Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
Email Format


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Red Mass Group on Facebook



About Us
FAQ
How To Format Posts
Email Us
RSS Feed
RMG Store
Fair Use Policy
2010 Tag Standards
2010 Candidate Profiles RMG Mobile Site

Search




Advanced Search


Event Calendar
May 2013
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 *
<< (add event) >>

Blog Roll
Mass. Conservatives
Ben Wetmore
Boston Maggie
Conservative's Conscience
The Capitol View Live
Critical Mass
Deval Patrick Watch
FreeRepublic - Massachusetts
Hub Politics
Mass Roots
Miss Kelly
New England Republican
No Looking Backwards
Notes from D.R. Tucker
Peter Porcupine
Save WRKO
Scaling the Hill
South Shore Republican Voice
Worcester Freedom Trail
Moonbats
Blue Mass Group
Berkshires Blog
Chimes at Midnight
Left in Lowell
MA lefty blogs
Progressive Mass.
Quriltai on the Shore
Libertarians
Garrett Quinn
Beacon Hill Institute Blog
Pioneer Institute Blog
Campaign For Liberty
Cato at Liberty
Humble Libertarian
von Mises Blog
Ayn Rand Institue
Young Americans for Liberty
Hyper Local
My Dedham
Dracut Forum
Dracut Musings
Holyoke First
Hub Blog
ShrewsBuried
Talking Stoneham
Universal Hub
View From Plymouth Rock
Eric Dahlberg's Blog
Mass. Media
Conservative's Conscience
The Daily Briefing
Keller @ Large Blog
Ken Pittman
The Lone Republican
Political Intelligence
Pundit Review
Talking Politics
Commonwealth Unbound
Dan Kennedy
Greater Boston
Michael Graham
National
73 Wire
Ace of Spades
Big Hollywood
Daily Beast
Daily Kos
Daily Paul
Flynn Files
Hot Air
Little Green Footballs
National Review
Pardon My English
Reason - Hit & Run
Red State
Sudden Stop
Wonkette




Another shameless power grab by MA Dems?

by: SarahRumpf

Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 12:25:57 PM EST


It's been an interesting time for me in Massachusetts this year, seeing the differences (the many, many, many differences) between that state and my home state of  Florida.

Both states have a legislature dominated by one party, but with wide variation in how much autonomous power the controlling party really has. When the Republicans who control the Florida House and Senate push their luck too far, the Florida press corps howl in protest and voters in even heavily-Republican districts tend to reject anything really outlandish (case in point: the failure of many of the constitutional amendments, which originated in the Legislature, on the ballot this year).

In contrast, in Massachusetts, when the Democrats try something nutty, it's met with shrugs  and mostly ignored as simply business as usual. At best, media outlets like the Boston Herald may cover a story here and there, but it rarely seems to slow down the Democrats' appetite for abusing government power.

Here's the latest example: amid chatter that Senator John Kerry will be appointed to a Cabinet position for Obama's second term, Democrats are scheming to change the rules for filling his seat:

Boston Herald | Hillary Chabot | Whispers build of change to special election rules

Power-hungry Bay State Democrats - eyeing another potential Senate opening if U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry joins the Obama Cabinet- are quietly discussing reinstating a 2004 law that would let Gov. Deval Patrick appoint a permanent replacement to help keep the seat under party control until at least 2014.

"I think that would be preferable. It would certainly save the taxpayers money if they don't have to pay for another election," said Phil Johnston, former chairman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.

"I think people are campaigned out. I think the governor is very popular and most voters would be happy to support his choice until the next general election," Johnston added.

The current law triggers a special election within 160 days if Kerry accepts a long-anticipated post in President Obama's Cabinet. Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown scored an upset win over his heavily favored Democratic opponent, Attorney General Martha Coakley, in the special election for the late U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's seat...

...The move comes eight years after Democratic lawmakers stripped then-Gov. Mitt Romney of his appointment powers in an effort to keep Republicans out of the office, and three years after they changed the law again to let Patrick appoint a temporary replacement.

Read the rest of the article here.

Oh, how grand. The former chairman of the MA Dems says it would be "preferable" if they didn't have to bother with an election. Isn't that considerate of him?

Shhh...never mind the irony of the party that has no problem with food stamps being spent on tattoos, alcohol, and strippers suddenly worrying about taxpayer dollars being spent on anything so frivolous as an election!

What Johnston really means, of course, is that it would be preferable for the Democrats if they didn't have to bother campaigning against Scott Brown again. Even in a state like Massachusetts, it's harder for the Democrats to turn out voters for special elections, and the Republicans have a fighting chance. Yeah, so, not really "preferable" for the Democrats.

