Democrats about to get 60th senator

Puppycow · 22nd September 2009, 11:03 PM

Massachusetts Senate votes to fill Kennedy seat

Quote:

BOSTON (Reuters) - The Massachusetts Senate voted on Tuesday to allow the governor to name an interim U.S. Senate replacement for the late Edward Kennedy and fill a key 60th seat for the Democrats during the healthcare battle.

The heavily Democratic state Senate passed the bill 24 to 16, following approval by the state House of Representatives last week. The bill will go back to both chambers on Wednesday for a final vote and then requires a signature from Governor Deval Patrick, a Democrat who backs the legislation.

Patrick is likely to name a temporary replacement for Kennedy within days and is certain to pick a Democrat. That will return the party to the 60 votes it needs in the U.S. Senate to override Republican procedural hurdles, giving President Barack Obama a boost as he tries to get healthcare reform and other contentious legislation passed this year.

So now, if they have all democrats on board, they won't need a single republican vote. The problem for democrats is that they don't have very good party discipline, whereas the republicans are much better at getting all or almost all members to vote en bloc.

gtc · 22nd September 2009, 11:21 PM

Quote:

All votes are crucial and the absence of that vote from Massachusetts would hurt those who are pushing for some form of health reform," said Paul Watanabe, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts in Boston.
"Certainly all the indications are that President Obama had pushed for this," he added.

...
The bill passed on Tuesday would reverse legislation the party pushed through in 2004 when it wanted to prevent a Republican governor from naming a replacement for Democratic Senator John Kerry if he won the White House.

Was Obama aware of the hypocrisy surrounding this appointment?

Puppycow · 23rd September 2009, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by gtc

Was Obama aware of the hypocrisy surrounding this appointment?

Probably. Bottom line is, democrats in Massachusetts control all the levers of power in the state, so they can do this. It's up to the voters to decide if they approve or not next time they are up for reelection. If the parties were reversed, would republicans have done the same thing while the democrats screamed hypocrisy? Yeah.

Alt+F4 · 23rd September 2009, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Massachusetts Senate votes to fill Kennedy seat

So now, if they have all democrats on board, they won't need a single republican vote. The problem for democrats is that they don't have very good party discipline, whereas the republicans are much better at getting all or almost all members to vote en bloc.

It doesn't matter if a few of the blue dogs vote with the Republicans. Only a simple majority is need to pass legislation. The Democrats only need 51 votes, I think they can hold on to that many.

Upchurch · 23rd September 2009, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

It doesn't matter if a few of the blue dogs vote with the Republicans. Only a simple majority is need to pass legislation. The Democrats only need 51 votes, I think they can hold on to that many.

Well, I think the issue is (re)obtaining filibuster proof-ness, which is just sort of rubbing it in, imho.

Yeah, it's very hypocritical on the Massachusetts legislature. Bad form.

ponderingturtle · 23rd September 2009, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Well, I think the issue is (re)obtaining filibuster proof-ness, which is just sort of rubbing it in, imho.

Yeah, it's very hypocritical on the Massachusetts legislature. Bad form.

Is it hypocrisy or just effective politics?

Upchurch · 23rd September 2009, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Is it hypocrisy or just effective politics?

"or"?

Beerina · 23rd September 2009, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Massachusetts Senate votes to fill Kennedy seat

So now, if they have all democrats on board, they won't need a single republican vote. The problem for democrats is that they don't have very good party discipline, whereas the republicans are much better at getting all or almost all members to vote en bloc.

It's a good thing no Democrat is in a state that's a swing state, having barely squeaked into the win at the last election, and has nothing to fear voting for whatever you think they no longer need to worry about voting for.

Brainster · 23rd September 2009, 11:25 AM

Let's remember that's actually the Democrats' 58th senator; Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman are independents.

dudalb · 23rd September 2009, 11:26 AM

Quote:

So now, if they have all democrats on board, they won't need a single republican vote

With the Blue Dogs,that is a very big if.

Cleon · 23rd September 2009, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Is it hypocrisy or just effective politics?

