Jim O’Sullivan and Michael P. Norton from the always excellent State House News Service report:
Heading into a 10 a.m. caucus Tuesday, senators expect to join the House in granting Gov. Deval Patrick authority to appoint an interim successor to the late Sen. Edward Kennedy. But Senate President Therese Murray’s highest-ranking deputies are divided in their stances, an unusually sharp fracture that senators called unseen since the tense 2007 vote on gay marriage. Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei said the opposition to the bill had mustered “maybe 16, 17” votes, while another estimate put the tally at 21-19, if Murray casts a vote in favor.
Looks like the powers that be might have pushed things a bit too far. Allowing the appointee to run in the special election was an idiotic power grab that might well have peeled off a few crucial votes at the margin (mine, for example, if I was a Senator). They should have listened to David, and many others on BMG and elsewhere, and explicitly prohibited the appointee from being allowed to run. Protestations that such a restriction is impossible are feeble makeweights: where there is a will, there is a way.
somervilletom says
somervilletom says
The 24-16 final tally is just fine.
<
p>Now I’d like to know who the sixteen opponents were.
<
p>Do we have a tally of who voted which way?
davemb says
All five GOPers voted no, along with the 11 dems listed there. Tisei’s whip count seems to have been correct.
neilsagan says
<
p>why would you take a good thing – an interim Senator with no advantage in the Special Election – and turn it into something you would not accept if the Republicans did it?
<
p>Does Rahm have a hand in this?
ed-poon says
it wouldn’t be coming up for a vote.
eaboclipper says
GOP has chosen not to block. They had one more day in Parliamentary procedures. So Tisei may think he has votes. With Panagiotakos jumping ship on the leadership, it gives other Senators cover. I think this passes or fails by less than 3 votes either way. (6 vote swing)
peter-porcupine says
eaboclipper says
I thought there would be a 3 vote swing. There was a four vote swing 8 difference.
stomv says
“I think this passes or fails by less than 3”
<
p>Less than 3 is 2, 1, or 0. This means that you thought the possible outcome (for 40 voting) was:
18-22
19-21
20-20
21-19
22-18
<
p>The final was 24-16, making you off by two, three, or four. Technically. But, close enough, right?
<
p>I’m just teasing because I didn’t think it was a very challenging estimate. For any given Sox game, I’d bet that they win or lose by “less than 3” although I’d rather take your loose interpretation and bet that they win or lose by “3 or less”. I don’t know who they’re playing, who’s pitching, where they’re playing, etc… but it’s still an easy estimate. I’m rambling. I’ll stop now.
eaboclipper says
I said three either way. That is either way of 50% There was a four vote difference for passage. i.e. if four yes votes changed it would have been a tie vote. That’s what I meant by three votes either way.
<
p>
stratblues says
hoyapaul says
I wonder how quickly Gov. Patrick will make the appointment. I’d imagine that there’s little reason to wait beyond next week, especially since I’d guess he has someone in mind.
billxi says
Cut and dried. By week’s end. Totalitarianism has arrived.
joeltpatterson says
The word totalitarianism has a definition in the dictionary, and it does not apply to this.
hrs-kevin says
He might want to consider adjusting his medication đŸ˜‰
billxi says
It does. And how short a step are we away from that. You got the SEIU idiots on your side. Make no mistake SEIU you’re idiots. We should be way past violence.
joeltpatterson says
But for the violence, you could say Ike Turner was a good husband.
<
p>”You got the SEIU idiots on your side. Make no mistake SEIU you’re idiots. We should be way past violence.”
<
p>Could you elaborate on your stance, sir?
billxi says
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
eddiecoyle says
I am pretty confident you have to go back to the bottle bill in the 1970s in the pre-Bulger, Kevin Harrington-led Massachusetts Senate to identify a contested, undetermined, and meaningful vote in the Massachusetts Senate. This is truly a historic day in Massachusetts politics.
