Friday Talking Points [90] -- Obama To Switch Parties

President Obama stunned the political world today by announcing he will switch political parties, and soon become a Republican. "It seems the only way we're going to get bipartisanship in this town is if I lead the way," he said, in brief remarks before leaving for vacation. "The Republicans have refused to work with me because I'm a Democrat, and Republicans' biggest strength has always been the ability to fall into line with whatever their leaders tell them, unlike other certain unnamed political parties in America..." (the president appeared to cough several times at this point, although one of his coughs sounded suspiciously like the word "Democrats," if truth be told...). The president, clear-throated now, continued, "So I will now be the leader of the Republican Party, and they will fall in line with what I tell them to we're going to do. The Democrats who are interested in bipartisanship can join us to pass Medicare-for-all, instead of the Rube Goldberg machine which they have been attempting to construct."

Well, actually, that whole preceding paragraph was a lie. Complete and utter fiction. But what the hey -- it seems to be the time of year when fiction is taken seriously, so I thought I'd toss this into the silly season mix. It's certainly no more of a whopper than some of the other stories circulating and being given credibility by the media these days.

Ahem.

Of course, all these important rumors and falsehoods make for much better television than stories about how Tom Ridge is admitting that politics played a big part in the "terrorist attack color alert level" (which would, under George W. Bush and Tom Ridge's leadership, increase every time it was politically advantageous for the Republicans). Imagine that! What a surprise! A few bloggers even took this to its logical conclusion -- that there's a word for people who use the threat of terrorism to advance political gains, and that word is: "terrorist."

But screaming idiocy is so much more fun to cover. Much more fun than, say, a report that the CIA was outsourcing assassination to Blackwater -- a concept so fraught with potential for serious problems (to say nothing of the moral relativism which condones the idea in the first place) that it should have been headline news everywhere, but (sadly) was not.

Which led me to my decision to offer up this sprig of catnip to the mainstream media, since these days it seems they'll believe (or at least, obsess over for weeks on end) just about anything. So, if you know any professional news guys or gals, pass the word along to them, in the hopes of this complete nonsense going viral -- "Obama's going to become a Republican!" Odds are, they'll buy it. And then turn around and use it to sell dogfood and breakfast cereal.

 

After our recent hiatus in the awards-giving department, we are back and ready to hand out a few Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week awards. Woo hoo!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid actually said some strong words this week. In this stunning development of backbone-itude, Reid (and the White House, as well) began darkly intimating that Democrats were just about ready to completely ignore both the Republicans and the corporatist bastard (oh, excuse me, that's a typo, it should read "centrist") Democrats on health care reform, and instead just go ahead and use the budget reconciliation they set up earlier this year to pass the damn thing already -- meaning they'd only need 50 votes (plus Joe Biden) to approve it, and the Republicans would be blocked from mounting a filibuster.

Holy jeepers! Harry Reid, getting tough? On members of his own party, no less? I know -- you could have knocked me over with a feather! But the jury's still out on Reid, since he has, in the past, shown a propensity for talking tough, and then folding like a cheap road map (badly, in other words), when it comes time for action. So Harry only gets a "Maybe Later, If You Actually Do It..." Honorable Mention this week. We'll see, Harry, we'll see. You've talked the talk, now walk the walk.

We have two MIDOTW winners this week. First up, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, for responding to -- and getting out in front of -- the progressive Democrats in her chamber. There is a bloc of House Democrats who may wind up being the ultimate leaders in the health care battle, because they are big enough -- and, crucially, they appear united enough -- to draw their own lines in the sand on the debate. When the White House wobbled and waffled on the public option last weekend (see next section), progressive response was swift and strong. Pelosi reacted to the powerful numbers of the group (variously pegged at anywhere from 60-100 House members, depending on whom you believe) and said herself "nothing's going to pass the House unless it has a public option in it," or words to that effect (this is literary shorthand for "I'm too lazy to look up the actual quote right now," sorry). Right on, Nancy! Get up, stand up! Obama has all but abdicated the role of Public Option Champion, so thank you for stepping into the empty shoes this week. It is looking more and more like the real showdown at the OK Corral over health care is going to be a cage match between the House Progressives and the Senate Blue Dogs, so watch for that in the new fall television season.

