Sen. Kennedy wants to make sure Mass. has two Senators

I am going to present the suggestion as to what should be done, in Massachusetts, as a model for other states. without regard for which party would have an advantage in this case or comparable cases. the law should be changed. the mistake was in changing the law in such a raw partisan way when romney was Governor. th Wyoming system is best with regard to one thing: the Governor must appoint someone of the departing Senator's own party. A list is presented to the Governor, from which he chooses to appoint one. I think the political party leaders compile the list, and that could be an issue, of who compiles it. the second element is that the person appointed should not be eligible to run for the seat, and should only be a caretaker, seat-warmer until the next election - but presumably it would be some senior statesman type, some academic or expert, or even some former Senate staff member who knows how to do the job of Senator. this was the case with the appointment of Kaufmann in elaware, which was a good appointment. third there should be a special election either in the next 2-year Congressional election, or sooner, if a procedure could be set up for a convention nominating process for each aprty, and a vote at the time of the next state-wide elections of any sort - even if the whole state has school board elections, presumably in every polling place in the state - or city elections - but then the rural areas would have to have polls open too, even if only for the Senate election. It would result in some additional expense, in that case, but not as much as if it were an entirely stand-alone special election. Holding elections for two things at one time - Senate and school board, for example - might increase turnout, and be good for participation in democracy, which is a worthwhile goal to include in deciding when to have an election. In general, Republicans used to favor low-turnout elections, and Democrats favor high-turnout elections, but that may change, if the high -turnout includes totally uninformed, misinformed, uneducated persons with few skills at rational thinking, who are coming out in response to smear-mongering and fear-tactics from demagogues of the far right.

On the other hand, if there are only the school board elections, and the Senate special election, then there should be an opportunity of sufficient time to have an adequate debate on issues, to inform the people. I personally would favor a law that would require all cable providers to carry PBS and all three c-span networks, and a partial government subsidy to them to carry full debates in all Senate races, and all Congressional races. Even at wildly late hours of night for Congressional debates in non-competitive districts - at least people could tape it if they wanted to see it. In my view there are too many talking heads commentators, and not enough debates among the real candidates, and important questions asked politely by real voters. The media wants to get in the way of the communication and spin everything, and promote their own reporter and commentator superstars! The public should not subsidize any of them! I would also favor asking both PBS and cspan, to have a schedule of educational programs with a realistic classroom guide for high schools, high school eqquivalency, college level U. S. government courses, and even economics. with all sorts os standard and optional reading lists, and programs to watch, especially actual Congressional hearings and debates, and reports on Supreme court cases, and various press conferences. It is ridiculous to use textbooks that are dumbed down, and partly warped, because they have to be approved by a Texas state school board, and they buy a lot of books for exapmple - or California or New York on the other hand. the more original sources the better. I have heard enough prejudiced commentary from a college textbook writer on Iowa public radio to not trust the college textbooks either,We need more civics education, and less indoctrination from the spinners. Hearing many points of view is fine, but a textbook often does not do that well.

The Governor of Massachusetts was not involved in getting the law passed to set the special election so late - almost 5 months after the vacancy occurs. Therefore there is nothing wrong when he asks the legislature to give him the power to appoint someone to serve until the special election. He is also correct in saying that he wants the appointee to promise not to run in the special election. This is a sensible compromise for now. I assume that there will be a reasonably large turnout for the primary in early December and special election in mid-January. However, not as large as if there were other offices to be filled at the same time. And who knows what the weather will be like on those dates. And it will cost more to have the polls open two extra times, once in December and once in January. After this process is completed, the legislature should take a look at how it worked and consider an option that is less driven by partisan considerations, either way.

