The Washington Post editorial board opposes a move that would help the Senate to pass a decent

[Mass]

healthcare bill. In a fairly incoherent article, they oppose the nomination for FOUR months of a senator, in the period before an eventual senator is elected. They claim the fact that Mass voters are ignored?

This is a very strange argument as, for people of MA, the situation does not change. They will vote at the date planned by the previous reform to elect a Senator who will finish Senator Kennedy's term, which is better than most states in the country, who have no say in who the Senator chooses and see this person run again as an incumbent, with all the advantage an incumbent has (including support from the Democratic leadership and the Presidency). Not to mention that polls in MA show there is support for the measure (as long as the person named by the governor does not run for the seat).

Now, I wonder if this stupid editorial has anything to do with the fact that the person chosen by Deval Patrick is unlikely to be in the centrist group that does not want the reform.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/23/AR2009092304135.html

Not Having Their Say
Massachusetts voters are bystanders in filling a Senate seat.





PLAYING partisan politics once again with a U.S. Senate seat, the Massachusetts state legislature voted to give the governor the power to appoint a successor to the seat held by the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D). While we respect its desire to fulfill the wishes of Mr. Kennedy, this is no way to treat the voters of the commonwealth.

The Democratic-controlled legislature in 2004 stripped then-Gov. Mitt Romney (R) of the power to appoint a replacement for Sen. John F. Kerry (D) if he were to be elected president. The plan was to have the voters choose his successor. Now there's a new plan. As a result of the legislature's action, the people of Massachusetts will join Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas -- a combined 28.7 percent of the nation's population -- in soon being represented in Washington by one of two senators they didn't elect, pending a special election Jan. 19.

The motivation behind this latest move is just as political as the last time Massachusetts engaged in situational legislating. This time it's about maintaining the Democrats' 60-vote majority in the Senate, which might be crucial on health-care votes. While this serves a short-term need, it just feeds the cynicism corroding the public's confidence in its government in the long run. Laws are meant to be enacted for the greater good -- not the greater good of the Democratic Party.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Good 'ol Fred Hiatt.

[blm]

3. WaPost - still the pumping heart of BushInc....

Same as it ever was.

[Mass]

2. Interestingly, according to the Globe, the person pushed by the media today

(Kirk), was an insurance lobbyist and would be chosen because the Kennedy clan wants somebody who is not too outspoken on healthcare issues (remember, it is the media who says that!).


http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/09/24/pressure_mounts_on_choosing_senator/?page=2

Some Kennedy insiders who support Kirk’s appointment, though, have argued that Dukakis is too outspoken on health care issues, espousing liberal positions that could complicate Democrats’ attempts in Washington to moderate their approach on the legislation.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. This editorial says that the Washington Post should stay the fuck out of MA politics.

They've got more than enough to cover in the cesspool that is DC local politics. They don't need to be mucking in the Bay State's mud.

[ShortnFiery]

5. Us locals don't dub it "The Whoreshington Post Editorial Page" for nothing.

The rest of the paper is redeeming but the Editorial page is putrid and filled with right wing shills with a smattering of tepid moderates.

[Cha]

6. The washed out post has shown their a$$ around here too

many times.

[WI_DEM]

7. The Wash Post has been strongly against a good health care bill.