Ted Kennedy is dead, and that is all I have to say on the topic of Ted Kennedy. \u00c2\u00a0But the questions of who will succeed him and how that person will be selected – now those are things I can write about.<\/p>\n
The last time the Republicans won a Senate seat in Massachusetts was 1972: Edward Brooke, the first popularly elected black Senator. \u00c2\u00a0When Paul Tsongas unseated him in 1978, the Democrats spent the next 25+ years with two “safe” seats from Massachusetts. \u00c2\u00a0In the summer of 2004, they were horrified to realize that their success might mean failure: Sen. John Kerry was running away<\/a> with the presidential race, and Mitt Romney, Republican, was governor. \u00c2\u00a0When Kerry won the presidency, Romney would get to appoint an interim replacement. \u00c2\u00a0Failure.<\/p>\n In 2004, as today, the Democrats held more than 80% of the seats in the legislature. \u00c2\u00a0They were losing the game, but they had the power to re-write the rules, so they did. \u00c2\u00a0They proposed a law that would strip Romney of his power to appoint a Senator. \u00c2\u00a0The Republicans offered an amendment to permit an interim appointment. \u00c2\u00a0The amendment was shot down, the bill was approved, Romney vetoed, the veto was overridden, and on July 30, 2004, the law was passed. \u00c2\u00a0Read some of the quotes from the debate<\/a>, and keep the window open for re-reading in a couple paragraphs. \u00c2\u00a0They’re funny, in a sad kind of way.<\/p>\n Fast forward to today. \u00c2\u00a0The national Democrats desperately want another (D) in Washington, but the state legislature is hogtied by its past actions. \u00c2\u00a0They could change the law again and let Gov. Patrick appoint an interim Senator, but that would expose them as partisan hacks. \u00c2\u00a0Or, they could do nothing and watch health care reform founder – the signature priority of their party’s new President. \u00c2\u00a0It’s really a no-win situation for them; no matter what they look like unprincipled partisan whores. \u00c2\u00a0I think this conclusion is an accurate one. It’s nice to see it in black and white without much room for spinning, dodging, or blaming.<\/p>\n There are a couple winners here:<\/p>\n I’m not a fan of appointments. \u00c2\u00a0Senators should be elected, not appointed. \u00c2\u00a0The counter-argument is that for 100+ days, the state will only have one Senator, that we’re under-represented. \u00c2\u00a0I just don’t think that matters in a 3-4 month timeframe. \u00c2\u00a0I just don’t feel shortchanged.<\/p>\n\n