Four years ago, the Legislature in Massachusetts voted to change our state system from a gubernatorial appointment of the next US Senator in the case of a vacancy,to an elected position. I was not at the State House the day the vote was taken and didn't vote on this. I would have voted with the majority at the time. Since then, obviously this issue has come back with the death of Senator Kennedy. I have received a lot of email on both sides of this. After much deliberation, we are voting on this today.Here is my response to that email and my decision on this matter. I appreciate everyone's comments on both sides.
Thank you for your email. After consideration, I am going to vote for an interim senator for Massachusetts. While many will cry politics on this, I believe that if you strip away the politics from the current debate over replacement of Ted Kennedy, the core issue is; should Massachusetts have two US Senators representing the state at all times even in the interim while awaiting the voter's choice in a new election. I think the answer is yes. That is not political, it is practical. Given population shifts and the passing of our long time Senator as well as our reliance on these offices to give us assistance in such issues as Medicare, social security, immigration, and passport issues, I believe that it is imperative to have two US Senators in Washington.
People deserve to be represented in Washington with our full legislative contingent.
People claim that the vote to do away with the practice of appointing a Senator if there is a vacancy was political. Of course it was. Gov. Romney was running for President and no one wanted to give him a leg up on the competition by appointing himself. That was a choice that was made given that situation. We have a different situation today and if there are cries of hypocrisy, then they apply to the Republicans too as they thought this was a good idea four years ago and now decry the appointment of an interim Senator. The difference this time is that we have a pledge that the interim appointment will not be someone who will seek the permanent appointment so that the people of Massachusetts will truly be able to elect, by popular vote, the next US Senator. I believe this is fair and equitable.
Thanks for the email and input on this matter, I appreciate your comments.
Sincerely, Dan Bosley
13 comments:
Through the years, I have heard many stories of family situations in which the Senator's staff interceded and resolved bureaucratic nightmares.
Those involved can't elaborate on the accomplishments of the Senator very often, but he earned their undying support.
Whatever the outcome, one would hope the dedicated staff that served constituents so well would be preserved, along with the convictions that 'all politics is local.'
Dan... I agree with your logic on the issue. And besides who, in their right mind, would want a another Repuke in Washington representing the interest of the AMA, drug companies, and the insurance industry, at a time when we are in the middle of a health care debate.
Dan- I think the interim Senator is a good idea, but frankly I think it is silly to require that the appointment be of the same political party as the predecessor.
Thanks Jack, I think that if you strip out the name Kennedy or the present situation and ask the question, should Massachusetts have the same representation as Delaware or Rhode island and all the other states, it makes sense.
Greg, We stripped that provision out and I voted to do so. Here's a radical suggestion: Let's appoint the best person possible!
Glad to hear it! I'm with you on the best person possible. There will always be a debate between a place-holder versus a "chosen one", and I think that question should be decided by the governor at the time of the selection. Right now, I tend to think that selecting Dr. Atul Gawande from Brigham and Womens as a place holder would be a brilliant move at this juncture.
Dan, I agree that you made the correct vote. Now, can you get Gov. Patrick to pick a North Adams State College (MCLA) graduate to fill the position and maybe even remove his 'will not run' provision so things get a little evened up? Massachusetts can point with pride to electing the first openly gay man to the United States Senate in history if he picks the right NASC/MCLA grad!
Shame on you.
No amount of contorting reasoning justifies this hypocrisy.
The legislature just recognized the clear and evident differences between Mitt Romney and Deval Patrick, no contorted reasoning and certainly no hypocrisy.
So after all the hypocrisy what we get is a political hack - a reliable cipher.
Mr Bosley, I'm very disappointed in you.
Dan I find it hard to believe that you were pushing the Duke for the interim position. The one thing you Duke supporters seem to have forgotten was that when the Duke ran for re-election in 1986, it was pritty much on a 'I will not run for President in 1988' plank. Sure the Duke is a great guy but you know John Zelazo was building or rebuilding his political carrer during those times and so reserved the 1988 Massachusetts favorite son slot and was really trashed by the Duke's reversal. John is likely to enter the special election next week and Masaachusetts will then have the chance to elect the first openly gay man to service in the United States Senite. This is both a milestone and a touchstone and when John takes over Paul Kirk's office in January he will be in a more comfortable situation then the one Duke would have left.
Jim, I am sorry you feel that way. I asked myself this question: Should Massachusetts have two US Senators at all times? Given the fact that we rely on federal dollars and the advocacy for funding form the Senate as well as the House, and given the fact that we have lost clout with the loss of population and the retirement or death of some long term legislators over the past decade or so, I felt that we should have as many voices as possible at all times. The people still get to vote on this, but in the meantime, we need someone in that seat. And Kirk is a well respected individual who will be able to work until the election is held.
Out of the Blue, you have given me something to think about. ;)
Just some rehash Dan. The Kennedy family is pritty rich. Joe Kennedy runs a nonprofit and takes home half a million a year and other family member on the payrole take probable substancial incomes. People I talk with over the years on the internet cannot belive that any of them take money away from the arrangement and almost accuse me of exercising the old poison pen when I tell them that the Kennedy's get paid.
So Joe takes home just from his nonprofit much more than any Senator. My net worth at age, lets just say over 50, is under one half a million, less than one year's take home pay for Joe. I just did not see him getting into the race at all in light of these facts forward. The common man/woman is just not that impressed.
Dan, Thanks for the great work on behalf of Mass and Western Mass. It's clear from your comments in this space and from what I read in the paper that you don't come to any of these decisions quickly. It's comforting knowing your in Boston looking out for us. I may not always agree with you but still think you're doing good things. Keep it up.
Post a Comment