Laws are not meant to be flipped over and over like pancakes depending on what party is in power or who is in office. It never ceases to amaze me how the same Democrats who screamed bloody murder about the Patriot Act under George W. Bush are quiet little mice regarding Obama making unilateral decisions about killing people, including American citizens, with drone strikes. For additional giggles, go research what various Senators have said about the filibuster power depending on whether or not their party had control.

Let's hope that State Senator Barry Feingold (D-Andover), who chairs the Massachusetts' Legislature's election laws committee, really was telling the truth when he said that he does not support changing the current law, and that he is able to stand up to his power-hungry colleagues who disagree with him.

I'm not holding my breath.

Cross-posted at Sunshine State Sarah

SarahRumpf :: Another shameless power grab by MA Dems?
Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Am I misunderstanding or did the Herald report it wrong? (0.00 / 0)
Power-hungry Bay State Democrats - eyeing another potential Senate opening if U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry joins the Obama Cabinet- are quietly discussing reinstating a 2004 law that would let Gov. Deval Patrick appoint a permanent replacement to help keep the seat under party control until at least 2014.

It was the 2004 change in the law that took the power to appoint away from the governor and made things the result of a special election.  That isn't being reinstated.  What would be reinstated is the governor's traditional power to appoint a permanent replacement, which is as things existed prior to 2004.

---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)


two things may be happening... (0.00 / 0)
If I'm reading it correctly, there are two issues: one is whether the Governor has the power to make the appointment, and the second is how long the appointed senator would serve.

My issue is that the Democrats that run the Legislature are flipping the law back and forth depending on whether they think they'll win the senate seat or not. If they wouldn't have wanted Governor Romney to exercise a certain power, then it's hypocritical to say that it's fine for Governor Patrick to do the exact same thing.

-------------------------
SunshineStateSarah.com
Follow me on Twitter at @rumpfshaker


[ Parent ]
Maybe they should just appoint the person (0.00 / 0)
That way they won't have to keep changing the law back and forth depending on whether they like the Governor or not. Whenever there is a vacancy, they nominate a few people, make sure they're willing to serve, mull everything over for a week, and then choose somebody.

[ Parent ]
Ugh (5.00 / 1)
Patrick -

The reason they took away the power was because they feared that Kerry would win the presidential election and Romney would appoint a Republican successor.

The fact that they took it away for partisan reasons, then didn't like the result in 2010, then would put it back because of a Democratic governor - I mean, come on, even you must think this is awful.


[ Parent ]
No, I think it would be a good thing. (0.00 / 0)
They want to change it back again for partisan reasons.  But Brown supporters want to keep the current law, the one which was wrongly passed for partisan reasons, for their own partisan reasons.

Just restore things to the way they were originally and let's not change it again.

---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)


[ Parent ]
Ok (0.00 / 0)
How about a compromise? Change it back, but starting in 2014. That way it won't be seen as a partisan thing.  

[ Parent ]
How would that not be partisan? (0.00 / 0)
The reason to have it start in 2014 would be for Brown's benefit.

---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)


[ Parent ]
Just appearance (0.00 / 0)
I don't think Brown will ever run for office again. I think his time is over now.  

[ Parent ]
Unless it's a Republican controlled Legislature attacking collective bargaining (0.00 / 0)
"Laws are not meant to be flipped over and over like pancakes depending on what party is in power or who is in office."

Republican controlled Legislatures and Governors had no problem flipping collective bargaining laws based on who was in power in Wisconsin and Ohio (voters restored the law in Ohio). Republican controlled Maine Legislature and Governor flipped same day voter registration only to voters restore the law. Republican super majorities in New Hmpshire cut the state minimum wage in an entirely partisan vote and the voters flipped 115 seats to the Democrats on November 6th.

Oh and speaking of flips, how about all the flips of early voting in FLA? Nothing outragous about limiting voters ability to get to the polls by changing the rules as an election pends.

Me thinks you doth protest too much.

Oh, by the way do you have a bill number and sponsor for this alleged change in Massachusetts law? Or just the Republican consultant who writes for the Herald as your basis for this?


Leave it be. (5.00 / 1)
The corrupt Massachusetts legislature, in it's too clever by half attempt to rig the game, have accidentally got it right.

They should be made to lie in the fetid bed they have made.

It's the people's seat. Let the people decide.


Adverstise here for as low as $60 per week.








Local Feeds 

Stat Counter

 
Red Mass Group is owned and operated by Robert Eno. It is not authorized or paid for by any candidate or committee.
HOME
Powered by: SoapBlox