The Flip-Floppers are at it again.

First they wanted their cake and got it, …… now they want to eat it too.

BOSTON -- A Democratic push to appoint a successor to the late Sen. Edward Kennedy is sparking a political tempest in Massachusetts, infuriating Republicans and dividing Democrats who only five years ago passed a law requiring that voters decide on Senate vacancies.

Republicans accused Democrats of hypocrisy. In 2004, the state's Democrat-controlled legislature changed the law to prevent the governor from appointing an interim successor after a U.S. Senate seat becomes vacant. Instead, the new law requires that a special election be held between 145 and 165 days after the position becomes vacant

At the time, Democratic Sen. John Kerry was running for president and Massachusetts had a Republican governor, Mitt Romney. Proponents of changing the law argued that a gubernatorial appointment was undemocratic and that only voters should decide on a replacement. Democrats also feared Mr. Romney would appoint a Republican.

Now, with Mr. Kennedy dying three years before his term was up, some Massachusetts Democrats are reversing course, calling for Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint an interim replacement to hold office until the special election can be held.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/push-kennedy-successor-stirs-political-storm/

I have no sympathy for the voters of that state.

Well Steph I understand and feel your pain.
Technically you guys are right but would it really make a differencewouey ?

Do you think Mass. would elect a republican in 90 days any more than they would in Nov.?

They elected a republican to the governor's mansion eight years ago. That former governor is available now, has state-wide name recognition, and is self-financed. A functionary in Romney's organization says he is no longer interested in the Senate seat.

Looks like Joseph P. is making a play for it.

I think the voters should elect Kennedy's replacement. I think the only Republicans that stand a reasonable chance are Romney and Weld. I've been too busy to keep up with what they say......if Jim say's Mitt's not interested I guess that leaves Weld. Of course I'm not at all sure Weld would be much different from most of the Democrats. I seem to recall he endorsed Obama, but I may be incorrect on that.

sodbuster wrote:Do you think Mass. would elect a republican in 90 days any more than they would in Nov.?

Even dummies should know that "an incumbent" is always highly favored by a large percentage of the voting public.

Even if one is only a "90 day incumbent".

"DUH", why in hell do you think the Democrats are having such a really, really, really tuff time trying to unseat Capito?

And every partisan Democrat knows that to be a fact. And that's the reason they changed Mass Law 5 years ago ..... and the reason they want to renigue on it today.

GIMME A BREAK



.

What little I know of Weld is not positive, but the more I read, the better I think his chances are. Still, as Stephanie says, not much of a difference from just electing the Democrat, besides a hair of fiscal sanity.