It is very interesting that several of the Democratic Congressmen from Massachusetts have decided not to run for the Senate, and even the retired Congressman who is now the head of a major University. They apparently like their curent jobs better. Something is wrong in the Senate - and the routine use of the filibuster is a major part of it. I had thought that much of the problem was caused when extremely partisan republicans like Rick Santorum came over from the House, and brought House lack of dignity (to put it mildly!) with them. But now he is defeated, and teh tactics of Frist and now Mitch McConnell make one nostaligic for the good old days of Trent Lott as GOP Senate Leader, and Dirksen and Baker! Such a pity that McConnell won last year in Kentucky, but that was a very anti-Obama state - I suspect more white racists there than in Tennessee or Arkansas, and probably about the same as in West Virginia. It is really silly to have these over-drawn polarizations on the white racism issue. Of course there are some, and there are too many, but what % is unknown. Someone has looked at poll numbers on a number of matters and estimated 20%. I notice some really nasty ones from Connecticut, and that surprises me. But those types - however few there are of them - do tend to come to topix and write very hostile comments, and it in no way reflects the percentage of haeful persons in that particular state. Probably true even of Kentucky and West Virginia and Arkansas and Kentucky, where certain topix commenters are more typical of the virulent types among the teabaggers, and not mere conservatives. I remember great conservatives from Massachusetts - certainly Saltonstall. and the fine moderate Republicans Ed Brooke and Sil Conte and Brad Morse. And the great Republican maverick moderate turned Independent in Connecticut, Lowell Weicker. Even more recently, Chris Shays, sort of torn between moderate and partisan Republican, but cursed with a fine independent mind, and unable to toe the dittohead line. It will be interesting to see wh eventually does run for the Mass. Senate seat, from both parties. Is it true that a Republican possibility was a former Cosmo centerfold star, or something? Wow, one would not have thought that of someone from that party - or would one? It sounds like he got into more trouble for that in his past than Card did for being with Gonzales in Ashcroft's hospital room, harassing an ill man to try to make him sign an illegal order.

Anyone wanting detailed information on the Senate seats up in 2010 can go to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee or the Republican SCC. These sites will probably have information updates from time to time on possible opponents, primary dates, fund-raising, polls, etc.

Bob Dole is not happy with the obstructionist GOP tactics on health care either. This is an implied criticism of Mitch McConnell, who is using the filibuster more than anyone has ever done in the Senate before. Dole is part of a group of former leaders in the Senate trying to get support for the passage of a moderate, bi-partisan bill. He wants some Republicans to make contributions to a health insurance reform bill, and then vote for the bill, or at least not filibuster it. Amazing! He has become less of a partisan and more of a senior statesman type, as he grows older, and now that Liddy is no longer a Republican Senator.

It makes sense for moderate Democrats in the Senate to vote for cloture, to let debate and votes on amendments go forward in a steady way, and then look at the final version after the various amendments are adopted or rejected, and decide then how to vote on final passage. Even then, there is a second chance to look at the final result assuming that the House passes a different bill, on some points, and a conference committee works to find a compromise, and then both House and Senate vote on the compromise in the conference committee version, as explained by the committee report. It is way too early to think one knows what is in "the bill." There is still not even a combined bill (Finance and HELP Committees) in the Senate, or a combined bill, from three committees, in the House. HELP is Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The Finance Committee vote on its version will be on Tuesday, presumably. Oct. 13.

I'm a right wing nutjob

Stamos wrote:

I'm a right wing nutjob

I won't take your word for that. You might be a respectable traditional conservative, just pretending to be an nutjob! There have been two strains in the right-wing for a very long time. One variety is traditionaal, respectable, honorable, honest, truthful, and issue-oriented, and often has a philosophical and ideological backing for its viewpoint. The nut-jobs include opportunists who may not even believe in that much of the right-wing viewpoint, but are just following ambition and pandering to the groups whose votes they want to win - these are calculating and amoral, but maybe not really nuts. Senator Joe McCarthy, and Karl Rove probably fall into this group. The real nut-jobs are those who actually believe the stuff - those who are vicious, nearly violent, full of hatreds and resentments and prejudices, and inclined to totally over-generalize.(I criticize folks on the left who over-generalize too, or who use obscenity or false accusations - I disapprove of that stuff from anybody. I even complain about over-zealous grammar and punctuation and spelling police on topix, who fuss about that instead of replying to content). I admit that I do lump together the opportunists and true-believer right-wing extremist types together, because they tend to support a very partisan line, and have no hesitation about smearing someone - though the true-believers may actually believe their own accusations, and the opportunists may not. So I am not convinced you are a nut-job yet! The two-party system needs honorable conservatives - and needs them very badly - to take back the conservative movement, the GOP, the Christian conservative movement, and the so-called conservative slots on talk shows, as the major alternative to progressives, liberals, and most Democrats. We do not dare have the risk of a nut-case right-wionger as the alternative to the center, and center-left - because the pendulum always seems to swing sometime politically, and someday they might win and cause disaster. I happen to regard McCain as a nut-case as a Presidential candidate in 1008, but not in 2000, and not always as a senator, but sometimes. that is because he has such a hot temper that he could not be trusted in an Executive decision-making position. I consider Palin to be a true-believer nut-case all the time. I consider Rove to be a total opportunist, with amoral being the polite word for it. I actually do forgive Lee Atwater - who was once like that - because he did say he was sorry for it, ad he lay dying.(And yes, there are a few Democratic political operative types who annoy me - notably James Carville, Rahm Emanuel, and Terry McAuliffe -- and there were some good Republican operatives in the past - but they mostly worked for moderate Republicans and independent-minded conservatives). I do not consider Ron Paul to be a nut-case, by the way. He is interesting .

