Source: Boston Herald

Successor plan gains steam
Speaker Robert A. DeLeo ok with giving Gov. Patrick appoint power

"House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo has given his behind-closed-doors blessing to an effort to hand Gov. Deval Patrick the power to appoint a temporary successor to U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, sources say."

"While DeLeo has been publicly silent on the controversial measure tagged a power play by critics, the speaker indicated his tacit support."

Read the rest of the story at the link.

Read more: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20090826successor_plan_gains_steam_speaker_robert_a_deleo_ok_with_giving_gov_patrick_appoint_power/srvc=home&position=3

---

God bless Ted Kennedy!

Let's hope the Massachussets legislature follows through on his wishes and allows the Governor to appoint a temporary placeholder.

Lastly, for those Republithugs who think they have a shot at turning this seat RED, when hell freezes over!

We need a senator who supports a public option. That's all that matters right now.

They could've been prepared. He gave them warning. They were fools.

If not, can the governor call them back for a special session?

I am sure you are saddened by the death of Sen Ten Kennedy. But somehow I cant help but think you are also glad to have the pressure off in the fight for decent health care. With the good Senator gone, it clears the way for the corrupt health care industry, their lobbyists and their bought-and-paid-for Congress people to crush the will of 80% of the American public.

Have you no shame? You literally allow Americans to die just so you can reap more blood money from the corrupt health insurance industry.

For Sen Ted Kennedy’s sake if not for the poor American children without decent health care, we are going to kick your ass. We are going to pass a decent health care bill over the top of you. And then we are going to do our best to see you do not get reelected, even if it means losing your seat to a republican.

What’s worse than a greedy republican, a greedy Democrat?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6393346

As coincidence would have it, I called yesterday afternoon to plead for the bill Senator Kennedy requested. They are taking calls and recording opinions, including if our enemies call.

Please make the contacts. Thank you.

Blue it will stay.

The timing is at issue. Do we need a second Mass. senator immediately, to pass a particular bill; or do we want to at least appear not to be willing to change the rules to suit us, whenever and however often we need to?

On the first hangs not so much a health care bill, as is usually noised, but the rush to enact a health care bill.

On the second, probably credibility, integrity and a bit of good will. After all, if we do it, is it wrong when the repubs do it? I derided them, for cause and out of principle. I don't see a reason to change my principles.

I agree with Igel. If the Dems try to change the law now they will be branded as power-grabbers and will hurt the party not only in Mass., but around the country as well. After all, it was Democrats who changed the law to allow special elections for Senate vacancies just five years ago. We do NOT want to be on the defensive on this when there's much more important work to do. The Dems would be best off looking for the best candidate to run in this election and keep the seat blue.

As for the "60th vote" on health care reform in the Senate, we most likely will get Snowe or Collins to vote for the bill, and if not, the Senate can still pass a bill using the reconciliation procedure which would allow it to pass with just 51 votes.

no matter what Democrats do or don't do.

The sixtieth vote? There's a question whether Byrd is able to vote and the Blue Dogs are not in line. As far as Snowe, she has already said a public option is not on the table. The reconciliation process is fraught with pitfalls.

After more than 40 years in the Senate, Kennedy knew what was necessary, more than you or Igel, with all respect due both of you.

And Please see Reply 15.

It's not the Republicans I worry about (their insults are compliments as far as I'm concerned), it's the INDEPENDENTS. It will not look good considering the Democrats changed the law only 5 years ago to replace gubenatorial appointments with special elections to fill a vacant Senate seat. The entire motivation for this was to keep the seat blue if Kerry had been elected president. If the Democrats reverse the law now, it will look hypocritical. The law is the law and it should be followed.

Let's focus our energy on finding a solid, reputable liberal Democrat to run in this special election and get him or her elected to the Senate!

this is going to affect the behavior of Republicans, one way or another, you are mistaken. We could be saints and they still would be rats. However, again, the people of Massachusetts deserve two Senators.

The idea that filling vacant Senate seats was not supposed to be political is not consistent with history. Until 1913,the Constitution of the United States let the state legislature fill vacant Senate seats. Do you think anyone was under the illusion the legislature would not be making political choices?

The only reason the 17th amendment to the COTUS was enacted was that legislatures were infighting and therefore taking too long to fill the seats. So, the amendment lets the legilature decide if the seat should stay vacant until a special election or if the Governor should fill it. Again, no one was under the illusion in 1913 that legislatures are apolitical or that legislatures could not change their minds from time to time. If something else were intended, the COTUS would say that the Legislature could not repeal or amend their choice at will, yet it does not say that.