<
p>And, yes, its doubly heartening to see that the Massachusetts Senate has decided that the U.S. constitution should be the ultimate authority on the qualifications necessary to run for the U.S. Senate. I am afraid I don’t see how limiting the elective U.S. Senate choices of Bay State citizens’ enhances democratic government in the Commonwealth. Such an unconstitutional provision prohibiting the interim appointed Senator to run for a full term only serves to “grease the skids” for the favored declared candidate(s) of certain Beacon Hill insiders including the Governor and key legislative leaders.
johnk says
I don’t think it would be anyone else.
kirth says
It’s just not my kind of…
<
p> What? he didn’t?
<
p>Never mind.
stratblues says
Baddour, Brewer, Flanagan, Hart, Joyce, M. Moore, R. Moore, Morrissey, Panagiotakos, Timilty, Tucker
davemb says
How does this list compare with those Senators likely to support Cahill over Deval? Pardon me if I’m a little skeptical of MA legislators’ views on constitutional principles getting in the way of their naked political calculation…
bft says
Is this Massachusetts or Iran???
The Hypocrisy on part of the legislature is really unbelievable. I sure all the dems feel good about this; It’s like winning a game by cheating. I hope you all sleep well tonight knowing that corruption controls this state.
johnk says
Please, give me a freakin’ break.
<
p>There is one question, do we need representation in the Senate. That’s the question.
<
p>The rest is a load of bull. Was it wrong when they did it earlier? That’s a good question to debate. Nothing wrong with revisiting history.
<
p>But the vote is about today. Should the people of the state have full representation.
<
p>You say No. Wonderful. Enjoy that.
peter-porcupine says
Sen. Byrd fell down a flight of stairs, and is not well.
<
p>(Really.)
david says
<
p>Link
peter-porcupine says
not-sure says
In Iran they steal elections. In Massachusetts, we elect leaders. Mass Dems have, at long last, shown some spine.
<
p>I don’t care if Republicans think this vote is a naked power grab, because it is. Hopefully, it’s also a sign of things to come. It’s long past time for the Democrats to start ignoring Republican obstructionism and changing things for the better. The voters have overwhelmingly elected Democrats. It’s time Dems started using the power that was given to them.
<
p>And, before you start feigning outrage, ask yourself: What would Tom Delay have done if he was in the Democrat’s position in Massachusetts? Where was your holier-than-thou outrage when Tom Delay redistricted Texas and gave the Republicans control of Congress? Where was your outrage when the Republicans used reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts and Medicare Part D? Where was your outrage when Republicans held Congressional voting open for hours (against house rules) to pass Medicare Part D with it’s infamous donut hole — something so convoluted it could only have been designed by Republicans?
regularjoe says
Republicans are one group, the other one are the multitudes who are unenrolled. The latter are the people who elected Ed King, Bill Weld, Celluci and Mitt. Many of them are upset at the legislature’s patent hypocrisy. It reminds me exactly of what Tom Delay did in Texas, but it pales with what Tom Delay did last night. What will be the longterm implications of this prank? Governor Mihos, anyone? I shudder at the thought.
medfieldbluebob says
Healthcare for all. Now. Screw ethics. Scream all you want. I aint listening.
<
p>I am listening to the people who don’t have health insurance.
<
p>Tom Delay. Dick Cheney. Don Rumsfeld. Stop me when I get to a Republican who didn’t do the same damn thing. Lied to Congress. Outed a US intelligence agent. Blackwater. Iraq.
<
p>Bout time we stood up and actually fought for something. Politics is a contact sport. We’re hitting back.
<
p>Stick in your teabag.
regularjoe says
I get the feeling that this state is being run from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. President Obama’s hands are getting heavier and heavier. First Governor Patterson and now the Massachusetts House and Senate. The legislature overwhelmingly voted to change that law five short years ago and now it is changed again; such transparent hypocrisy. This is a sad day in Massachusetts.
neilsagan says
Bush left a shit sandwich on the desk of Barack Obama. Before that Republicans lost control in two successive elections. It looks like Republicans misread the situation. They should realize their elected offices count and offer some serious alternatives that can win on the merit. The party of NO tactics of outrage, distraction and attempts to de-legitimize the Obama lead government continues to damage to the Republic.
<
p>
peter-porcupine says
somervilletom says
It’s a two-party system. The GOP lost, big time. The Democratic Party is the majority party, especially here in MA.