McCain in 2008 was different from the McCain of 2000. The McCain of 2000 was the victim of smears from Karl Rove - McCain in 2008 hired Karl Rove types to run his campaign. McCain is running for re-election to the Senate in 2010 in Arizona.

I believe that a calm person can switch back and forth from having partisan views, to having a purely objective statement of facts that are not controversial. There is some wonderful quote about people being entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Too many facts are alleged, but wrapped up in opinions, and not stated separately, as to whether they are non-controversial, and supported by evidence, or in dispute. For example - some facts are obvious, such as how many Senators there are - 100. Others are not, such as how many Senate votes it takes to "control" the Senate. The word "control" has different meanings. In one sense, the 40 votes plus one it takes to sustain a filibuster, and stop consideration of amendments or votes on amendments and bills, amounts to having working control of the Senate. And Mitch McConnell has the 40 votes - and probably plus one, if Nebraska Senator Nelsen, or Joe Lieberman, or one other "maverick" Democrat votes with the Republicans. But someone else could argue that the Democrats have their 60 votes who are either Democrats or who caucus with Demcorats (Lieberman) and get committee assignments from Democrats, including Lieberman's committee chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. Such a debate over mere words is more likely rooted in partisanship, than analysis. To be analytical, one needs to know what states the moderate, conservative, or "maverick" Democrats are from - and when they are up for re-election - and what their electoral margins have been, or what the polls show about their over-all popularity or how they do against a likely opponent in the next election - and whether they come from so-called red states, or blue states. Also to be analytical, one needs to look at public opinion on a particular issue in their states, the economic interests in their states, the interests that contribute heavily to their campaigns, and the motivations of the most helpful - and hurtful - activists who would work for or against them. There is also the personal matter of the Senator's past experience, jobs in the private sector or government, or experience watching some other similar issue proceed from an idea to a bill to a law to a program, and whether it worked out or not. For example, someone who held a state office, like Conrad or Nelsen of Nebraska on the Democratic side, or Voinovich on the Republican side, would have that extra experience to factor in. A Senator who came to the Senate from the House would have two different, often conflicting, experiences. One would be the good luck of probably being elected to the House from a relatively safe district, and the worry that re-election in the Senate would not be so easy, in a more competitive state. That might lead to caution. On the other hand, in the House there is a great degree of partisanship, so a new Senator might be carrying over a strong amount of party loyalty, and refusal to side with the other party. Good analysis contains many "on the other hands" and "mights" - and partisanship usually tends not to like that sort of caution and balance.

There are places to go to get the real facts about matters that are entirely factional. For example, one can go to Wiki to find the "classes" of Senators, according to what year they were elected, or must run for re-election. Google - or search for - U. S. Senate classes, and one gets such a list. In 2010 for example, the following Senators are retiring: Democrat - l, Burris of Illinois. Republican - probably 6, Bond of Mo, Brownback of Ks, Bunning of Ky, Gregg of N.H., LeMieux (replaced Martinez) of Fla., and Voinovich of Ohio. Furthermore, Senator Kaufman, a Democrat of Delaware, is also retiring. He was appointed to fill the Senate seat of seantor Biden, who was re-elected in Delaware as Senator at the same time as he was elected Vice President, and thus that seat really belongs to the class of 2008 and 2014. It is required in most states to have a special election for the rest of the Senate term at the next general election after an appointment. Obviously Mass is the exception, since their special election will be in January, with a December primary.(I think I imply that I think that is silly - which I have discussed in long early comments.) Senator Gillebrand of N. Y. was also appointed, to take Hillary Clinton's Senate seat, and she too must run for election in 2010 - she is not retiring, and there has been some political pressure on other N. Y. Democrats not to oppose her in a primary. Whoever wins in N. Y. in 2010 will have to run for the Senate again in 2012, since that Senate seat belongs to the clss of 2006 and 2012.

Republicans up for re-election to the Senate in 2010 include: Bennett of Utah, Burr of N.C., Coburn of Okla, Crapo of Idaho, DeMint of S. C., Grassley of Iowa, Isakson of Georgia, McCain of Ariz., Murkowski of Alaska, Shelby of Alabama, Thune of S. D., and Vitter of La. Democrats up for re-election to the Senate in 2010 include: Bayh of Indiana, Bennet of Colorado (an appointed Senator, replacing Salazar who became secretary of teh Interior), Boxer of Cal, Dodd of Ct., Dorgan of N. D., Feingold of Wis, Inouye of Hawaii, Leahy of Vt., Lincoln of Ark, Mikulski of Md., Murray of Washington, Reid of Nevada, Schumer of N. Y., Specter (changed parties) of Pa, and Wyden of Oregon.

The general political opinion is that the following Senate races will be the most competitive: For the open Republican seats in Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, and possibly Florida. Perhaps in Kentucky. Probably the Kansas seat will go Republican. Most of the GOP Senators up for re-election are likely to be re-elected, according to their past electoral history, current polling, & the states they are in. Democrats are most likely to try to make a strong showing in Iowa (where Grassley has offended many Democrats who used to tolerate him, and some independents, by pandering to the right--wingers at town hall meetings, & has worried other ultra-right-wingers by being willing to negotiate with Democrats on the Finance Committee on the health insurance bill - there are rumors of a new strong candidate against him, who has won state-wide, or has state-wide name recognition - we'll see - Grassley has a very clever ad up already, trying to look invincible - a totally positive ad praising him - no attacks on others, except by very indirect implication). Burr of N. C.- he is not that popular. Kay Hagan won last year, bu Liddy Dole was more vulnerable (she did not go back to the state often enough. Polls show Burr defeating any potential Demcoratic opponent. I would like to see Vitter defeated - but I wish Republicans would nominate a better candidate. The hottest primaries - other than for Governor in Texas - will be in Florida for the GOP, between Crist & Rubio, & in Pa, between Specter & Sestak. Two Democratic Senators in difficulty are Dodd Ct, & Reid, Nev. More because of their unpopularity & strong GOP attacks on them, than based upon the strength of a GOP opponent, however. Blanche Lincoln will need to be careful in Arkansas, not to seem to be too liberal or too Democratic - and that makes her vote harder to get on some health care issues. The Pa contest will be interesting, no matter which new Demccrat wins, with an ultra-right-wing guy being supported by the rich corporate interests as the GOP candidate. There appears to be a tough primary ahead in Colorado among Democrats too, & the GOP candidate may be able to take advantage. I am trying to be reasonably fair in my comments, & pass on the combined political wisdom of several experts I've heard on TV & radio - non-partisan political junkie type experts. NPR has a political expert on Talk of the Nation on Wednesdays at the first hour - 1 central time. Also cspan brings on Politico, Hotline, Cook Report, DMSCC & RSCC & other experts, national & local, One can look up Cook Report, Politico, or Hotline Amy Walter. One can google - or search for - the term political junkie, & get the NPR guy, Ken Rudin, & others as well.

One can do a more general search on the internet and find all sorts of sites which have points of view to promote, and many list other sites with blogs and other commentary. Some sites list folks on both the left and the right, and the so-called independent ones. There is no reason to rely upon one source of news and information, or commentary. One can also google - or search for - fact-check claimants, and try several of them, to see whether they have a point of view. I look most often at the one at the washington Post, to see what he is up to, and whether I agree with him, and at the one at the Annenberg place, with an academic respectability that matters to me, despite the name. There is nothing wrong with getting some comedy either - I prefer the Onion, and Stephen Colbert - but I like satire and irony, and very sophisticated stuff. The early intros to SNL are fun political skits, but I personally cannot stand the gross cultural stuff that follows. The Daily show is tolerable, with good interviews at times, but he is a bit too broad in his humor for my taste. KO is funny if one is on the left - not if one is on the right of the spectrum. Apparently SNL will occasionally do a prime time half hour of political skits, to help folks who are not late-nighters to catch up. Anyone who has the time to spend on topix reading comments and making them, can also have the time and the means to be well-informed. My way takes too much time, since I listen to cspan while I type, make typos, and then have to edit or not - it takes a long time of listening to get things directly from a cspan coverage of an entire hearing or entire debate, which is what they do. It is fine for folks who are retired and have the time, and already know enough to understand what is going on. Not good for folks in a hurry!