So, your personal sensibility is your personal sensibility. It does not reflect the sensibilty of the Framers or of the people who adopted the 17th amendment.

.

What is the current procedure? When was it put in place?
All governors need to have the power to usurp the democratic process?
Oh
But red state governors are forbidden to make the decision when a blue dog seat opens up. Think about what you are willing to give up

Why would we need 'purity laws' installed now ?
Jmo. One step closer to giving up freedom and security

says the seat will remain vacant for about five months, until a special election. Senator Kennedy asked that the seat be filled until a special election, also in about five months. He also asked that the appointee make a personal commitment not to run for the seat, but, of course, that is not binding on anyone, including the appointee.

It's not about the people deciding, only about a vacant seat for about five months vs. a filled seat for about five months.

Also, please see Reply ##s 15 and 20.

As for Republicans behaving well if we do, that is a bigger myth than the Loch Ness monster. We could be angels and they would still do whatever they want.

The five month period could be made briefer, but that gives people who want the seat time to campaign against each other, so voters can make an informed decision.

Five months and five years hold the same weight in the eyes of law, no ?

The state should have taken up this measure long ago and now they want to burn the midnight oil .... thats politicians for you.


The crimes of state. Another pol bites the dust - Illinois
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2883098





http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/12/source-feds-take-gov-blagojevich-into-custody.html

Keep them out of the "puppet master" back room deals. Let the competition for the office be public and vocal over the next several months and rush a special election for early january.
hey
This could be a great excuse for the majority in DC to continue the health care prcrastination

Feingold: No health care bill before Christmas

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4031781&mesg_id=4031781
jmo

Not that they won't try to grab power, no matter what we do or don't do.

The notion that Republicans will shape up and not say or do bad things if Democrats just roll over is just silly. Someone please tell me when that last happened.

so publicly by phone to media this morning.

This will get passed, it should have been part of the initial bill, years ago, but no Democrat trusted Romney then, and they didn't want to give that man the chance to appoint himself.

the Constituion of the United States. So, please make the contacts in the OP of this thread. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6393346

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6393346

Please.


The Senate President is not necessarily on board. I called the Massachusetts State House only yesterday and spoke with my contact there. I hope she continues to swing in the right direction, but a lot of messages would not be wasted, especially if you live in Massachusetts.

With Kennedy / Gillibrand and Paterson's $500k that came from D'Amato.

after all, she does own a considerable amount of property in Massachusetts, and she's probably summering there, which practically makes her a resident :sarcasm:

Traditionally, the seat would go temporarily to the late senator's spouse until the next election. I know nothing about Ted Kennedy's widow. Putting a five-month delay in the process is in hindsight a bad idea, but it was the will of the legislature at the time, and if they wanted to spite the former governor, well, they could have thought through the consequences a little more.

ETA: is seems someone's already started an "appoint Caroline" thread here.

Reply ##s 15 and 20.

Five months, I imagine, was to give time for people to campaign, so that voters could make an informed decision.

The more annoying it becomes that Ted didn't step aside earlier, to allow for a special election.

And FYI, I'd have had no problem if CK had been appointed to the NY seat but considering how that all went down, what gets highlighted in retrospect was her political naivete, in the wake of the $500k bribe that Paterson took.

but it was his choice.

negotiate this bill successfully, as he did with so many others.

The ideal situation would have been for the bill to be real single-payer like Sweden and be approved by unaminous votes in both the senate and the house. And the next day a free unlimited zero pollution power source is discovered that could be incorporated into all aspects of our technology.

during this crtical period?

I am sure he was hoping more treatment would enable him to return to the Senate and work his usual magic.

to allow the governor to make a temporary appointment instead of waiting for 5 months. Hindsight's a great thing, isn't it?

Kennedy was a great senator but in the end he chose to put his desire to remain in the senate, in spite of terminal cancer, ahead of Massachusetts' law.

What happened in NY and Illinois was disgraceful all around, to everyone involved. Whomever gets the appointment is going to have a superior advantage in the election. An appointment means the office going to whomever puts up the most money to the governor's re-election fund. Massachusetts will be better off with an election.

Would he be the right candidate to run for his uncle's seat? I remember he had a good heart, but sometimes got a little clusmsy on the stump.

I'm sure he'd do fine.

More and more, that appears to be the greatest of all of his capitulations thus far.