But the really impressive Democrat this week was, without question, Representative Barney Frank. While his response to a woman (frothing "Nazi" at the mouth in a town hall meeting) will probably not go down in history as the equivalent to the "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" moment in the McCarthy hearings -- for this generation, it'll have to do. Even Fox News ran it with the headline: "Frank Speaks Truth To Crazy," which is some indication of how stunning a performance it was. Frank's words (Huffington Post has the video, as well) were long overdue for someone to say, that's for sure. When the woman questioning him asked him why he supported a "Nazi policy," Frank shot back with:

"When you ask me that question, I am going to revert to my ethnic heritage and answer your question with a question: On what planet do you spend most of your time? You want me to answer the question? Yes, you stand there with a picture of the president defaced to look like Hitler and compare the effort to increase health care to the Nazis. My answer to you is, as I've said before, it is a tribute to the First Amendment that this kind of vile, contemptible nonsense is so freely propagated. Ma'am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it."

This response was interrupted several times for cheers and applause from the audience, and by more incoherent ramblings from the questioner. But for that quote alone, Frank more than earned his Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. Shipping the award will be easy, because I live on the same planet as Congressman Frank.

[Congratulate Speaker Nancy Pelosi on her Speaker contact page, and Congressman Frank at his House phone number: [phone] (since Frank's House page discourages those from outside his district from emailing him), to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

We had a few candidates for Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week, I have to say. And, unfortunately, some of the highest-ranking Democrats were among them.

Leading the pack were none other than President Obama himself, and his Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius. Last weekend, both Sebelius and Obama got pounced on by the media for appearing to back off on strong support for a public option in the health care debate. They both (through Obama's press secretary) tried to "walk back" these remarks in the following days, rather unconvincingly.

I suspect there is more to this story than has so far been reported. Not on the public option front, but on the insider's-view of Obama's White House. Up until now, the Obama White House has been remarkably tight in messaging. Very little leaks out into the press about "who's up and who's down" in the Obama administration. To contrast, consider the stories about Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Rove which we heard from the Bush White House -- stories of power struggles, infighting, and who had more access and leverage with the president. I, for one, have not read a whole lot of these stories from the Obama White House.

But that doesn't mean the struggles aren't taking place, just that I'm not hearing about them. However, sometimes you can read between the lines a bit, even if you can't identify the players by name. In the midst of last weekend's fray over what was said about the public option and what it meant, there was an article in the Washington Post full of some rather snarky comments from unnamed, but "senior" and "top" sources in the White House about what "the left of the left" thinks. To a large degree, these advisors appeared to support undermining the public option and Obama's support of it. This, to me, looks like a tactical move (leak it to the press!) in a power struggle within the White House itself. Now, it's impossible to know which side Rahm Emanuel is on (but one could guess), or David Axelrod, or any of the other top advisors to the president. But it looks to me like the battle that needs to be won (in order for the president to draw some lines in the sand on health care legislation) is taking place not so very far from the Oval Office itself.

But Sebelius, Obama, and certain senior administration advisors (who have cravenly chosen to remain nameless) didn't rise to the MDDOTW award this week, so they'll have to settle for the "With Friends Like These..." (Dis-)Honorable Mention instead.

The winner of the MDDOTW, it pains me to say, was none other than Senator Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts. Kennedy released a letter he wrote to the top state officials, where he advocated changing the law which governs succession of senators. The letter itself, and the proposed change in the law, seems entirely reasonable when first read.

But it isn't. The media frenzy which was launched by the letter's release has -- almost without exception -- gotten the facts totally wrong. This was due to two major causes: not doing their homework, and Kennedy himself. Because Kennedy's premise itself (that there will be a guaranteed five-month gap where The Bay State will only have one senator representing it) is completely wrong. Well, not completely wrong -- this gap would indeed exist if the senator in question died in office, or otherwise vacated the office unexpectedly. But Kennedy himself has the power to guarantee a smooth succession, with no gap at all (or one of a few days when Congress isn't even in session) -- if he chooses to. This is the fact the media missed, because none of them went and read the actual law itself. I devoted yesterday's column to this subject, if you'd like further details (including the full text of Kennedy's letter, and the relevant Massachusetts law).

Kennedy, by his proposed change in the law, is demanding the right to die in office -- free of political consequences -- instead of realizing that he will soon be medically unfit to fulfill the duties he has been elected to perform. This is about his legacy and about his sense of entitlement to his office, and about him putting both before the interests of his constituents.

As I said, it pains me to write this, because I have so much respect for the man, but Senator Kennedy has to be awarded this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Contact Senator Edward Kennedy on his Senate contact page to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Volume 90 (8/21/09)

Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. explained once (via the words of his main character in Cat's Cradle), what being a writer is supposed to mean:

"When a man becomes a writer, I think he takes on a sacred obligation to produce beauty and enlightenment and comfort at top speed."

That's a pretty tall order, especially from a writer whose books often end (as does Cat's Cradle) with the entire world and the human race itself dying out. On the best of Fridays, I only reach for enlightenment, personally. You're going to have to find beauty and comfort elsewhere, is what I'm saying. However, "top speed" has always been a requirement for these Friday columns (this stuff just doesn't type itself, folks!).

But here we are in the depths of the silly season, and I have to say I'm going to chuck out even the goal of enlightenment this week. I've already written my thoughts on how Democrats should be addressing health care reform so many times, even I'm getting bored with the exercise. All the Democrats are on vacation anyway, and even the town hall meeting stories are dying down in the media. Besides, this week I couldn't hope to top Barney Frank's words.

So instead of the normal Talking Points this week, we're going to offer up random thoughts on the media's prioritizing storylines. These kind of go in all directions, so you'll have to excuse me. I blame the silliness of the season, personally.

In no particular order, here are some suggestions for the bored August media (but definitely not "august" media), in the hopes of tickling their fancy.

 

   Remember Iraq?

We've still got around 130,000 soldiers in Iraq. The media determined long ago that this story wasn't "newsworthy," but this week's coordinated bombings deserved more attention than they got. Plus, the American generals are pushing Maliki's government to be allowed in to areas in the north where Kurdish tensions still have not been addressed, which would be a significant reversal of the U.S. pullout from the cities. In the background, the Iraqis are considering whether to put a referendum on the ballot in their next election which would give their citizens a chance to vote on a speeded-up withdrawal timeline for Americans to leave. Any of these are stories worth digging out, if we didn't have to cover war "with the journalists we have" (to paraphrase that well-known military genius, Don Rumsfeld).

 

   Remember Afghanistan?

Reports are that the American generals in Afghanistan may ask for an increase in U.S. troops from the current level (around 70,000) to well over 100,000 by next year. This is an enormous escalation, and deserves to be investigated. The Afghan elections just held were actually covered by the American media, in a cursory way, but little or no context was provided. What does it mean if Karzai is forced into a runoff election? What do the parties opposing Karzai stand for? These would be good questions to answer if we're going to double down on this war.

 

   Naked guy on a plane!

OK, those were a bit serious. How about some media catnip instead? A Southwest flight had to return to Oakland California because a guy took all his clothes off and got violent. Naked guy on a plane! I haven't seen the evening news yet, but I would be willing to wager this story makes the cut.

Sigh.

"Hee-ee-ee-re, media media media... heeere media... want some catnip, furry media-kitten?"

Double-sigh.

 

   Obama's switching parties!

If we're going to flood the airwaves with silliness, then how about my flavor of silliness? Call it Weigant Brand Media Catnip -- the fake news story that wouldn't die!

Barack Obama will, at some point before his vacation ends, announce he is sick of Democratic squabbling and will be switching to the Republicans instead, who quite obviously don't care what species of nonsense they parrot, as long as they're all speaking with one voice.

No, seriously, I read it on the Intertubes... it must be true!

Heh heh.

 

   Mexico legalizes personal drug use

Speaking of August, did you know the month used to be called (by the Anglo-Saxons) "Weedmonth"? Far out, man. Oh, excuse me, I must have been spacing out or something...

I can't believe the media has been slacking on this story. I mean, Mexico is RIGHT NEXT DOOR! The fear-mongering should have begun by now, but maybe I just haven't noticed it yet. Mexico is decriminalizing personal amounts of not just marijuana; but also cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, LSD, and (one is left to assume) just about everything else. The American media yawned. The nativist anti-immigrant fanatics yawned. The American government (even Republican politicians) have so far yawned, as well. Is the Drug War finally coming to an end? One is left to wonder. This sort of thing would have caused Nancy Reagan to invade Mexico within 24 hours, not so very long ago. How things change, eh?

