It's Kirk. *sigh*

Let us be thankful (6.00 / 2)

This is a cheap reminder of just how inbred the whole sorry political class has grown.

---

by: Trickle up @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 09:05:58 AM CDT

Was this the play all along? (0.00 / 0)

Meaning when Senator Kennady wrote that letter before his passing, was it with the full intent of having Paul Kirk fill this position?

Throughout the whole interim Senator debate I've remained apathetic figuring it will all work itself out irrespective of my opinion (which was just have an election already), but I wonder if the "change the law" crowd doesn't feel like they were played on this one?

Or am I reading too much into this appointment?

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 09:13:58 AM CDT

Never liked the discrepancy between the date ON the letter and the date DELIVERED. (0.00 / 0)

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 09:24:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm getting awful tired of this talk... (5.89 / 9)

... of Kennedy reaching beyond the grave to manipulate Mass Politics.

He's dead.  He wasn't all that manipulative in life. Why would death provide such a massive personality shift?

Kirk is a perfectly serviceable choice. Let it go.  

(and lest anybody think I don't like Mike Dukakis, I voted for him seven times... ten if you count primaries: I often used him as my default write-in during the fallow Weld years...  Silber? I think not.  Mark Roosevelt? Who?  In fact, if he were to get into the special election right now, I'd vote for him, hands down, ahead of any of the other candidates.)

---

"Providing health care to the uninsured is a job killer, while not providing health care is merely a people killer....   Bonus: Job Openings!!"

--Stephen Colbert

---

by: petr @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 09:49:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

here, here! (0.00 / 1)

Proverbs 10:14

---

by: AlexSWill @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 09:54:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ted Kennedy was an excellent guy in many respects... (0.00 / 0)

...but he is still a politician.

My suspicion could be wrong, but it is not an unfair one. The Kirk choice is a little too convenient to be an organic choice that just popped up in the last few days.    

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 09:56:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I also can't get too worked up about this (5.80 / 5)

The question that is in my head is, "What did you expect?"

This is and was always a question about a Senate appointment by a sitting governor, and that means it came down to one person's choice. It is imperfect and by nature invites political pressure. And that political pressure doesn't get applied by us, for the most part.

I supported the idea of an appointment specifically because it was an interim appointment and it ends (or potentially could have been ratified) by the election in a few months. I knew that the appointee could be someone I liked, didn't like, didn't know who the heck they were, or could even have been a Republican in some outlandish display of bipartisanship. But I'm OK with that, because in the mean time we get 2 votes in the Senate, constituent services can continue, and I get to vote a couple of times for the person who will serve out Kennedy's term.

I don't think it is time to cue Casablanca and express how outraged we are that politics played a part in this. I also understand - and believe 100% in his sincerity - why Governor Patrick said he didn't want this headache.

---

by: Jasiu @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:13:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe Kirk and the staff wrote the letter (0.00 / 0)

There is a theory that Kennedy didn't write the auto-signed letter at all, that his staff wrote it during his final days with a back-dated date to make it seem like he wrote it in sound mind, just to keep their jobs for little while longer (and I suppose they expect to be rehired by Coakley or Capuano, too).

---

by: dcsurfer @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:40:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

link (0.00 / 0)

the theory

---

by: dcsurfer @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:43:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

guff-aw... (6.00 / 3)

There is a theory that Kennedy didn't write the auto-signed letter at all, that his staff wrote it during his final days with a back-dated date to make it seem like he wrote it in sound mind, just to keep their jobs for little while longer (and I suppose they expect to be rehired by Coakley or Capuano, too).

Do you really that that Kirk, who has his own consulting business and is a lawyer, needs the work?  Do you honestly believe that Kennedy's staffers are afraid they won't find work elsewhere? Or, be the default staff for any interim senator?

---

"Providing health care to the uninsured is a job killer, while not providing health care is merely a people killer....   Bonus: Job Openings!!"

--Stephen Colbert

---

by: petr @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:56:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

yes, yes, and yes (3.00 / 2)

And regardless of the conspiracy, how much $$ is this costing us, compared to shutting the office down for 4 months?

---

by: dcsurfer @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:42:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So glad we contorted our election laws for this (4.80 / 5)

---

by: rupert115 @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 09:17:44 AM CDT

Kennedy's Staff? (0.00 / 0)

They are surely prized in the Russell Building. Will Kirk keep them in the barn or parlay them accordingly?