Yes, and both parties are guilty of it.

ponderingturtle · 23rd September 2009, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

Yes, and both parties are guilty of it.

Looks like he had rather large change in view when the parties under discussion changed.

INRM · 23rd September 2009, 02:50 PM

If they get 67 members they can just amend and overhaul the constitution. If 3/4 of the states agree with it at least, and since from what I've heard the republican party has effectively become a regional party...

This could seriously endanger the constitution, they could essentially pass an amendment that could repeal the first amendment, or pass one that could repeal the fourth or fifth.

Upchurch · 23rd September 2009, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by INRM

This could seriously endanger the constitution, they could essentially pass an amendment that could repeal the first amendment, or pass one that could repeal the fourth or fifth.

SezMe · 23rd September 2009, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

So now, if they have all democrats on board, they won't need a single republican vote.

Similarly, if the sun rises in the south tomorrow ....

gtc · 23rd September 2009, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Probably. Bottom line is, democrats in Massachusetts control all the levers of power in the state, so they can do this. It's up to the voters to decide if they approve or not next time they are up for reelection. If the parties were reversed, would republicans have done the same thing while the democrats screamed hypocrisy? Yeah.

Maybe. But IIRC the Republicans actually suggested the compromise that the Governor nominate a temporary replacement. The Democrats at the time didn't like the idea of even a temporary appointment by the Republican governor so shot that idea down. Now it suits them so they have reversed their earlier position.

I would call hypocrisy whether it was the Republicans or the Democrats doing this.

22nd September 2009, 11:03 PM	#1
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 6,323	Democrats about to get 60th senator Massachusetts Senate votes to fill Kennedy seat Quote: BOSTON (Reuters) - The Massachusetts Senate voted on Tuesday to allow the governor to name an interim U.S. Senate replacement for the late Edward Kennedy and fill a key 60th seat for the Democrats during the healthcare battle. The heavily Democratic state Senate passed the bill 24 to 16, following approval by the state House of Representatives last week. The bill will go back to both chambers on Wednesday for a final vote and then requires a signature from Governor Deval Patrick, a Democrat who backs the legislation. Patrick is likely to name a temporary replacement for Kennedy within days and is certain to pick a Democrat. That will return the party to the 60 votes it needs in the U.S. Senate to override Republican procedural hurdles, giving President Barack Obama a boost as he tries to get healthcare reform and other contentious legislation passed this year. So now, if they have all democrats on board, they won't need a single republican vote. The problem for democrats is that they don't have very good party discipline, whereas the republicans are much better at getting all or almost all members to vote en bloc.
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell

22nd September 2009, 11:21 PM	#2
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,109	Quote: All votes are crucial and the absence of that vote from Massachusetts would hurt those who are pushing for some form of health reform," said Paul Watanabe, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts in Boston. "Certainly all the indications are that President Obama had pushed for this," he added. ... The bill passed on Tuesday would reverse legislation the party pushed through in 2004 when it wanted to prevent a Republican governor from naming a replacement for Democratic Senator John Kerry if he won the White House. Was Obama aware of the hypocrisy surrounding this appointment?
	__________________

23rd September 2009, 08:26 AM	#3
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 6,323	Originally Posted by gtc Was Obama aware of the hypocrisy surrounding this appointment? Probably. Bottom line is, democrats in Massachusetts control all the levers of power in the state, so they can do this. It's up to the voters to decide if they approve or not next time they are up for reelection. If the parties were reversed, would republicans have done the same thing while the democrats screamed hypocrisy? Yeah.
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell

23rd September 2009, 09:01 AM	#4
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 4,853	Originally Posted by Puppycow Massachusetts Senate votes to fill Kennedy seat So now, if they have all democrats on board, they won't need a single republican vote. The problem for democrats is that they don't have very good party discipline, whereas the republicans are much better at getting all or almost all members to vote en bloc. It doesn't matter if a few of the blue dogs vote with the Republicans. Only a simple majority is need to pass legislation. The Democrats only need 51 votes, I think they can hold on to that many.
	__________________ "It is degenerate in that it tends to reverse the existing order. It is essentially immoral in that it will undignify marriage. It is ruinous to the progress of civilization in that it conduces to undermine religion." - Dr. Cyrus Townsend Brady, arguing against women's suffrage, 1915.