 

   Who cares who wears short shorts?

You've got to be kidding me. Michelle Obama descends from an airplane (well, OK, it was Air Force One) wearing shorts, and the media swoons? What is this, 1890? Especially when the media who first swooned seems to be a certain liberal blogging site who shall remain nameless. Get the smelling salts, I caught a glimpse of the First Ankle!

The woman was visiting the Grand Canyon, fer cryin' out loud! In August! Do you know how hot it is there? You don't? Let me enlighten you: it's HOT! Really hot! This is because it is in the desert! And if the First Lady wants to wear shorts, it is not exactly newsworthy, in my humble opinion.

Elizabeth Snead, of the Los Angeles Times, summed it up nicely for me: "What should she have worn to the Grand Canyon? A tweed pantsuit? A ballgown? What do you wear on your summer vacation?"

Now if Barack appeared in Daisy Dukes, that might qualify as news. This, quite simply, does not.

 

   Enjoy your vacation, Mr. President

Likewise, the media appears to be going faint over the news that Barack Obama is taking ten days off (maybe we'll see that paparazzi shot of him in Daisy Dukes yet!). I have to respectfully serve up a big helping of "OH, PUH-LEEZE!!" to those "reporting" this "story." George W. Bush set the all-time record for vacation days while in office, shattering Ronald Reagan's old mark. Bush took the entire month of August off every single year he was in office. This is not-so-long-ago historical fact, folks. Bush was reluctant to cut his vacation short by even a few days when Hurricane Katrina hit.

So Obama taking 10 days off is showing comparative restraint, responsibility, and respect for the duties of his office. But I bet that's not how I'm going to hear it portrayed in the next few days.

Sigh.

Until next week... the forecast is for heavy-duty silliness... and continued scattered media catnip....

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

Comments

[Doofus]

It would be good of Senator Kennedy to resign with dignity, but
if he doesn't, let's show him such great respect as he has earned.
He is after all only one vote, in the Demo majority that he waited for.
If we could, & did, tolerate the nonsense of Minnesota for many months,
we can bear, sadly, with Ted's absence.

Note that as the NYT editorializes that MA should do 'the right thing'
and NOT appoint an interim Demo senator in Ted's place, the Boston
Globe allows that the head Demo state senator is warming to the idea
of doing as Ted has requested. The NYT should really try to remember
its place, and leave MA politics to its little buddy, the Globe. Note to US
politicos: in Massachusetts, where Demos have a majority, they USE it.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Doofus -

Well, as events have unfolded, I have to admit I look like a heel now.

R.I.P. Senator Kennedy. You will be missed.

-CW

[Doofus]

I have no doubt your heart's in the right place.
Ted Kennedy was one for the ages. Let's get him a
solid replacement, a.s.a.p, which is only what he wanted.

[LizM]

Chris,

You shouldn’t feel that way.

You grace the pages of the Huffington Post as a writer who not only promises and delivers on providing us with reality-based political commentary that is second to none but, your work is always infused with honesty, intelligence and integrity, without fail.

That is a rare quality and something for which you should never feel bad or apologize.

[Edmonsky]

Part-B
Chris Weigant:
When the history of 20th and early 21st centuries are written, Senator Edward Kennedy will be the greatest senator of his time, with or without his vote cast for universal healthcare legislation. No major legislation that passed in the Senate in the last 50-years was without Senator Kennedy’s fingerprints. That is rare accomplishment by one senator.

Your argument presupposes personal gains for Senator Kennedy and not about personal sacrifice on his side. What if Senator Kennedy wants to resign now and for the Governor to immediately appoint an interim new Senator pending fresh election? Without new legislation, the Governor cannot appoint an interim new Senator and that is what Senator Kennedy wants to happen. On this premise therefore, the assumption that Senator Kennedy wants to cast vote on healthcare legislation and participate in Rose Garden photo-ops flies out the window.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Edmonsky -

You talk of the public good, so here are some numbers. Kennedy has voted 9 times since the beginning of the year. That is out of 270 floor votes. Al Franken, by comparison, has voted 53 times. And Al was caught up in a court case and wasn't seated for the first half of the year.

