« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

In Defense of Keeping Paul Kirk Seated

By: Swamp_Yankee (Diary)  |  January 29th, 2010 at 12:43 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Let me preface my comments by stating that Paul Kirk’s decisive vote on the debt ceiling bothers me, and if I had my druthers, he’d be gone. But there is a larger issue here.

Although no date has been confirmed, it appears like Scott Brown will be sworn in around February 11th. Brown is trying to assemble his staff, get them housing, get himself situated, wrap up his state business, his family business, etc… Usually elected officials have two and a half months to do this. Brown has two and a half weeks. By all accounts, Paul Kirk has been extremely gracious towards Brown and his staffers. The transition process is underway and people are optimistic.

Scott Brown worked hard to persuade skeptical Democrats and Independents to vote Republican. His election has inspired a conservative resurgence in Massachusetts. The people voted for him, but it wasn’t a vote against Kirk. There is little hostility towards Kirk.

Sometimes in the law there are no right and wrong answers, only arguments and better arguments. Legally, I’m sure there are many liberal attorneys that could make the case for seating Kirk. But the legal issues are secondary to the larger issue of disenfranchising a state, and that’s exactly how it will be portrayed in the mainstream media. I can see The Boston Globe headlines already, “GOP Kicks Out Kirk”, “Washington Republicans Leave Massachusetts With One Senator”, etc … But more importantly, it will just look petty.

There was something of a gentleman’s agreement between all parties regarding a smooth transition. While I’m upset that Kirk was used as the decisive vote on one issue, most of his votes are irrelevant. It shouldn’t be allowed to happen again, but Brown doesn’t need to start his term embattled between the people of his state and national GOP forces, who don’t care much about the people of Massachusetts.

Kicking a sitting Senator out and leaving a state with one sitting Senator is no small matter. It will leave a negative impression in the mind of many, including some of the Democrats and Independents who crossed over to vote for Scott Brown. Its a risk/reward analysis. Whatever is gained by Kirk’s early departure will be accompanied by risk. Is it really worth the fight? Such a fight will take weeks to resolve, and Brown will be seated by then anyway. Why alienate people over a trivial pursuit.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Xasteius

    It’s about the fact that the D’s raised a stink about “the people of MA deserve representation” and seated Kirk post haste, and now that a R Senator has been properly elected BY THE PEOPLE, they’ve got to take their sweet time about it. The D’s always pull this crap, and the spineless fools who run the GOP let them get away with it ALL THE TIME. As John Wayne says, you’ve got to be a man before you can be a gentleman.

    • Swamp_Yankee

      that’s a state issue. Sec. of State Galvin is following the letter of the law. Brown didn’t protest once he recieved assurances that Dems would not vote on health care. There is a process. It is being followed. I live in Mass and worked my tail off for Brown. I’m talking about have the Senate GOP leadership force Kirk out before Brown is sworn in. It wont accomplish much and it will look petty.

  • JadedByPolitics

    from this day forward anytime WE out here don’t like what is going on with your Senator SHUT UP! I cannot believe that the “seat warmer” got to extend the debt ceiling up AGAIN….”gentlemen?s agreement” with Democrats? are you kidding me? he has voted 3 TIMES this week and whether you find his vote to be important or not to the rest of us out here it was VERY IMPORTANT!

    I guess from your vantage point whenever anyone does a diary saying call McConnell or someone else’s Senator to STOP something well that is “not our business” RIGHT? that is what you are saying here. I guess WE will just let the D’s go on their merry way because the FIGHT and the MONEY WE out here spent means nothing in MA. I know this if that is the way it’s going to be for the next 2 years in MA Brown won’t get a dime from me next go round. He was the People?s candidate, he didn’t get those millions upon millions from the people of MA he got them from the COUNTRY! To expect that he is seated in a timely manner and to EXPECT the RNC to question the votes of the D seat warmer when the law was pretty EXPLICIT prior to Brown’s win that he could NOT legally vote without somehow “offending” the sensibilities of the people of MA is just ridiculous!

    • discerningconservative

      If this was an issue of State’s rights, he would only be voting on issues that affect Massachusetts. While he is serving in a Federal body, this issue becomes a Federal issue. Someone in the GOP leadership needs make this an issue.

    • Swamp_Yankee

      That in every single election, the person is elected in November and sworn in January. There is nothing singularly outrageous about him no being seated right away. That is the norm.

      The arguments fighting Kirk, where complied when GOP was anticipating a Democratic cram down of health care. After the election, the Dems disengaged.

      I prepped as a election lawyer for Team Brown, and the Dem lawyers are armed to the teeth with their arguments too.