A consensus formed from the echo of parrots, is no consensus.
I'm Jack Mitchell and I'm confused by this message.

---

by: John from Lowell @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 09:20:11 AM CDT

Deval Patrick is Toast (4.80 / 5)

Another Senate appointment by a governor, another mess.

I hope the Kennedy family has another caucus and comes out against gaming as tax policy; that will stop casino gambling in its tracks.

---

by: Gray Sky @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 09:27:19 AM CDT

Kirk is a great choice (5.40 / 5)

I know some on this site would have loved to see Michael Dukasis is Washington (and frankly so would I). However as the Rolling Stones say "You can't always get what you want, but if you try some time you just might find you get what you need."

Paul Kirk fits the bill in my humble opinion. He is clearly qualified. He will represent Massachusetts well over the next four months. He will keep Kennedy's stellar staff in service for the immediate future. He will likely support our President when it comes to healthcare. And he is very unlikley to run as a candidate in the upcoming Special Election.  

---

by: Suffolk Democrat @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 09:37:37 AM CDT

No disagreement on the merits of a Kirk appointment (5.20 / 5)

The problem is the process and the perception that the governor has once again been played.  

---

by: Gray Sky @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 09:48:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Quid Pro Quo (0.00 / 0)

You think Patrick got played?

Or is this just spin?

A consensus formed from the echo of parrots, is no consensus.
I'm Jack Mitchell and I'm confused by this message.

---

by: John from Lowell @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 09:58:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know John (0.00 / 0)

It is the perception. No quid pro quo but perceived weakness.  

---

by: Gray Sky @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:35:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Head scratch... (0.00 / 0)

The problem is the process and the perception that the governor has once again been played.  

Played? Played how? If the choice has merit, under what possible scenario does Patrick make the choice for reasons other than merit?  You're in the unenviable position of arguing that the governor had to be manipulated into making a good decision...  That logic's kinda like saying that, even though the cart is obviously behind the horse, since Deval might have gotten advice to be careful not to place the cart before the horse, it is therefore obvious that he's feckless and easily manipulated.

If, in the next coupla days, a decrepit zombie approaches you and gives you a ferocious dope slap, that'd be the corpse of William of Ockham looking to straighten you out...

.

---

"Providing health care to the uninsured is a job killer, while not providing health care is merely a people killer....   Bonus: Job Openings!!"

--Stephen Colbert

---

by: petr @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:31:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry Pete (3.00 / 2)

I guess you just don't get it

---

by: Gray Sky @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 14:38:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Safe appointment (4.83 / 6)

The only reason for this appointment is so that we can be represented until January in the US Senate, and so the caucus will have a full 60 votes.

If Deval Patrick appointed Mike Dukakis, this would have been a political liability for him in 2010. Dukakis may have support among progressives, but he is still a lightning rod for the right, and probably to a large number of independents.

This is a 4 month appointment. It isn't worth burning political capital over.

---

by: NoPolitician @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 09:39:57 AM CDT

You may be right... (0.00 / 0)

but did he burn leftward political capital with the appointment of Kirk?

Are we debating a false choice?  Is there somebody else who could have gotten the job done -- one without the risk of Dukakis nor the cynicism a Kirk appointment generates?

---

by: stomv @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 09:46:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Do we know that Mike Dukakis wanted the job? (0.00 / 0)

I've met with Mr. Dukakis on a few different projects over the past decade, and I have the sense that he is very comfortable with his role as senior statesman. This is likely to be a very visible role in a brutal bare-knuckles brawl, and it's been a long time since he held elective office.

It wouldn't surprise me if he took a "pass" on this one himself.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 20:43:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Like I said on another thread, it sounds like he wanted it. (0.00 / 0)

Link.

---

by: David @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 22:23:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Right? (0.00 / 0)

In Massachusetts? Surely, you jest. The only people who have a rabid hatred or dislike of Dukakis in Massachusetts is an extreme minority that will never, in a million years (should they live so long), vote for a Democrat.

In case you haven't realized, this state has voted for Dukakis on many occasions, for several positions, including our state's top position and for the top position in the country.

This was an opportunity to gain political capital, now lost.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:24:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dukakis a "lightning rod"? (6.00 / 1)

You are confusing the folks who call talk-radio programs with the electorate as a whole.

---

by: dkennedy @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 16:01:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't think it's a *bad* choice (5.83 / 6)

That is, push comes to shove, I think Kirk will do just fine.  He'll work the constit services, vote well on issues, and use the Kennedy Rolodex for good causes.

