Print Story Existing conditions
Politics
By ucblockhead (Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 04:20:04 PM EST) (all tags)
"Unintended consequences"


Four years back, Massachusetts, with a Democratic legislature was worried that of Kerry won the presidency (silly, I know, but back then it even seemed possible!) Republican Governor Mitt Romney would get to appoint his successor.  The responded by changing the way successors are appointed, requiring a special election.

Today, these same Democrats are confronted with this same law as while they need to get someone in the Senate as fast as possible to vote for health care, this very law that they wrote requires them to wait 145 days for a special election.  And so now they want to repeal this exact law because of "unintended consequences".

"Unintended consequences" being "the generic law that we passed for purely short-term politic motives is about to bite us in the ass because we were too stupid to think about what would happen if the tables were turned."

< A vodka bottle gave you those raccoon eyes. | Thtuff >
Existing conditions | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
+1 So true. by atreides (4.00 / 1) #1 Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 04:25:38 PM EST
And if they repeal it at this point, I'll be a little pissed at them for what they will unleash.

He sails from world to world in a flying tomb, serving gods who eat hope.

Compared to Texas by ad hoc (4.00 / 1) #6 Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 05:46:13 PM EST
this is nothing.
--
[ Parent ]
I live here by iGrrrl (4.00 / 2) #2 Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 04:28:03 PM EST
And I wasn't happy they changed it, as much as I disliked Romney and thought he'd put some I wouldn't like either into the seat. I won't be happy if they undo it, either. 

"Beautiful wine, talking of scattered everythings"
(and thanks to Scrymarch)

You just *know* by ad hoc (4.00 / 1) #7 Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 05:49:06 PM EST
Patrick will appoint some total loser. I mean, look what he's done already: Aloisi !?!?!?!?!? Just think what he could do with this.

What a disappointment that guy is.
--

[ Parent ]
Suprise! by duxup (4.00 / 1) #3 Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 04:29:50 PM EST
Things change!  Who knew.

I recall the good old Republican threat to do away with the filibuster...

____
Oops by gpig (4.00 / 1) #4 Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 04:34:40 PM EST
I lived in a monarchy for 29 years. Under that brutal regime, if someone had suggested that Members of Parliament should be appointed (under any circumstances) they would have been given nasty looks, and served decidedly substandard tea.
---
(,   ,') -- eep
*cough* by ana (2.00 / 0) #5 Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 04:59:02 PM EST
House of Lords?

"And this ... is a piece of Synergy." --Kellnerin

[ Parent ]
I take your point by gpig (4.00 / 1) #8 Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 01:15:38 AM EST
Though MPs and Lords are very different ....

The problem with the House of Lords is we can't agree what to do with it. Nobody really wants to go all-elected as it would lead to the same circus in the lower house being played out in the upper. At the same time the current all-appointed-plus-bishops situation isn't great. (Unbelievably, my amazing plan to select Lords at random from the population has not yet taken off).
---
(,   ,') -- eep

[ Parent ]
blatant naked partisanship. by aphrael (2.00 / 0) #9 Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 02:27:46 AM EST
i find it pretty despicable, to be honest.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.
145 days by johnny (2.00 / 0) #10 Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 07:36:14 AM EST
I wonder how they came up with that number?

Massachusetts has all the virtues of a one-party state & a long history of corruption & ineptitude in its legislature.

It's for precisely this reason (it seems to me) that the people of the state have a long tradition of electing Republican governors. We like Democratic policies more than Republican ones, but we sure as hell don't trust our legislature any further than we can throw it. The governor puts some kind of brake (albeit a pretty feeble one) on the legislature. And the legislature is forever writing laws like this one to get around the governor.

Ass, meet teeth. Ouch!

She has effectively checked out. She's an un-person of her own making. So it falls to me.--ad hoc (in the hole)

(Comment Deleted) by jimgon (2.00 / 0) #11 Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 09:34:31 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by jimgon



No, they aren't talking about repealing the law by jimgon (4.00 / 1) #12 Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 09:37:50 AM EST
You have that part wrong.  They are talking about amending the current law to allow the Governor to appoint a temporary replacement given that the replacement pledges not to run for the seat.  The special election to fill the rest of the term would still take place after five months.  The Boston Globe yesterday had a good editorial concerning why this is a good thing.   The Legislature used naked politics in changin the law when Romney was Governor.  That was stupid and wrong.  Just because it was naked politics, stupid, and wrong doesn't mean we should bury our heads and pretend it shouldn't be fixed.  The Legislature screwed up and they should eat crow and fix the law.  There should be a special election after six months to allow time for campaigning, but the Governor should have the ability to appoint a replacement subject to Legislative approval with the assurance that the appointee will not seek election ot the seat in the general election.  I find it ridiculous that Minnesota just went through six months of being handicapped in the Senate by having only one Senator while their election was sorted out.   I find it equally ridiculous that Massachusetts would be similarly handicapped because people don't want to fix something that everyone admits is a bad law.




---------------
Technician - "We can't even get decent physical health care. Mental health is like witchcraft here."
On a side note by jimgon (4.00 / 1) #13 Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 09:53:53 AM EST
I find it repugnant that Harry Reid is caucusing the state legislature to change the law.  Harry-fucking-Reid should keep is damned nose out of Masachusetts state politics.   He's the bloody Senator from Nevada and he's one of the worst majority leaders I've ever seen.  I wish Harry Reid would go back to ensuring the Nevada hookers have licenses and get his nose out of my state's politics.  He doesn't belong here.   Fricking foreigners.




---------------
Technician - "We can't even get decent physical health care. Mental health is like witchcraft here."
[ Parent ]
Thing is by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #15 Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 07:18:51 PM EST
It always seems like people only figure out that existing law is "broken" when it hurts their own side.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
Doesn't matter why by jimgon (2.00 / 0) #16 Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 10:03:05 AM EST
Doesn't matter how it comes to light that the law is broken.  The law is broken.  It creates a hole in the Senate representation of Massachusetts.  It needs to be fixed.   Burying our heads and not fixing it just to make a point is self defeating.   There's important legislation that will come up before the end fo this year, and to limit Massachusetts to a single Senator to make a point is irresponsible.  The Democratic legislature doesn't want to fix it because then they admit their mistake and that they only did it to screw Romney.  The republicans don't want to fix it because of the health insurance debate and it works to their advantage to limit Massachusetts' representation.  I want it fixed because Massachusetts is entitled to two votes in the Senate and it handicaps my state's interests in the Federal Government. 




---------------
Technician - "We can't even get decent physical health care. Mental health is like witchcraft here."
[ Parent ]
Democrats write laws that benefit them by dev trash (2.00 / 0) #14 Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 05:23:36 PM EST
Republicans write laws that benefit them

Film at 11

--
Click

Existing conditions | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback