I’ve already seen right-wingers suggest that he and Palin should run for the White House in 2012.
Seriously.
Is having a representative, chosen in accordance with the will of the people, better for democracy than not having one? You’re seriously wondering that?
As compared to leaving the seat open, yes, of course, if it had had a provision to ensure the replacement would be of the same party as that of the person the people had elected directly.
So what is your POV on this democracy problem? Can you even *identify *a problem?
“OK, Scott, now listen closely. The question will come up, bet on it! So, what you do: you chuckle with boyish modesty, say that the whole issue is too far into the future to speculate, and all you want to do is do a good job for the people. And protect the Constitution. And that’s it! Take no further questions, slam your teeth together and keep them that way. Got it? Good.”
No, I’m not wondering that. But Paul Kirk was chosen by Deval Patrick, and no one else. That was as much in accordance with the will of the people as Mitt Romney appointing a Republican would have been had things gone differently in 2004.
But that’s not what the law passed in 2009 says. If a Republican is governor in 2016, and a Democratic Senator leaves office, should the legislature repeal the 2009 law and go with a single Senator for 5 months?
Again, I am no longer arguing there was something wrong with the 2004 law. My question is about the 2009 law, which resulted in Paul Kirk being appointed to the Senate. Was that good for democracy?
If you think 3 months and up to 5.99 years are equivalent, and that replacing a Democrat with either a Democrat or a Republican makes no difference.
There is still a deficiency in that there is no mechanism to guarantee party continuity, as some other states’ systems require.
Answered more than once already. You’re making me wonder about your motives here.
It’s 5 months new way, 1.99 years old way. Under the old law, the appointment lasted up until the next election of representatives - November of the next even numbered year - and a senator would be elected then to replace the appointee until the end of the term. cite: “The proposal scraps the current system, which gives the governor the power to appoint an interim senator until the next biennial election, which would be in 2006 if Kerry wins this November”
So is that a “yes” or a “no” to my original question? Should they repeal it or not?
My motives are just to point out that what’s good for Democrats isn’t necessarily whats good for democracy. I think when a law about elections gets passed for partisan motives, it has to come under closer scrutiny than otherwise. That’s why I ask questions like “Would the Mass legislature have removed the governor’s power to appoint a Senator if a Democrat had been governor at the time?” and “Would the Mass legislature have given the governor temporary appointment power back if a Republican had been governor at the time, or if the split in the Senate hadn’t been exactly 60-40?”
Obama was nominated for his recently won Nobel Peace Prize on 23 January 2009. So apparently we just need to give Scott Brown 3 days in office before giving him accolades.
“Heckuva job, Brownie.” Next!
Then you concede it’s still quite a bit early? 
This is obviously not the right thread for this, but according to the mechanics of the bill passed through Congress my answers are: everyone (just like they currently do), yes (although you wouldn’t have the option of “not paying when you were healthy”), no more than I already do, and no more than you already do.
If you want a more detailed debate re: the proposed health-care bill there are many good threads for that.
I’m still waiting for an explanation for why I should consider Mr. Brown a “great new senator” other than extraneous personal life details or the fact that he’s opposed to Obama. As in, what actual policy proposals of his make him good for America or the people of Mass?
I can sort of get behind the notion that he’s a blow to inside-baseball party-hack politics as usual in the Bay State. That is certainly a positive. And the fact that there is a more moderate (at least in theory) Republican voice in the Senate is certainly a nice and welcome change. I do like that he is pro-choice (ostensibly), and considers same-sex marriage in Mass settled law. And obviously he has backed UHC at the state level, which is a breath of fresh air from a Republican.
But for some reason I don’t think these are the reasons conservative Republicans like him. So please tell me, what are those?
And replace it with what, or not? Come on now. Ask a question honestly instead and you’ll be far more likely to get an honest answer.
Of course, but then why are you intent on showing that what they did was for themselves instead of democracy? You have a predetermined notion, like our friend TheMightyAtlas, that whatever they do can only be for their own advantage, and that seems to make you immune to any discussion to the contrary.
Now, how about telling us your own notions about the distinction between partisan advantage and the national interest, as you’ve already been asked? Do you think there is any? Or that any party’s leadership is capable of recognizing it and following the latter instead of the former? Or is this just more partisan ranting under an articulate veneer?
Backward reasoning. You’re assuming motives a priori. A forward approach would determine motives as a *result *of scrutiny.
Now why should anyone waste any more time with you here? :dubious:
He has a pickup truck! Damn, if you won’t take the time to educate yourself on the issues of the day…
My issue was never to debate UHC here. It was simply that a statement like “I can’t get insurance.” needs a little bit of a backstory.
My girlfriend can’t get insurance. Well actually she can but being out of work and overweight, she can’t afford it. But her weight issue is actually hormonal so it is a health condition not a “put the fork down” condition. So is it reasonable she’s uninsured? I claimed that if you are uninsurable because you are already seriously and chronically ill when you get the insurance, it is not fair to a private company to make them pay for it.
We like him because he’s not a Democrat. One thing I have firmly believed is that as an opposition party, Republicans are the best. I mean, even you Dems have to admire what we did to the Health Bill even though you have a filibuster proof 60-40 in the Senate, a majority in the House and a President just waiting to sign anything you pass in the White House. It’s just that as the majority party, we are idiots. When Bill Clinton was elected we really needed an adriot politician and we give ourselve Gingrich as SOTH. We impeach him on the same charges that the same Senate removed three judges for previously and not only do we lose, but over 90% of Americans still think it was about oral sex which makes us look worse than we already did. So now you Dems control everything and the net result after a year is that you lost the reddest of all Senate seats to an empty suit.
Why do we love Scott Brown? Because it proves you’re as incompetent as we are.
We have great health care available. Affording it is the issue. And unfortunately, Obama-care would have increased our health insurance rates.
Mmmm, a love for the free market that goes beyond mere romantic love. Sounds like the next Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan movie. . .
I am asking it honestly. In 2004, the legislature did not allow the gov. to appoint a temporary Senator for the 5 month interregnum, presumably because the gov was a Republican and the potentially departing Senator was a Democrat. In 2009, they gave the gov. that power, because they were both Dems. If a 2004 scenario returns, what should the legislature do?
Of course there is a distinction. I can take the somewhat cynical view, that when one is convinced their party’s leadership is better for the country than the opponents, then it is correct to take every legal advantage you can.
Are you really going to claim that the Mass legislature passed the 2004 and 2009 laws from the purest of motives? That anyone who thinks it may have been from partisan reasons is inherently dishonest? That if the governor had been a Dem in 2004, that law would have been passed anyway, just because it was the first time a Senator appeared to be potentially leaving mid-term in 40+ years, and this was a good time to fix it, even if it wouldn’t really have a major effect?
I can say “the current law, under the current circumstances, appears to benefit the Reps. The change which is being proposed by the Dems will change that to benefit the Dems, or at least remove the advantage the Reps have.” - and based solely on that objective statement, decide that scrutinizing the Dems motive is worthwhile. It may be that it led to a more situation. It may not.
Then you’d know I already answered, more than once. You’re getting quite tiresome.
Nothing you’ve said suggests that you know what it is.
As I said :rolleyes: , you’re assuming motive a priori. This response compounds that fallacy with the one of excluded middle, with a side order of partisan rant. This is beyond tiresome of you and trends into childishness.
Try looking at what’s best for democracy and the nation without regard for party (yet another thing I’ve asked multiple times already). I see no reason to think you can, though, and that’s saddening.
Or one about marrying the Eiffel Tower.
You know it.
That and for 13 years I got free taxpayer-paid health care through LAUSD so I accept it as Health Care Karma that I end up paying more now.
I’m not saying I assume motives a priori - I’m saying that trying to determine motives based on results is a worthwhile exercise. If you want to assume that a state house that included the likes of DiMasi and Wilkerson always acts solely for the benefit of the state as a whole, that’s certainly your right. I find your unwillingness to even consider that the Democrats would act in their own interest tiresome as well.