then!
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Sept 1, 2009 20:28:33 GMT -4
Am I mistaken or was it Kennedy who lobbied five years ago to require the special election? Just a little ironic that the Dems are now scrambling to change the rules back over Kennedy's seat.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Sept 1, 2009 21:31:59 GMT -4
It's just disgusting! Two sets of rules, one for when you're in the drivers seat, and one for when your in the passenger seat. And the supreme ruler in power will use his henchmen against you when he feels threatened. The first ammendment only applies if you are on his side, and your tax dollars are hard at work spreading the propaganda. Just disgusting!
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Sept 1, 2009 21:35:02 GMT -4
Am I mistaken or was it Kennedy who lobbied five years ago to require the special election? Just a little ironic that the Dems are now scrambling to change the rules back over Kennedy's seat. That would be exactly correct, and it seems kennedy was concerned about THIS from his deathbed.. or at least his tight circle was pretty worried about it..... Partisan political CRAP.
|
|