      Its a matter of bringing out the big guns for two weeks. Getting mad isnt going to do anything. There is nothing McConnell can do to force the hand of Galvin or Patrick. Seating an uncertified Senator would be crazy. Even Rolan Burris waited for his state certification. Are you saying you wish Roland Burris to have more legitimacy than Scott Brown.

      • pilgrim

        We already have votes that take place after the general election and before the newly elected members are sworn into office the following January. It is called the “lame duck session.”
        It is obvious the citizens in MA are against obamacare, and this is why the lame duck Kirk should not cast a vote on the matter. Waiting for Brown to be seated before any votes on obamacare has nothing to do with the issue of “lame ducks.” If someone hates lame duck votes they should make a rule that nothing can be done in Congress after the November election until the new members are seated in January.

      • JadedByPolitics

        to my understanding for things that are for MA not votes that CRUSH OUR CHILDREN UNDER DEBT!

        • Swamp_Yankee

          Where does the law state that. Please tell me.

        • Swamp_Yankee

          .. after your defamatory, personal attacks on me and Brown, Please document your “understanding”.

          Also, please support your vicious diatribe with facts. I could make it real personal too. I prefer not to send redstate into the gutter. But if retarded, unfounded attacks are the mold, let me know. My guns are blazing.

  • voteindy

    I look at this as a state issue. If the people of MA are OK with it….then that is all that counts.

    Obviously it isn’t a “good thing”. But throwing a hissy fit over this is akin to the Dems currently advocating the impeachment of Justice Alito.

    The barking mad histrionics is tiresome and useless.
    Think Yosemite Sam.
    LOL

  • Scope

    As Jaded said above, Brown got millions from people across the country, not just Mass residents, to stop the Liberal agenda. For anyone arguing that Brown was elected to stop Obamacare were misguided and misinformed. The House and the Senate had already passed their versions of Obamacare. At the time of the Mass. election, Obamacare was already in deep trouble. It was pretty obvious to anyone paying attention, that the Senate bill would not come back around for another vote in the Senate. Obama/Reid did all the bullying and buying off of votes, just to get it passed the first time. Any changes and Reid would not get the 60 votes again. The legislation was already at the reconcillation talking point, or getting the House to pass the already passed Senate Version, and then go back and make changes later. Anyone voting for Brown, so that he could stop Obamacare, were sold a bag of crap.

    The Democrat that won the NT 23rd, was seated in the house “the day after the election, and long before it was certified” in order to cast his vote for Pelosi’s version of Obamacare. There are many other examples of Democrats “trucking” their way to Washington post haste, in order to vote for Liberal agendas. There is no question as to the Brown vote in Mass. It wasn’t close, he won the seat.

    There were many diaries here, and comments, questioning whose seat it legally was on the day of the election, if Brown won. There was no question, the seat was Brown’s as of election day. Kirk was no longer the Senator from Mass. “legally.” Also, there are many instances of House or Senate seats sitting vacant, before someone is appointed, or a special election is held. In fact, Kennedy himself said that he didn’t want the seat to be empty upon his death, hence the quick appointment of Kirk. If Kennedy knew it would be won by a Republican, he would have preferred for it to sit empty for the long haul. Kirk said himself that he would still go to Washington even if Brown won. So much for Kirk showing respect for the voters who voted to break the Democrat choke hold on the senate. I seriously doubt that even the Democrat voters in Mass, that voted for Brown, would agree that Kirk continue voting for the Liberal agendas that have disgusted the country.

    If I am not mistaken, and I hope I am not, Brown was against the spending spree by the Liberals. Yet he wasn’t willing to hightail it to Washington, in order to stop a vote on increasing the debt ceiling over another trillion dollars. That’s not chump change, and, it’s not an unimportant vote. I can only imagine what else will come up in the Senate for a vote before February 11. The Liberals don’t quit, they will shove through all they can before Brown gets there to break their supermajority. It’s as though Rome is burning while Brown rearranges his sock drawer.

    So many are blaming McConnell and the Republican leadership in the senate for this debacle, and they are correct to a degree. Someone should have been willing to light a fire under Browns butt. Brown himself is the unwilling new senator elect, who seems more worried about his wife’s tires being inflated, than what work he is needed to do in the Senate. This does not bode well for him, and, when he is up for re-election, I very seriously doubt that he will be seen as a trailblazer for the Republicans. His immediate attachment to McCain will also be remembered, as he immediately put a sign on his forehead saying “I am a RINO.”

    SY, everyone knows that you “worked your tail off” for Brown. Posting this diary, full of lame excuses for Brown, is beneath you. And, to state openly that “no one wants to annoy the Democrats that voted for Brown” is more than a little ludicrous. I bet if the subject were not Brown, you yourself would be arguing that we need to stop worrying what the Democrats think, and, in that case you would be correct.