For folks on the reformist side, I recommend Sunlight Foundation, and for folks on the citizenship grassroots side I recommend Congress Watch. They are not always on the left or Democratic side of issues, either. It is helpful for those of us who are progressive, and Democrats to take a look at where our side is probably mistaken, but just hanging on in order not to give in to Republican steamrolling and slander. That includes the Rangel business, as long as Ensign gets the same treatment in the Senate. It also includes the Grayson statement on the House floor - he should be made to apologize for violating House rules. It is ridiculous to demand that Joe Wilson apologize for violating House rules, and then defend Grayson. Both of them can say what they like in their home states, or on TV, but not on the House floor - there they have to obey certain rules of civility. I think Rangel should be made to resign as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, also. It would be better if Democrats, privately, convinced him to step down - maybe he could save face by saying it is temporary until he is cleared by the Ethics Committee. That might pressure the Ethics Committee to move more quickly. And this is a case where an outside Ethics investigation by honorable and fair persons would be useful. As a very pro-civil rights and human equality person, I tend to want black caucus leaders to be above reproach, and not to defend their questionable activities. I have a higher standard for my side - that includes women in politics, and liberals, Democrats, etc - than for the other side. There will always be a good progressive Democrat coming along to replace a compromised one. Even if the compromised one was relatively good on the issues. The next Chairman does not automatically have to be the next highest ranking Democrat, if Rangel is totally required to resign. Pete Stark of Cal. appears to be the next in rank. But if Rangel only steps down pending an Ethics investigation, then protocal would probably say that Stark would take over temporarily. Wow would the right-wing go nuts if Stark took over! The next ones in line seem to be Sander Levin of Michigan, Mike McDermott of Washington, and John Lewis of Georgia. I was lucky enough to be in the House gallery when the House debated on how to treat Adam Clayton Powell for all his adventures - no milder word for it!- it was fascinating! That was in winter of l966- l967, when I was in grad school in DC.

I keep hoping that one of my former students will see my comments, and reply, whether they recognize me or not. It would be so helpful to have comments from others on this handy site - anyone who is a political junkie, or who was a student on Washington Workshop, CloseUp, Presidential Classrooms, Washington Summer Seminar, AU Washington Semester or any of the other Washington study or intern programs. Even from well informed watchers of cspan or listeners to NPR. It is a pity that topix has so much of an extremist insult-exchange reputation. There are some very good comments too. and the openness and anonymity could be a good thing for sensible persons, as well as extremists!

I should say that I am not and have not ever been a student, employee, or professor at Graceland in Lamoni. I am glad the college-university is here, however. Lots of art, music, and theatre. Graceland has a church affiliation that I do not share, but not all students there, or staff or professors there, are of that religion. There are varieties of views within that church, and at that college, also.(I have numerous friends in that church and at Graceland, and who are affiliated with other churches and views on religion - and politics - in this town. In small towns, it is best to try to be friendly with as many persons as possible, and to tolerate differing views.) Graceland also has a fantastic program for international students, and for Students in Free Enterprise, and for a helping international Outreach program. We are in one of the poorest counties in Iowa, in terms of income, but not in quality of lifestyle. This is rolling hills part of Iowa, not the high-priced corn-growing flat-land part with the high land values further north. The places to visit in Iowa, for scenery, are the bluffs along the Mississippi, in the northeast part of the state, near Wisconsin and Minnesota, and the loess-hills in far southwest Iowa, near the Missouri river, from the Missouri border to near Omaha and Council Bluffs. Some are wooded, and some more rolling and open. There are parks and restoration projects. Only China has hills like it!

progresive, please shut those flapping gums of yours

Elmer Fudd wrote:

progresive, please shut those flapping gums of yours

This is not talking, this is typing. I need practice typing and trying to edit my typos. No one needs to read anything I write. I am looking for specific persons to read and reply, but not for people like you. Some people like topix just to be insulting, obscene, hateful, and slanderers. I am merely providing a normal "political junkie" type commentary, which many formal bloggers do, but doing it via topix. It is only for folks who are interested in details about political facts, and events, and proposals, and in typical political analysis from semi-experts who are not motivated by hatred or a wish to spread propaganda or some psychological drive to vent hostility. Go find your own kind of people on your own kind of topic. No one is making you listen to anything! or read anything. You do know how to find other topics on topix don't you?