Boston Globe Is Right, Kennedy Should Resign

Jeff Jacoby has a great article up at the Boston Globe indicating that Ted Kennedy should resign his seat in the Senate.

Kennedy is asking the Massachusetts legislature to pass a bill that allows the Governor to appoint Senators should their seats become vacant. This is very convenient since Kennedy’s seat will be vacant when he eventually succumbs to his terminal brain cancer.

However, Kennedy is the reason that the Governor cannot appoint successors. When Romney, a Republican, was Governor and John Kerry was running for the presidency Ted Kennedy asked the legislature to pass a bill requiring a special election in the event of a Senate vacancy. He did this to prevent Romney from being able to appoint a Republican to the seat, should Kerry have won. Ted Kennedy was instrumental in having the rules changed from what he now wants them to be.

You see, there is now a Democrat in the State House and Kennedy is using this lame excuse of saying people of Massachusetts deserve to have two votes in the Senate and the delay of a special election will keep them from having just that.

Too fricking bad.

Kennedy was not worried about having two votes when he asked for the law to be changed last time. He was only concerned about keeping the seat in the hands of the Democrats. I understand the partisan politics but let’s not pretend that this is all about having two votes for the state because it is not.

As Jacoby points out, Kennedy has missed all but a handful of Senate votes this year so Massachusetts does not have two votes even with the seat occupied.

Jacoby goes on to point out that if Kennedy is really concerned about the two votes he should resign so that he can be replaced and put the second vote back in the Senate.

For well over a year, Massachusetts has not had the “two voices . . . and two votes in the Senate’’ that Kennedy says its voters are entitled to. Sickness has kept him away from Capitol Hill for most of the last 15 months. He has missed all but a handful of the 270 roll-calls taken in the Senate so far this year. Through no fault of his own, he is unable to carry out the job he was reelected to in 2006. As a matter of integrity, he should bow out and allow his constituents to choose a replacement. Boston Globe

The problem with this thinking is that Jacoby indicates that Kennedy should step down “as a matter of integrity.”

Ted Kennedy had NO integrity. If he did he would not try to push for changes to the law that circumvent the democratic process of allowing the people to put a person in office. If Kennedy had integrity he would have resigned after his diagnosis and an election would have already taken place.

Kennedy has a career that is nothing but a lack of integrity.

Of course this would be a moot point if the Constitution had not been changed. Senators were appointed by state legislatures until the Constitution was amended.

That was a mistake.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

15 Responses to “Boston Globe Is Right, Kennedy Should Resign”

  1. Blake says:

    That pesky 17th amendment- that was one of the mainstay checks and balances aspects that the progressives had changed while they had a Constitutional convention going on.
    That provision of appointment by State legislators was so there would be an advocate for the people (reps.), advocates for the States, (Senators), and of course the Federal power was the presidency- all supposed to have CLEARLY DELEGATED AND SPECIFIED DUTIES relevant to their constituencies- now everything is no longer clear, and no one knows who they are supposed to serve.
    In Kennedy’s case, he SHOULD resign- it would be best, but as we have seen, Kennedys are loath to relinquish power- ever.

  2. Adam says:

    Kennedys are loath to relinquish power? I’m not sure what you mean by that but maybe I need a history lesson.

    I see a whole lot of concern for the affairs of the state of Massachusetts for a guy from Maryland and another from Texas. If this were anybody but Ted Kennedy, who loves to make conservatives hate him, I think neither of you would care.

    I’m not really sure what your angle is since changing the rule is clearly legal if done through the correct channels in the state. What’s the problem exactly? It is clear why it was changed for John Kerry and the issues with that. Yet, what is the big deal this time for changing it back? It’s going to be a Dem seat still either way. Only difference is how long the seat stays vacant. Is that what you want? 59 Dems when it matters most?

    Or is this just another chance to bash Kennedy?

    • Blake says:

      Once again, and I will type slowly so you can keep up- the constant changing of rules reeks ( do you know what REEKS means?) of hypocrisy. (how about hypocrisy?)
      Teddy wanted it one way, now he wants the rules changed to suit HIM- arrogant, and ignorant- just as with Mary Jo, he feels as if he can write the rules in his favor, simply because he is entitled to do so.
      The sooner he finishes composting, the better.

    • Blake says:

      AND, if you COULD read for comprehension, you would have grasped Dog’s argument that IF Tedye were to resign, he could accomplish the same thing with an interim appointment, than if he dies in office.

    • Big Dog says:

      Adam, are you saying that because it is legal it is OK to do? Suppose Republicans had a majority in Congress and held the White House and changed the laws to benefit their control of government. Say they changed the rules on how Supreme Court nominees get conformed (or other political appointees for that matter) and then put in all the people they wanted and then lost the election. Suppose then they changed the rules back (before relinquishing power) to make it extremely difficult for Democrats to get anyone confirmed. Would you be OK with that or would you howl about abuse of power?