Is this really what is best for the public good, either for the citizens of MA or for Democrats in general?

You repeat the disingenousness Kennedy raised in his letter -- the law simply does not state that "before an election takes place, there is a vacuum." That is the false choice Kennedy sets up, but it ignores the point I made Thursday, which you also ignored -- why can't Kennedy file a letter of resignation tomorrow, but not actually give up his seat until Jan. 1, 2010?

Where is the vacuum in that scenario? That's without passing any new law.

[cont.]

-CW

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Edmonsky -

[Part 2]

I agree with you about the greatness of Kennedy's legacy. But your own words show the reality of the situation. What if Kennedy wants to resign now, and have the Governor appoint an interim Senator? If he really wanted this, why didn't he file his resignation letter five months ago, in which case, again -- no vacuum. You say it is because "that is what Senator Kennedy wants to happen." If so, then he is advocating passing a law for his and his party's convenience. Not what is good for the people of MA.

I've tried to answer your points, so I would appreciate the answers to two questions:

If Romney were still governor, would we even be having this conversation? If the answer is "no" then this is nothing more than a political ploy, and the good of the people of the state has nothing to do with it.

Why can't (or couldn't have) Kennedy follow(ed) the course I outlined? Why doesn't he resign, post-date when he'll be stepping down (AFTER this year's legislative season ends), and coordinate the election with the state -- which removes any possibility of a gap or vacuum? What precisely is wrong with that suggestion? If he truly is thinking of his state, and doesn't want a gap, why is this not a viable option to you? Why is a new law necessary?

-CW

[standard]

"If so, then he is advocating passing a law for his and his party's convenience. Not what is good for the people of MA."

I respect your sincerity, but I just can't see partisanship and the interests of the people as necessarily mutually exclusive.

Were I Teddy, I'd want to die a Senator. Letting that happen would almost be granting the last wish of a dear friend. The great Commonwealth will go on, its people substantially no worse the wear whether your principled (possibly, best) approach, the Senator's real politik approach or some third avenue is followed.

Let the people of Massachsetts play the matter out as they see fit: we owe them that. They, after all, have given the American people, the Democratic Party and the United States Senate a precious, if imperfect gift: Edward Moore Kennedy.

[Edmonsky]

Part-A
Chris Weigant:
Thank you for your detailed response. I read your column from Thursday. Here is where we part companies.

Republicans are not interested in passing healthcare legislation but to kill it. Their principal reason is to resurrect their party and put them in the position to win seats in the House and Senate in 2010. In other words, they are not the honest broker for the public good since healthcare is about life and death for millions of uninsured and others that are partially insured. Based on the foregoing, the import of crass political gamesmanship as you suggested by the Democrats to change the law in MA for political expediency is no more tenable. These actions have to be viewed in terms of risk analysis for the public good rather than moral principle or equivalency.

Senator Kennedy’s letter is not asking the state of MA to abrogate the law passed in 2004. The letter is asking the state of MA to include what was not included when the law was passed. The letter is saying that before an election takes place, there is a vacuum that is left and ought to be filled. That vacuum will be filled by appointing an interim Senator. We must eschew from reading any ulterior motives from the letter.

[mwb970]

The Fox "News" site's article on Rep. Frank "speaking truth to crazy" identifies the crazy lady as a "far left loon". I assume that all of the people waving Nazi flags and swastikas at the healthcare townhalls are crazy liberals as well. If only they would get out of the way and let the conservatives get the job done!

[Edmonsky]

Part-2
Chris Weigant:
Kennedy’s senate seat will not be filled in less than six months from today. It does not matter if Senator Kennedy is alive or resigns.
We are only talking about election date. Because of what is at stake in the senate, Republicans are going to fight for Kennedy’s seat, not that they think they will win but to delay seating anybody as long as possible. They are going to do it using the legal system. They will challenge the winner or the process to the State Supreme Court and if necessary to the Federal Supreme Court. Do you see what Senator Kennedy is trying to avoid for the interest of public good. It is not about sense of entitlement as you are suggesting or an opportunity to be at the signing ceremony (which is a huge insult to Senator Kennedy and those who admire him like yours truly).