    • Swamp_Yankee

      You lost me here

      “So many are blaming McConnell and the Republican leadership in the senate for this debacle, and they are correct to a degree. Someone should have been willing to light a fire under Browns butt. Brown himself is the unwilling new senator elect, who seems more worried about his wife?s tires being inflated, than what work he is needed to do in the Senate. This does not bode well for him, and, when he is up for re-election,”

      Really, wow. He’s the “unwilling new senato elect”, He needs a fire lit under his butt. That’s news to everyone

      As I told others, the law isnt as cut and dry. Those arguments were made in anticipation of a health care cram down. When the Dems disengeged, so did the Repubicans. It seems some want to wage an ill-concieved scorched earth fight over this.

  • AceInTX

    and will the Dems dare to exploit the inconsistency now that Republicans allowed him to vote on this without protest?

    • AceInTX

      “The Democrats said they wouldn’t vote on the HCR until Brown is seated”

      My answer is…they’re desperate…and the Republicans opened the door for them…maybe they won’t do it and I pray they don’t…But it would serve Brown, McConnell and the rest of the clkowns we have for leaders right if the Dems did it.

      And I forgot to point out…this post is yet another example of apologists for the RINOs in our leadership worrying about what Democrats will think if we stand up for what’s right.

      It really get’s old

  • Dave_in_Fla

    Not raising the debt ceiling would bring on a political crisis that no one wants right now. If Kirk wasn’t there to vote for cloture, then one of the GOP would have crossed the aisle to vote for it.

    Given the current political environment, it is in no one’s interest to shut down the government, which would be a real possibility. It is better for the GOP *politically* to hold their caucus together, but not object to Kirk’s vote. DeMint could have stalled this with a single objection, but he didn’t.

    The political calculus appears to be, let the Dems continue making fools of themselves, block the horrible things, like C&T and HCR that can’t be rolled back, and let the voters decide in November.

    In all honesty, the debt ceiling is a distraction. It’s like cutting up the credit cards. But unless a hard look is taken at reduction in spending, then the debt crisis can’t be fixed. I was personally very offended by the Dem refusal to vote on the Freeze, because it exempted the military. They view unconstitutional entitlements and domestic programs as more important than constitutionally mandated national defense.

    • Scope

      but, it would have curbed spending better than any lame freezes.

      • Dave_in_Fla

        I know you don’t *want* to believe it, but the cash flow in the government is negative until receipts start coming in in the April time frame. Additionally, between now and 4/15 the Government is sending out checks, but mostly not receiving income, other than the steady stream of tax withholding.

        If you put a hard stop on Government borrowing when they are at the debt ceiling, the only option the Government has is to furlough employees. This Mexican standoff was tried in 1995, and didn’t go very well for the GOP.

        So, please temper your desires with a bit of reality.

        • Scope

          isn’t that the only sector that has added more employees than any other, government jobs? I can’t buy that all those new jobs were so necessary and/or critical for this administration. Take what’s left of the stimulus funds and pay it back immediately. Take whatever has been paid back for the TARP funds and pay it back. They can’t spend as much as they have, and borrow as much as they have, and, then come back and say that the government would shut down without increasing the debt ceiling, not once, but, twice within a month’s period. Did they not know what the governments obligations were a month ago? I am sure no economist, or even versed in government economics, but, if we have the funds to give Fannie and Freddie a blank check, in addition to the original bailouts, we don’t have a need to raise the debt ceiling so the government doesn’t shut down. No no, I don’t buy it.

          • Dave_in_Fla

            …or even versed in government economics…

            I am. You are advocating for a war that no one wants, which will end badly for everyone. We got our political message through, and are holding the high ground in this battle. It would be stupid to throw away our advantage for a result that is likely to end up in giving away our advantage for no result.

            Capping the debt ceiling will NOT have the effect you want. The administration will simply choose the most visible and politically damaging people to send home. Something like furloughing TSA or Air Traffic Controllers and shutting down air travel.

            The fiscal crisis can only be resolved through spending reductions, which require congressional action. Debt caps won’t fix the problem, and have only a down side.

            As for your state furlough examples, ever notice that the first people sent home are public safety and not school administrators? The game is to make things as painful for the public as possible, so that they are willing to pay more taxes.

          • Achance

            almost impossible if they’re unionized. I wrote a diary months ago about the bad end that would come of CA’s furlough policy and the courts did just what I said they’d do. In contract, law, or both, almost all public employees have a guaranteed work week; you give it to them or pay them for it unless they’re dismissed or laid off.