But...... that's pragmatic.  It ignores emotions and appearances, because it comes off as tone-deaf.  But then, I couldn't help but pull for the Duke.

---

by: stomv @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 09:45:21 AM CDT

I think that's right. (6.00 / 2)

As I said in my post from yesterday,

Either Dukakis or Kirk would no doubt vote the way the DC Dems want on most important issues.  Either of them would no doubt keep Senator Kennedy's constituent services operation running to the best of their ability.  And I'm sure Paul Kirk (about whom, as I've already mentioned, I know very little) is a fine fellow and a good Democrat.

But tone-deaf?  Yeah, a bit.  A recurring problem.  :/

---

by: David @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:15:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hehe (3.00 / 1)

I think you might as well call him 'Governor tone-deaf'. His administration has been a miserable failure politically even if he has had some minor policy successes. If he wins it will be becuase his opponents are even more pathetic, and if he loses to them, boy is he pathetic.  

---

by: jconway @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:49:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'd put it just the reverse - major policy successes (0.00 / 0)

Minor political failures.

---

by: LynPB @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 17:29:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Name one? (0.00 / 0)

Name one major policy success?

And these political blunders are not minor-they show a consistent lack of understanding or caring about how the Governor presents himself or articulates his ideas. He looks like a lame duck and he hasn't even been voted out of office yet. We will see what people remember next November the minor policy successes or drapegate, caddygate, aidegate, wilkerson, epic fail on casinos, hackocracy with Senate appointment, gatesgate, Grabaskus, Aloisi, Reville, Marian Walsh, zoogate, massive local aid cuts, and the list goes on.  

---

by: jconway @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 00:32:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Seems Patrick is nothing but tone-deaf (5.00 / 1)

I agree on Kirk -- he'll do fine for the four months he's in.  And it's great to get back to 60.

But Patrick I'm not so sure about -- he clearly has a chronic problem with tone-deafness.  It was pretty awkward to run the legislature through changing the law, but it's compounding the awkwardness to go with the Kennedy family's choice -- makes it look like the insider deal it always was.

I'll have to look at my "Deval Patrick: No Ordinary Leader" bumper sticker again to remind myself why I voted for him.  Cause right now, I just have to roll my eyes.

---

by: rickterp @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:23:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

why not Kirk? (6.00 / 11)

Seems like a reasonable choice to me. Who else has interplanetary foreign policy experience??

---

by: Jasiu @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:19:22 AM CDT

And as a lobbyist, he also knows how to (6.00 / 1)

Live Long and PROSPER!

---

by: hubspoke @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:40:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kirk sor Senator (0.00 / 0)

Beam him up!

---

by: Sue Kennedy @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:15:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I see your interplanetary foreign policy experience (0.00 / 0)

and I raise you a distinct understanding of the American family via sitcom:

(Cue Messrs Douglas, Hammett, and Franklin)

---

by: stomv @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:14:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not to mention evolution nuttery (6.00 / 1)

---

by: syphax @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:24:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I like it. (0.00 / 0)

I like their strategy.  I don't think it will be very effective, but it is interesting, and I would love to get my hands on a copy of the book.

For one thing, I don't own a copy of Darwin's work, so that would be nice to have.

For another thing, it'd mean yet another $10 (?) spent ineffectively by nutjobs.

Double bonus.

---

by: stomv @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:47:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would love their strategy a lot more if... (0.00 / 0)

their promo videos (and by implication, the additional text they have apparently added) weren't filled with lies.

I was, in fact, heartened by the statistics they cited to support their lies. A 61% agnostic/atheist population in the science faculty of our top 50 universities strikes me as a very hopeful sign for science education in America.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 20:57:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama's statement (0.00 / 0)

Just landed in my inbox.

Statement by The President on The Appointment of Paul Kirk as US Senator From Massachusetts

"I am pleased that Massachusetts will have its full representation in the United States Senate in the coming months, as important issues such as health care, financial reform and energy will be debated. Paul Kirk is a distinguished leader, whose long collaboration with Senator Kennedy makes him an excellent, interim choice to carry on his work until the voters make their choice in January."

---

by: David @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:23:25 AM CDT

David - Energy? (6.00 / 1)

How will Kirk vote on Cape Wind?

Will he back the obstruction by the Wamponags who have declared the Sound a 'spiritual haven' to stop the project..again?

We have the state permit done, so this is now a Federal issue. And Mr. Kirk?