Some of these leap-year progressives are yet to understand that there are no 60-votes in the senate against filibuster. Both Senators Kennedy and Byrd are very sick and may never return to the senate floor to cast vote.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Edmonsky -

I have a few comments here, so this response may have to be broken into a few comments.

(1) Did you read my column from Thursday? The point I made here (in brief) has a lot more detail behind it, so if you haven't already, I urge you to read Thursday's column, where I lay out specifically what I am talking about.

(2) When the law was changed in 2004, it was due to MA Dems fearful that Kerry would win the White House. Fearful, because Romney was Gov. at the time, so he would have (assumably) filled the vacant Senate seat with a Republican. During this debate, the GOP proposed EXACTLY what Kennedy is now proposing. The Dems shot it down, as a poison pill amendment (which was likely true). So how can it not be seen as crass political gamesmanship to come back now and change the law, now that the Gov. is a Dem? Would we be having this whole discussion if Romney were still in office rather than Patrick? I bet not....

[cont.]

-CW

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Edmonsky -

[part 2]

(3) I agree with the facts as you've laid them out. Kennedy is near (if not at) incapacitation. This, in essence, is robbing MA voters of exactly what Kennedy warns of in his letter -- the right to have two functioning members of the Senate. If Kennedy knows he is likely never going to regain enough functionality to serve out his term, then doesn't it behoove him to resign? Otherwise, he is in a de facto situation that he is warning the governor of. So, ask yourself, why does he remain in office, if not to hang on long enough to cast the vote on healthcare reform and attend the signing ceremony? I really don't see any other answer, but I'm open to suggestions.

Byrd is ailing as well, but showed up for a vote the other week. Kennedy is reportedly going to show up for the healthcare vote come Hell or high water. The Senate actually has a tradition of accepting votes from incapacitated members -- one Senator who had had a stroke and was incapable of speech showed up and pointed to his eye to cast a vote (eye... aye... get it?). Kennedy is even rumored to be exploring the possibility of casting a "remote" vote (not being on the floor of the Senate), but we'll see how the GOP reacts to that proposal. I could imagine him "attending" the signing ceremony by a similar remote hookup.

[cont.]

-CW

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Edmonsky -

[part 4 -- hope these post in the right order!]

(7) Your final point -- about the GOP fighting in the courts -- could still happen over the whole question of an interim Senator. In other words, if this is their true aim (and I have to admit, I'm not up on GOP tactics in MA, they're kind of an endangered species in the state, as I understand it), then they will not be deterred by one law or another, they will attempt the tactic anyway. Whether Harry Reid defies them by seating the guy (or gal) in the meantime is another question (although I have to admit, betting on Reid's backbone-itude is a risky game). I simply don't see the law proposed by Kennedy as affecting this outcome, if it is as inevitable as you say, and the MA GOP is as determined as you say it is.

(8) I do see the problem Kennedy is trying to avoid. But I also see that the problem doesn't have to exist. EXCEPT if the Senator in question leaves office suddenly. If Kennedy's doctor tells him he's got six months to live, then Kennedy should immediately resign, but post-date the date when he will step down by five months. This allows MA to conduct their election, it even allows Kennedy to influence the timing of this election, and it (unless Kennedy dies early) removes the problem altogether.

(9) I understand why Kennedy wants to hang on to see healthcare passed, and miss his voice leading the debate as much as the next guy -- I really do. I think Kennedy would have fought this fight a lot better than his stand-ins have been doing, and I think the debate would be in a different place if he were leading it.

But Kennedy hanging on in this fashion, solely to live to see the vote (and still be a Senator at the time) is more about him and his legacy than about what is best for the people of MA. I'm sorry, but that's the only conclusion I can draw. MA voters have now gone most of this year with only one real vote in the Senate. How much longer should they be expected to wait until they get a second vote? Kennedy himself is the only one who can answer this question, and act to solve the problem.

But I do realize it's an upopular stance to take, and fully respect other opinions on the subject. I've been thinking about Kennedy for a long time, but have been reluctant to write about him. But when he pushed the subject to the fore with his recent letter, I felt the time had come to say something about it. If you disagree with my conclusions, I'm not going to respect you less for your stance, as I realize it's a very personal and touchy issue.