23rd September 2009, 10:38 AM	#6
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 18,770	Originally Posted by Upchurch Well, I think the issue is (re)obtaining filibuster proof-ness, which is just sort of rubbing it in, imho. Yeah, it's very hypocritical on the Massachusetts legislature. Bad form. Is it hypocrisy or just effective politics?
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

23rd September 2009, 09:27 AM	#5
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 19,555	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 It doesn't matter if a few of the blue dogs vote with the Republicans. Only a simple majority is need to pass legislation. The Democrats only need 51 votes, I think they can hold on to that many. Well, I think the issue is (re)obtaining filibuster proof-ness, which is just sort of rubbing it in, imho. Yeah, it's very hypocritical on the Massachusetts legislature. Bad form.

23rd September 2009, 10:46 AM	#7
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 19,555	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Is it hypocrisy or just effective politics? "or"?

23rd September 2009, 10:51 AM	#8
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 14,373	Originally Posted by Puppycow Massachusetts Senate votes to fill Kennedy seat So now, if they have all democrats on board, they won't need a single republican vote. The problem for democrats is that they don't have very good party discipline, whereas the republicans are much better at getting all or almost all members to vote en bloc. It's a good thing no Democrat is in a state that's a swing state, having barely squeaked into the win at the last election, and has nothing to fear voting for whatever you think they no longer need to worry about voting for.
	__________________ Reid Fleming, World's Toughest Milkman, in *A Day Like Any Other* The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

23rd September 2009, 11:25 AM	#9
Brainster Philosopher Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,063	Let's remember that's actually the Democrats' 58th senator; Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman are independents.
Brainster Philosopher Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,063	__________________ 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Check out my (Republican-oriented) Political Blog. Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

23rd September 2009, 11:26 AM	#10
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 14,451	Quote: So now, if they have all democrats on board, they won't need a single republican vote With the Blue Dogs,that is a very big if.

23rd September 2009, 11:36 AM	#11
Cleon King of the Pod People Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 14,362	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Is it hypocrisy or just effective politics? Yes, and both parties are guilty of it.
	__________________ "Intolerance does not flourish without ignorance to feed it." - kittynh "A jerk who is right is still a jerk." - Ducky My blog

23rd September 2009, 12:32 PM	#12
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 18,770	Originally Posted by Cleon Yes, and both parties are guilty of it. Looks like he had rather large change in view when the parties under discussion changed.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

23rd September 2009, 02:50 PM	#13
INRM Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,577	If they get 67 members they can just amend and overhaul the constitution. If 3/4 of the states agree with it at least, and since from what I've heard the republican party has effectively become a regional party... This could seriously endanger the constitution, they could essentially pass an amendment that could repeal the first amendment, or pass one that could repeal the fourth or fifth.
INRM Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,577	Last edited by INRM; 23rd September 2009 at 02:51 PM.

23rd September 2009, 05:27 PM	#14
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 19,555	Originally Posted by INRM This could seriously endanger the constitution, they could essentially pass an amendment that could repeal the first amendment, or pass one that could repeal the fourth or fifth.

23rd September 2009, 06:19 PM	#15
SezMe Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 9,129	Originally Posted by Puppycow So now, if they have all democrats on board, they won't need a single republican vote. Similarly, if the sun rises in the south tomorrow ....

23rd September 2009, 07:13 PM	#16
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,109	Originally Posted by Puppycow Probably. Bottom line is, democrats in Massachusetts control all the levers of power in the state, so they can do this. It's up to the voters to decide if they approve or not next time they are up for reelection. If the parties were reversed, would republicans have done the same thing while the democrats screamed hypocrisy? Yeah. Maybe. But IIRC the Republicans actually suggested the compromise that the Governor nominate a temporary replacement. The Democrats at the time didn't like the idea of even a temporary appointment by the Republican governor so shot that idea down. Now it suits them so they have reversed their earlier position. I would call hypocrisy whether it was the Republicans or the Democrats doing this.
	__________________