<
p>That alone is sufficient to explain the changes you seem to dislike — no conspiracy from “1600 Pennsylvania Avenue” is needed for this explanation, and you offer zero evidence, other than your own poor sportsmanship.
<
p>Your team lost. Deal with it.
regularjoe says
All I saying is that President Obama leaned on DeLeo big time to get this bill done. That is a fact.
joeltpatterson says
you know that guy who delivered a pizza to your house, RegularJoe?
You know the woman who cleaned the last hotel room you stayed in?
You know the people who dry clean your clothes?
You know the guy who sells you a paper and a soda at the quik-e-mart?
<
p>They haven’t had decent health coverage for decades in this nation. Now, thanks to a little partisan politics, America’s Senate is about to start treating these 40 million uninsured people as if they were people.
<
p>Republicans have been blocking progress for these working people for years, and the dam’s about to break.
regularjoe says
I don’t think you see that in Massachusetts. I seem to remember something about a health insurance mandate being passed a few years ago. Guess what, the mandate worked! BTW, Governor Patterson still is getting screwed by the president no matter how many t’s are in his name.
regularjoe says
Don’t think so. The president garnered over 60 million votes and most are not as far out there as you. I happily voted for him but I don’t like his meddling. Ask Governor Patterson what I’m talking about.
joeltpatterson says
Thank you!
regularjoe says
I think he left out a T so I gave him one I had laying around.
neilsagan says
Obama was unambiguous in his campaign about health care reform and other major priorities. Maybe you weren’t listening.
<
p>He was handed the financial system collapse. The Bush Admin committed us to a bank bailout after allowing Lehman to fail – it seemed like the best alternative to Congress when, as they were approached in crisis, were told ‘sign the check or we all die.’ It wasn’t even administered the way it was planned to be administered. That is what Obama inherited.
<
p>The financial crisis hit every industry and those businesses most at risk were about to fail. Obama was engaged in trying to save us from a great depression. I have to say, while I’m not pleased with all of the methods I am pleased with the results so far.
<
p>I will also say that Obama has never tried to trick us into a war based on a fraudulent evidence of a false relationship between Saddam and 9/11, so please don’t refer to meddling as if its a criticism with context that makes an allegation universally accepted as malfeasance.
regularjoe says
The way this government was set upwas that there was state government and the federal government. Over the years the federal’s influence grew and the state’s influence fell. As it falls even further we are all worse off.
<
p>If you want to live in a state where there is universal coverage you can. If you want to live in a low tax state without coverage you can. It is called freedom. It can be ugly but it is freedom.
<
p>Just remember that the pendulum will swing again, it always does. All of the erosion of federalism that we are seeing will come back and bite you when the Republicans come back to power. Imagine if the Republican president tried to lean on a state to limit abortion rights. That would be a hoot right? No, it would be a tragedy and you are laying the groundwork for such a thing by what you do today.
medfieldbluebob says
Republican Presidents, and their rubber stamps in Congress, did lean on states to limit abortion rights, and stem cell research, and gay rights, and a whole lot of other things that didn’t fit their idea of “family values”. Name Karl Rove ring a bell? DIck Cheney?
<
p>And what president ordered the Massachusetts National Guard, and the National Guard of every other state into an illegal and dishonest war in Iraq?
<
p>That’s Republican Federalism.
<
p>And they’ve pulled the same crap themselves.
<
p>What Republican state redistricted itself in the middle of the decade to increase Republican votes in the US House? What Republican Justice Department fired federal prosecutors for not indicting enough Democrats?
<
p>You’re right, the pendulum does swing. This time it’s swinging towards a real government helping real people with real problems. Like healthcare. Like education. Like jobs. Like energy. Like reforming Wall Street.
<
p>The shoe is on our foot now. Time to kick ass.
kbusch says
Well, I suppose that’s unfalsifiable.
<
p>If you were to report that you felt the presence of ghosts, UFOs, or Big Foot, that would be unfalsifiable, too. Into our diaries we could all write, “RegularJoe had some really big feelings today,” but we would draw no conclusions about ghosts, flying saucers, or large bipeds.