Thanks for writing, and for laying out your position so clearly and admirably.

-CW

[Edmonsky]

Part-1
Chris Weigant:
Your assumption that Kennedy’s letter to the Governor was a demand for him to die in office as a right is very bizarre and illogic.

Senator Kennedy could not attend the ceremony to receive medal at the White House and somebody had to do it for him. It tells you that Senator Kennedy is near incapacitation due to the status of his medical condition. Senator Kennedy did not attend his sister’s funeral. Nobody is sure if Senator Kennedy will ever appear in any future ceremony again. Your understanding why Senator Kennedy is asking for new law that will permit the Governor to appoint interim Senator pending new election is very poor for a public commentator of your caliber.

Senator Kennedy wants the Governor to appoint interim Senator in order to guarantee a Democratic vote for healthcare legislation. Healthcare legislation is going to happen this year or be killed. Senator Kennedy wants an interim Senator that will effectively participate in the debate and vote on the legislation. If the law is passed, l suspect that Kennedy will immediately resign his Senate seat.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Edmonsky -

[Part 3]

(4) You write: "Kennedy wants the Governor to appoint interim Senator in order to guarantee a Democratic vote for healthcare legislation." I agree. But that's part of the problem. As I said before, if Romney were still in office, do you think we'd be having this conversation? A law enacted to give an edge to one political party over the other is usually bad lawmaking. Because nobody stays in office forever. Ask yourself, if the parties in this situation were reversed -- if we were talking about Strom Thurmond, for example, and a GOP Governor -- would you still support the new law? I wouldn't in either case -- that, to me, is intellectual honesty and consistency. But that's merely my standards, and my opinion, I fully admit.

(5) If Kennedy wanted exactly what you say he wants -- an effective Senator in the debate and vote -- again, does this not behoove him to resign to ensure it?

(6) This is my main point, which had to be cut here for length, but which I explore fully on Thursday. The law -- as it is now written -- allows Kennedy to file a letter of resignation, and call the date he actually resigns at some future point. The 145 (or 160) day clock starts ticking when he files the letter -- NOT when he actually steps down. So he could file a letter tomorrow which stated "I will resign effective January 1, 2010," and the state would have the time to run the election, name a winner, and move on -- with NO GAP at all (the problem Kennedy disingenuously identifies as the reason he's asking for the new law). Or, at the very least, a gap of a few days or at most a few weeks. Kennedy could use the end-of-year recess to ensure that there was absolutely no effective gap at all -- WITHOUT having to pass any new law. It is in his power to do so right now. His refusal to take this route leads me to (painfully, I admit) conclude that Kennedy does not want to resign until either the last possible moment, or until he dies in office. Either one of which would indeed lead to a gap. An avoidable gap. Avoidable by Kennedy himself, under the law as it stands today. Which, like I said, is my main point.

[cont.]

-CW

[jbl inAZ]

HuffPost's Pick

So there are approximately 200K soldiers in Iraq Afghanistan. That is but the tip (Ok, it's a lot more than the "tip") of the iceberg. Jeremy Scahill was back on Bill Maher last night reminding us that there are even more contractors (mostly mercenary soldiers, ex military who are now getting ten times as much taxpayer money as they were as soldiers and not accountable to the US military chain of command) there, working for 600 companies of which Blackwater is best known and among the largest. This set of facts (or better, a more true version than what I remember hearing last night) should be presented along with any mention of our military presence, because regardless of what you may think of the wars, their presence there is doing US interests more harm than our military presence.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

jbl_inAZ -

Excellent point, and one that needs a lot more attention than it's been getting.

-CW

[jemeagirl]

Chris,

As usual, glad to have you back. No excuses for this prez and I am glad his numbers are dropping so fast. I am glad the left is getting upset and really showing it.

Even your best friend, you should be able to tell them when they screw up. We should be able to tell him we are mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore.

I have already told you several times that Rahm, Messina (which I heard this week is very close to Sen Baucus) are the problem.

If he does not pass meaningful healthcare with strong public option, his presidency is over. And that is coming very fast.

They all failed to read the mood of the american people, and that is unfortunate because this is a prez who could have accomplished so much.