      This is not about a guy from MD and a guy from TX not being affected. Kennedy is the 60th vote (even though he has missed nearly all the votes this year) so what he does for MA will affect all of us. MA deserves to have its 2 votes but it deserves to have a consistent system that is fair and not changed on the whims of politicians looking to keep power. As for giving it attention, I do not recall any other state having a similar circumstance but if they did I would have the same position regardless of what party held the seat. I don’t care how states decide to fill seats, the process however, should not be changed each time there is an issue just so that one party or the other can keep control.

      Why was it not important to have 2 votes in the Senate when he had the rule changed and usurped the power of the Governor in 2004 but now it is important to have the 2 seats?

      If Kennedy were really concerned about the 2 votes he would resign because they do not have 2 votes right now. He is never there to vote.

      If he cared he could resign and make his resignation effective upon the election of a new Senator. Then there would be this continuity he is suddenly so concerned about (though it really does not exist with him missing votes). Saying that it would be a Democrat anyway does not address the issue. There are many Democrats holding seats int he House that were Republican held for a very long time. Should we just say that Democrats can’t run for those seats because they BELONG to a certain party?

      If it was important for the people to decide in 2004 then it is just as important now. You can’t have it both ways. Kennedy has taken both sides of the same issue in this and it makes him look like a partisan fool (more than he already is).

  3. Macker says:

    Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.

  4. Adam says:

    I’m still wondering what you mean by Kennedy’s are loath to relinquish power. Is there precedent to say such a thing?

    As for resignation I tried to read up on the issue to see whether I could say for sure whether Kennedy should resign or not. I just can’t tell and not being a Massachusetts man I find it hard to make that call. It just made me wonder why all the concern now and if you’d have the same kind of concern if this were another Senator or if your blind hatred for all things Ted Kennedy just makes you think you have a valid opinion on what the people of Massachusetts need?

    But again, I see the issue with changing it to screw Romney, but you failed to answer my question about what makes the change wrong this time around. Is it simply changing the rule that makes it wrong or do you still question his motive for changing it?

    For the first one, it’s what you call “constant” changing of the rule. What you mean to say is that Kennedy asked to have it changed once 5 years ago and now he’s asking to have it changed now again. Wow, that’s practically every other month, isn’t it?

    For the second, if you question his motive then you need to come up with a possible reason other than helping the people that would mean Kennedy is a hypocrite. We can say without a doubt that the seat will stay Democrat without an appointment.

    It’s not about you typing slow or my reading comprehension (which is fine by the way until I’m reading your writing), but nice try. It’s more about me not getting why you care so much and that makes me think it’s all about blind hatred for Kennedy and not the reason you say it is. Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite as well, since you love to throw that word around?

    • Blake says:

      It’s the attitude problem- thinking it is ok to change the rules every time a Kennedy has a vagrant whim, to suit a Kennedy’s wishes and wants.
      The scent of entitlement reeks like a skunk.
      Rules are meant to be obeyed, not changed every time the wind blows from a different direction.
      If this was a Republican, like say—– Bush doing this. we could actually see you have blood shoot out of your eyes from here.

      • Adam says:

        Sense of entitlement? How dare a well respected 47 year United States Senator think he has the right to request a rule change through his home state’s legislative process! The gall! The nerve!

        You know, this reminds me of when a Republican wanted to change something in your neck of the woods. Let me go back in my time machine and see how you felt about Tom Delay’s Texas redistricting plan that was out of schedule in 2003 and helped secure a Republican majority and then was later ruled by the Justice Dept as wrong because it “illegally diluted black and Hispanic voting power in two congressional districts.” Oh the sense of entitlement by you Republicans!

        • Blake says:

          I never said I approved of that by DeLay, although it went too far, it did address some of the gerrymandering the Dems did when Clinton was in power, and the Dems had control of the Texas house.
          In this case it was a pox on both houses.

        • Blake says:

          And “well respected” might be stretching it a bit- especially when he keeps changing the rules like the spoiled child on the playground.

    • Blake says:

      Last time I checked, Mass. was a part of the United States. As such, their business becomes mine, until they secede, which would be impossible.

  5. Blake says:

    And no- it is not about Kennedy per se, but about the smug sense of entitlement that wafts from his rotting body.
    Truthfully, ANYONE who would do this would piss me off-Republican or Democrat- You should NEVER craft a law to favor a party- just favor the people, period.

    • Mike Radigan says:


      … from his rotting body.

      Wrong! Should read from his fermenting body.

      • Blake says:

        Well, now that is true- alcohol does preserve things- things that should not be preserved, dark things, things that should not be spoken of- scary things.