Ted Kennedy - R.I.P.

Remove all ads!

It's the passing of an age:

Rest in peace, Ted. You were, and still are, one of the greats.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32491712/

 

And now there are 59 Democratic senators. RIP to health care reform as well.

 

Seems like his condition was worse than they were letting on after all. RIP

 

Won't his seat get filled by someone of similar views?

As for Ted Kennedy, the fact that he was labelled as the most liberal senator and even a left-wing extremist by many turned him into one of very very few American politicians I felt lived even closely in my own universe. Respect.

 

According to Massachusetts state law, a special election will be held to fill his seat. As Massachusetts is a liberal state, it is a certainty that he will be replaced by another Democrat. However, according to state law, that election can take as long as five months, which puts us into 2010.

 

Which is much better than the way they do it in Illinois.

 

I found that interesting too, in a 'cosmic irony' kind of way.

 

Yes, he was definitely one of the most respected US politicians overseas. Very sorry to hear of his passing. RIP.

 

It should be pointed out, though, that they weren't actually looking to reverse that law. The bill being written at Kennedy's request would allow the governor to appoint someone who agreed not to run in the special election himself to take his vacant seat until it is filled by popular vote 145-160 days later, ensuring that Massachusetts won't be short a seat at any time during the run-up to the special election. It seems like a pretty reasonable request to me, and unless the Romney or the republicans requested the same powers in 2004 and were rebuffed, it doesn't strike me as hypocritical, either.

 

We have a winner. This is what is causing so much embarassment for our Democratic leadership. When the law was changed in 2004 to force an election most people thought it was a politically motivated change, but probably a good one as this way the citizenry were not saddled with someone they didn't want. The Republicans tried to add an amendment to allow the governor to appoint a temporary replacement and it was crushed by the Democratic majority. Now they are going to have to live with the consequences or come across as very petty and hyporcritical. The newspapers are having a field day about it.

 

I don't live in Massachusetts, so it doesn't affect me directly, but I agree with both Snook and Drew. Allowing the appointment of a temporary replacement seems like a good way to provide the state with representation until a special election can be conducted. Senators are supposed to be elected by the people, and allowing the governor to appoint a new senator to complete the term - which could theoretically be up to six years - is vesting way too much power in one person. By the same token, if this was proposed a few years ago and the Democrats shot down the proposal, then they are definitely hypocritical. Ultimately though, I think being viewed as hypocritical will be of little consequence. Massachusetts is one of the more liberal states, and I don't see the population going Republican even if the law does change.

 

I can't understand how Mass. doesn't have a clear cut way to immediately replace a Senator upon his death. Or impeachment or whatever it is that causes him not to be able to function in his job. I know the people elect the Senate seats, but it takes alot of time to hold another, in the meantime the state is not getting it's proper representation. I find that... odd...

 

We did. The Dems changed it when we had a Republican governor and they thought Kerry would win the White House. They were afraid that the governor would appoint a Republican. It is for this exact same reason that we can't even appoint a temporary senator.

If it wasn't so sad it would be comical.

 

I'm sure THAT would have never happened.

 

Of couse not ... Kerry would need to win before that could happen.

 

That's a good one, T2.