Snark-Infested Waters by Mike Bailey

Snark-Infested Waters by Mike Bailey

Subscribe  |  Share    |  Print

Follow me on Facebook

Posts Tagged ‘2012 election’

The week in politics – special editior director’s cut

Friday, January 8th, 2010

Happy New Year, everyone!

Normally I would only now be welcoming everyone to the triumphant return of my weekly political column, but thanks to the US Senate special election this puppy has been rolling for a few months now. Yet, in about two and a half weeks that election will be over and, hopefully, the state and local races will start to pick up.

And this year stands to be fairly active as all our constitutional officers – governor and lieutenant governor, secretary of the Commonwealth, attorney general, treasurer, and auditor – are up for re-election along with all state legislators. More locally, the positions of Barnstable County sheriff and Cape & Islands district attorney are up for grabs, along with one seat on the Barnstable County Board of County Commissioners. (more…)

Gleaned sweep

Wednesday, November 4th, 2009

A lot of news outlets are talking about the GOP “sweep” of yesterday’s scattered elections, how they — in the words I read on the AOL home page — “thumped the Democrats,” how this is a clear repudiation of President Obama’s failed policies, and how this could be a grim portent of things to come for the Democrats in 2010.

Uh…am I still on the same planet as these pundits?

Let’s put this in a clear context: in Virginia and New Jersey (states that supported Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential elections), Republican candidates bested Democrats for the governorship of those states. More precisely, GOP candidates bested Democrats that were widely considered so grossly inept they probably would have lost to one of those lifesize cardboard cutouts you see at Starbucks pimping Via.

So, to recap: crappy Democratic candidates were beaten by Republicans in two races that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the administration of the federal government, and somehow that foreshadows a resurgence in the GOP Congressional power base next November…a “Republican renaissance” as GOP chairman Michael Steele put it.

Yyyyyyeah.

And yet, the historical special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional district is somehow not a factor in this Nostradamian prediction of a looming Dem implosion.

If you’ve not heard about this, it’s a classic case of a hanging yourself with your own rope. Bill Owens, who by all accounts was not what you’d call a campaigning machine, won the election to become the first Democrat in more than a century to hold that seat, after the Republican Party tossed over their own candidate, Dierdre Scozzafava, to support a gent by the name of Doug Hoffman — a third-party candidate who did not even live in the district.

Why? Because Hoffman was more conservative than Scozzafava. She supported evil liberal things like same-sex marriage and abortion rights (which, really, have nothing to do with classic Republican political values like small non-intrusive government and limited taxation and government spending, and everything to do with a morality-based mindset that is often in direct conflict with the core principles of the GOP…but I digress).

Hoffman received lip service from GOP icons like Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin (who is still laboring under the delusion that she’s relevant). Scozzafava responded by dropping out of the race — a gutless move in my estimation, but she semi-redeemed herself by then throwing all her support behind Owens in a big expletive deleted you to her party.

The GOP pot accused the Scozzafava kettle of contemptible blackness and called her a traitor to the party…you know, that same party that turned its collective nose up at her to support a non-Republican (did I mention the GOP are sometimes very contrary people?).

Maybe the GOP is making such a big noise about their two minor victories on the gubernatorial front to mask their insecurity over the New York debacle…I mean, taking certain victory and squandering it through indecision, in-fighting, and feeding your own to the wolves? That’s been the Democrats’ modus operandi for many a year.

Remember, Republicans: those who forget the Democrats’ history are doomed to repeat it, and in next year’s mid-terms, you have so much to gain and very little left to lose — and you’ll have even less to lose in 2012 if you don’t get your act together.

Thizbin: still makes more sense than politics

Saturday, August 22nd, 2009

Next week I’ll be giving our local legislators a call to get their thoughts on US Senator Ted Kennedy’s request to the Legislature regarding the possible need to fill his seat should, God forbid, it become vacant due to his ongoing health problems.

In July he sent a letter to Governor Deval Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray, and House Speaker Robert DeLeo asking them to amend state law to allow Patrick to appoint an “interim senator” until a special election could be held to fill the seat semi-permanently (until the next time Kennedy’s seat was up for grabs, which is 2012). Kennedy noted that there is a lot happening in Congress right now — most notably work on health care reform, a topic near and dear to the Senator for many reasons — and Massachusetts needed to maintain a continuity of representation.

Seems reasonable enough, but when you consider that the law was already changed once in the recent past, for reasons one could argue were transparently political, it takes on a whiff of B.S.

In 2004, when US Senator John Kerry was running for President, the Democrat-dominated Legislature pushed through a change to state law that stripped the governor (Mitt Romney at the time) of the authority to appoint a full replacement. They feared that, should Kerry leave the Senate, Romney would appoint a Republican successor. He certainly would have, so the Legislature blocked Romney’s ability to indulge party loyalty by amending the law. They avoided, at least on the surface, the perception that they were also playing at party politics by calling for special elections. That put the choice in the voters’ hands.

Now, Kennedy wants to partially reinstate the governor’s former authority over the matter, and again, the pitch is made in such a way as to present the illusion that it’s all in the name of fairness. By giving the (not so coincidentally Democratic) governor the power to appoint a temporary successor, that leaves the core of the law intact; voters still get to choose who would take over for Kennedy, but in the interim have full representation in Congress. Win-win, yes?

Except that whoever is appointed to that vacancy would ostensibly be someone who wants to hold the seat permanently, and in grabbing the post on an interim basis, that person gains an instant boost to their special election campaign — especially if they are lucky enough to participate in a crucial vote that reaps major benefits for Massachusetts voters.

(EDIT: This is, of course assuming that the governor honors Kennedy’s request to get from the appointee a commitment not to run as a candidate in the special election — a request that is Constitutionally dicey, I must add.)

If the Legislature adopts Kennedy’s requested change, it would be the second time in five years state lawmakers subtly stacked the deck in favor of maintaining a Democratic monopoly in our Congressional delegation.

Enough, people. You gave voters total control over who represents us at the federal level, so leave it there.

Other blogs

Follow us on Facebook

Advertisement