[Mildmannered]

Obama owes us all a fireside chat to explain exactly what is going on in Afghanistan, why we are there in such large numbers, what we hope to accomplish, how long will it take, when will we know it is time to leave, etc.

[Mildmannered]

Kennedy, by his proposed change in the law, is putting himself before the interests of his constituents. Very selfish, and he is hurting his legacy.

[standard]

"Pelosi reacted to the powerful numbers of the group"

The operative word in your account is "reacted": she reacted, she didn't lead. Way more impressive was the group: the fifty-seven Democrats who first signed the letter to Secretary Sebelius. They should have been honored, not Ms. Pelosi, no matter how good she's been on this issue. The text of their letter, along with their sometimes illegible signatures (but also their typed names, at the end) can be found at: http://images.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/07/31/public_option/housedemsletter.pdf

"This is about [Sen. Kennedy's] legacy and about his sense of entitlement to his office . . ."

That's just unkind. Ted Kennedy, of all legislators, should not have to answer--especially now--for simply continuing to do his all to get meaningful health care reform passed. Rather, our vacationing President should be held to task for his suddenly dropping his previous commitment to the proposition that a stong public option is essential to meaningful health insurance reform, for his unending, utterly pointless and futile efforts in pursuit of bipartisanship on this matter and so, his not doing nearly enough of what's absolutely necessary for average Americans--and for his own legacy.

(I never thought I'd be in such disagreement with you, Chris!)

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

standard -

Oh, I give the Progressives full credit, it's just that I haven't noticed a telegenic spokesperson from their group. Pelosi can attract TV cameras (at this point) and so her message (even though I did point out she had to be kind of reluctantly dragged out front on the issue) gets to a lot more people. But you are right, the Progressives deserve the real credit here -- for STICKING TOGETHER for once (which they've not been known for in the past). If they can hold their numbers, they could wind up driving the debate about a month from now.

I'm going to answer your second part in a separate message ($%&* word limits!!)

-CW

[standard]

OK, that's cool. And I'm definitely with you on the word limits thing.

But we really ought to stay way more concerned with genetics (native smarts) than telegenics. Jerry Nadler is certainly long on smarts--and so are most, if not all, of his 56 colleagues--and the others who signed on shortly thereafter.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

[Part 2]

On Kennedy, I would ask you to read my yesterday's column, and perhaps look up how many floor votes Kennedy has made and how many he has missed this year. I knew I was going to annoy some folks with this MDDOTW pick, but as I laid out yesterday, Kennedy himself is fully capable of planning out a smooth succession -- with no gap -- and without any new laws. If he chooses not to, and chooses to try and hedge his bets by changing the law, then I stand by what I said.

I agree that it is tragic that Kennedy's voice isn't out front on the issue, that Kennedy isn't bashing heads in the Senate to get something done, and that Kennedy isn't leading the fight for healthcare reform from a white charger. But he's not. He's sick. I'm as sorry as you are he isn't the point man, but that's the way it happened.

His own words indict him. From his letter: "...I also believe it is vital for this Commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate..." This year, MA has not had two voices, only (in effect) one.

I stand by what I said, harsh as it is.

-CW

[standard]

I'll re-visit your previous thoughts as assigned reading, as you suggest. I can't fault you on the technical point you make but, given the aesthetics and the equities, can't line up with you on this one. As you've said--and as reflected in the high kick-to-flutter ratio resulting from what I said--it was harsh.

However: Thanks, as always, for engaging and responding to us commenters: not that many posters do. (Now if we can just get our President to do that on this health care business . . . )

[DaveVentura]

The public plan was gutted months ago with Obama's backroom deals with the healthcare industry and he's just been using the Republicans as an excuse to water down the legislation so that way he can deliver on all his backroom deals while using the Reupblicans as cover for his selling out. Salon and FireDogLake have articles on how Obama/Rahm are trying to out-corporate the Republican­s...they'r­e trying to beat the Republicans by becoming even more corporatist than the Republicans are. Obama gave billions of taxpayer dollars to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Streeters simply for campaign cash. Obama has got to learn that the corporatist agenda helps a select few, while harming a great many...then again during his campaign he claimed he already knew that.

[Peter Madaka]

Thanks Chris. I loved your piece. I hope people on the Left read it and wake up too!!