And you don't find that objectionable?
It appears to me, from some of your other posts, that your politics and mine
are rather at odds with each other. Tell me, how would you feel about being
forced to support the political campaigns of, say, Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo?
(For the record, I'd object too, for those two bozos.)
It doesn't matter if I find it objectionable.
The idea has been filed, reviewed, and found moot to the subject at
You are required to pay taxes some of which probably get spent on
things you oppose, but you are still required to pay them.
A faithful citizen is required to attempt to elect individuals that
will spend tax monies in a way consistent with their own beliefs.
A sane citizen is required to attempt to elect individuals that
will minimize the need for tax monies.
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
I observe *plenty* of complaining from the ones who are opposed.
Perhaps not, but IMHO that's irrelevant. The point is that political campaigns
advance ideas, promote agendas for public policy, etc -- and public funding of
campaigns compels voters to support the advancement of ideas and agendas whose
promotion they would *never* support voluntarily.
: The fact that Kennedy just recently passionately urged the repeal of that
: law and urging reinstatement of governor appointment just makes it sleazy
: and demonstrates that Democrats don't like a level playing field.
Not sure that's a fair interpretation. What Kennedy advocated was
a change in the law which would allow a gubernatorial appointment *until
the election is held*, which has to be something like 5 months
after the vacancy. The move was to basically not leave Massachusetts
voters without two senatorial votes for half a year, not to repeal any
It would bridge a gap created by the (arguably more democratic, with a
lower case 'd') new law.
-- Andy Barss
:> Not sure that's a fair interpretation. What Kennedy advocated was:> a change in the law which would allow a gubernatorial appointment *until:> the election is held*, which has to be something like 5 months:> after the vacancy. The move was to basically not leave Massachusetts:> voters without two senatorial votes for half a year, not to repeal any:> law.:>
:> It would bridge a gap created by the (arguably more democratic, with a:> lower case 'd') new law.:>
:> -- Andy Barss:>
: The law was changed so the Republican governor could not make an
: appointment. Now the governor is a Democrat so they want to change it back.
No, that's incorrect.
Go read the actual letter Kennedy wrote to the governor.
-- Andy Barss
Andy, I understand what was in the letter about not wanting a vacancy.
However, Kennedy was perfectly OK with a 5 to 6 month vacancy back in 2004
when he actively lobbied for the current law in order to prevent
then-governor Romney from being able to appoint an interim senator should
Kerry have won the 2004 election. The 2004 law was passed specifically to
*prevent* the governor from having an interim appointment. Now that there
is a governor with a (D) after his name, Kennedy wanted to make sure the
governor could appoint an interim Senator. Doesn't get much more blatantly
political and "change the rules when we are in charge" than that.
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Yes, that is correct. They did not want Romney to be able to appoint a
republican senator if Kerry gave up his seat for the Presidency. They felt
(correctly) that the people should decide, not the governor. Now, they
don't want the people to decide, they want the Democratic governor, good
friend of Obama, to make that decision. Politics at it worst.
If anyone things appointment is the proper way, perhaps we should abandon
elections and have a king rule the country.
FWIW, appointment is the method specified by the Constitution (see Article I
Sections 2 and 3, and Amendment XVII). There does not appear to be any
authority under the Constitution for a state to fill a vacancy *solely* by
special election -- the closest it comes is a temporary appointment valid
until such election is held.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.