Senator Kennedy, while we disagree on virtually all issues from political to personal, I wish you all the best in your fight with terminal brain cancer. I hope through the grace of God that you beat this disease that doctor’s say is unbeatable. And if you do not, I hope your time remaining on this planet is full of peace and joy. And when you do pass on, I pray that your sins are forgiven and your soul is welcomed in Heaven.
While you are here though, I have to wonder if you want one of your last public acts to be selfishly partisan, hyper-political, and contrary to your own position just a few years ago.
In 2004 your helped craft the current succession law in Massachusetts.
In 2004, Massachusetts Democrats anticipated another Senate vacancy, when one of their own–a haughty, French-looking one, who by the way served in Vietnam–received a presidential nomination. The governor at the time, Mitt Romney, was a Republican, and Democrats, including Sen. Kennedy, wanted to keep the seat in Democratic hands. So, as the New York Times reported at the time:
The State Senate voted, almost entirely on party lines, to change the nearly century-old electoral rules and call for a special election to a Senate seat that would take place from 145 to 160 days after an incumbent senator decides to step down. In Mr. Kerry’s case, should he win the presidency, that would mean an election would be held for his seat in March or April 2005, instead of in November 2006 under the current system. Mr. Kerry’s term actually expires in 2008.
The Senate also voted that the governor could not make an interim appointment. . . .
”That’s not an election–that’s a sweetheart deal,” Mr. Romney protested at a news conference on Wednesday. He said he would veto the bill if, as expected, it passes in the House next week, but legislators are likely to overturn any veto. ”You’re creating a special deal for a friend,” he said, adding, ”It’s robbing the citizens of the right to a free election.” . . .
There is also the irony that Senator Kennedy, who urged state legislators to approve the special election bill, was himself once an indirect beneficiary of the state’s appointment system.
So, Senator Kennedy, you helped change the very appointment system that helped your career because you didn’t want to see someone in the opposing party receive a Senate appointment. And now that a Republican is no longer in the Massachusetts Governor’s office, you want to change the law again, and allow the Governor to appoint your successor, something the 2004 purposefully denied.
Under the 2004 law, if Kennedy were to die or step down, voters would select his successor in a special election to be held within five months of the vacancy. But the law makes no provisions for Massachusetts to be represented in the Senate in the interim. In the meantime, President Obama’s plan to overhaul the nation’s health care system, the fate of which may hinge on one or two votes, could come before Congress.
Principles matter sir, and they should always trump politics. If you believed that the Massachusetts’ succession law you supported in 2004 was the best for the citizens of your state (and not your party), why is it not now? And if it was not the best thing for your state then, why did you support it?
Of course the answer is clear. Your motives today are the same as they were in 2004, overtly political and self-serving. I find that sad for any political servant, especially considering it might be the last note on your legacy.
This is the epitome of what is wrong in Washington. People like yourself take actions not on principle but on politics. You use the ends to justify the means, instead of letting principle drive your actions. Whether the issue is health care, bailouts, free speech, or the succession of a Senator… you can’t go wrong letting principled values guide your way. Failing that, you fail us all. That is why our government has failed us. Actions like yours are why the people are fed up.
Sir, I urge you to consider your legacy and the people of this great nation. Use this opportunity to set an example and a new tone for Washington. Show that principle matters more than politics and reverse yourself on this issue. You’ve spent a long time in Washington and I’m sure you feel like you’ve done a lot of good. Don’t let your last act be a hypocritical one.
Well we always knew they lived in a different world. Any politician who supports this partisan mockery should be removed from office.
[...] page. Just yesterday I received a terse note from a “friend” on facebook because of this post. She clearly didn’t agree with me politically, and was somehow offended that I dare to [...]
Clearly this post was written and published before Senator Kennedy’s passing. I said it before, posted it on twitter when I heard the news, and will say it here again today… I have prayed and continue to pray for his family and his soul. Still, the transparent and purely political motives for changing the succession laws AGAIN are disturbing. And they would be if proposed by any politician or political party.
You are suprised they played poiltics. Now they will change the rule and appoint Mrs Kennedy as the interim senator, seems like they played good politics. It is fun when you are playing with their money.
We live in a democratic republic if you disagree with the legislature or congress vote them out, the problem or beauty of it you have only four votes for federal office but your friend across the river has three different choices. The only vote in common is the president which are counted state by state. Truthfully the founding fathers had enough democracy after five years of the Articles and that is why you have appointed senators and the electoral college in the constitution.
Which set up the fight between the federalist Hamilton and the democrat republicans Jefferson. Which was not won until Jackson buried the the Bank of the US.