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:13:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Will there be a vote? (6.00 / 1)

Is there anything in the Senate scheduled for 2009 w.r.t. Cape Wind?  I'm not aware of anything... but my finger is neither on the Cape Wind nor the USSenate docket pulse...

---

by: stomv @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:15:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What's the relevant bill? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: syphax @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:22:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The outspoken Duke might well have opened up his mouth (6.00 / 1)

at some of the idiotic, hypocritical people and practices in the U.S. Senate. That could have been good or bad but I'd love to have seen it. That said, Kirk'll be fine, I'm sure.

---

by: hubspoke @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:44:25 AM CDT

Has Kirk (5.50 / 2)

committed to continue Senator Kennedy's fight against Cape Wind? The Kennedy friend and Cape Cod native might continue to utilize every possible roadblock and delay tactic to prevent the Kennedy family from suffering the great injustice of seeing tiny windmills on the horizon from their beach house.

---

by: Power Wheels @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:04:04 AM CDT

Pawn or puppet? (6.00 / 1)

Bottom line, Deval did as he was told.

---

by: cater68 @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:07:53 AM CDT

Not a bad thing... (6.00 / 1)

...but a missed opportunity.  Kirk isn't going to do much to impede key legislation (health care, maybe also DADT), but aside from casting a vote he's certainly not going to do much to make it happen.  He could have done better, but once again the guiding star for the Corner Office is "adequate".  I guess that's understandable if the people pressuring you are merely the likes of Cahill and Baker, but it ain't exactly setting the world on fire.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:08:31 AM CDT

The gov wasn't played (0.00 / 0)

I don't buy the spin that he was.

I don't believe Ted gave a rat's ass who it was, there were many good choices available.

The rumor doesn't make the gov look good, though. I think his press is out of control. He does best when he personally explains.

---

by: JimC @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:22:37 AM CDT

This was an opportunity ... (0.00 / 0)

To recognize

a) someone who's made a contribution to public service in Massachusetts

b) progressive values

Kirk may have been a loyal Dem, but he's an operative. And, does he have a record of progressive politics? Again, he's been an operative.

This is a technical appointment and it shouldn't have been.

---

by: Sean Roche @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:45:25 AM CDT

Kirk (6.00 / 4)

I certainly don't disagree that the Governor is politically tone-deaf -- indeed, I've been arguing that for months. But I guess I just don't see the disappointment (even anger) over this appointment.

Kirk appears to be solid on the issues, he probably comes in with some credibility with key players in Washington due to his DNC chair stint, and in any case will only be there for four months, maximum, before we get an elected Senator again.

Seems like making a mountain out of a molehill. It also shows how spoiled we are in Massachusetts that we can make a relative non-issue (the new appointments law and Kirk's appointment) into a huge "progressive-hack" death struggle when liberals in other states have to deal with actual, politically insane Republicans. Not a bad problem to have, I guess.

---

by: Hoyapaul @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:41:57 PM CDT

Good point (0.00 / 0)

I'm up in arms about this ugly process (particularly the crass and ham-handed Kennedy involvement), but the result of the ugly process is going to be a fine interim Senator.  Better this than a neat and clean process that results in a Bayh/Lincoln/Lieberman clone.

---

by: rickterp @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 13:42:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Regarding puppetry (4.00 / 1)

Choosing Kirk shows he's a puppet of the Kennedys. But wouldn't choosing Duke show that he's a puppet of CW and/or the Globe Editorial Board?

Neither choice strikes me as bold leadership. Sometimes you don't need to be bold to do what's right.

---

by: jonmac1031 @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 17:34:23 PM CDT

WHY do we wring our hands over this!? (6.00 / 2)

I personally prefered Dukakis, but the Governor duly elected by the whole state is ethically and legally competant to appoint a Senator on behalf of the entire state, ESPECIALLY with the provisos that we have a special election ASAP and the appointee not run (both of which I actually happen to disagree with).  Mr. Kirk really only has his own talents and connections to go on as otherwise he is a lame duck as soon as he's appointed.  Much of his "term" if you can even call it that will be recess anyway.  We'll have an election and he'll be a footnote in history.  Quick, can anyone name (without looking it up) the person who served as Senator between JFK and EMK?  It's certainly not on the tip of my tongue.  This is all much adieu about nothing.  If I had my way we would have had an appointment law in place and the interim would have been seated within a week of Kennedy's death.

---

by: Christopher @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 17:46:05 PM CDT