            The reason governmental employers want to furlough them rather than lay them off is that they don’t want to spend the money to pay off all their leave and other termination pay. In strictly cash flow terms, it is a bunch cheaper to keep them at work than it is to lay them off; the week you lay them off breaks the bank.

          • Scope

            You are much more versed in unionized employees than I would be if I spent the next 50 years studying it. I appreciate your take on the government employee issue.

            I still have a problem with the government shutting down if the debt ceiling wasn’t raised. Please will you explain to me how the debt ceiling had to be raised last month, and, then again this month. Does it have nothing to do with the wild spending going on with the Obama admin over the past year? Do you see other ways to control debt, now, without raising the debt ceiling?

            How’s your boy doing with his newly deployed position?

          • Achance

            The US is spending far more than we take in, so the only solution is to borrow; hence the debt ceiling must be raised.

            Fifty percent plus one at some time or another wanted to spend for everything we spend for now; look in the mirror. Everybody’s idea of a spending cut is cutting out somehting that somebody else gets. Somethings just don’t get fixed until they break catastrophically.

            He’s still at Benning running a lot, getting back in shape and getting checked out. Probably a month or so before he’s off to Iraq. Thanks for thinking of him and please keep him in your prayers.

          • Scope

            I think. Seems that Iraq would be preferable to Afghanistan. Then again, I’m not sure that the Comrade in Chief hasn’t screwed up our gains in Iraq.

            Promise prayers for the kid!

          • nessa

            …Let me know if he needs anything or would just like a visit or maybe a weekend pass. I have a lot of brothers there at the Home Of The Infantry, I’ll do whatever I can for him!

    • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

      Allowing Kirk to vote was an act of political theater, where the Republicans could play to the base by opposing the bill knowing that it would pass.

      That is, they were perfectly willing to let the bill pass so long as they could keep their fingerprints off it.

      Let’s see what happens if a vote comes along on a bill that the Republican senators really do want to sink.

  • http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com/index.cgi IronDioPriest

    … It’s hard to know where to begin, so I’ll just keep it simple.

    We are a nation of laws. If the laws of Massachusetts say that Paul Kirk’s tenure as interim senator expired the eve of the election, that’s what the law is, and that is what should happen.

    To do less in order to appear magnanimous is exactly the kind of sycophantic groveling that has placed the GOP in the weakened state that it is in. Republicans have GOT to stop worrying about how liberals might react to doing the right thing, and just start doing the right thing, all the time, without second guessing or nail-biting over how things might “appear” to Leftists.

    Leftists have no such concerns. And while they most certainly have overplayed their hand, they did so AFTER playing hardball and riding into the seat of power giving no quarter to their enemies.

    • Swamp_Yankee

      If you think its that cut and dry, you dont know the law. If your ready to go nuclear, then so be it. But dont lie about the static nature of the law.

      What do you propose. Filing an injuction to keep Kirk out for two weeks. It will take lawsuits. Please tell me. Sit Brown without a certificate. Wage war against the Sec of State in Mass.

      Please let me know when process and tradition doesnt matter, actually please let Al Gore and Al Franken know, the liberal perverts subvert the process not conservatives.

      Are you a fake conservative? Roland Burrins and Harry Reid waited for the state certificate. All the radical faux-conservatives, who pretend to be for state empowerment are the phonies now.

      Please tell me , dont whine, tell me what would you have McConnell do.

      • http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com/index.cgi IronDioPriest

        … So perhaps you can educate me.

        Does the law as it is written in Massachusetts regarding the transfer of power between one senator and the next state that the sitting senator’s term expires upon the certification of the election by the Massachusetts Secretary of State?

        Or does it not?

        • http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com/index.cgi IronDioPriest

          “Qualification” for the job is the only criteria for Kirk’s term to expire, “Certification” is not required.

          Brown was deemed officially qualified the eve of the election, and according to Massachusetts law and senate tradition, Paul Kirk is no longer a senator from Massachusetts.

          • http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com/index.cgi IronDioPriest

            …The Senate subcommittee and committee concluded, based on its hearing and review, that ?the term of service of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy in an unexpired term ends on the day when his successor is elected by the people.? 1939 Congressional Record, p. 998. There was evidently no controversy among either the subcommittee or full committee regarding this legal conclusion, and the committee then presented a resolution to the Senate for adoption, expressing the view that Berry?s term of service expired on November 8, 1938, the date of the special election. As Senator Connally, a member of the subcommittee, explained to the Senate, the fact that the Tennessee statute purported to extend Berry?s term until the qualification of his successor was of no force because the statute was ?plainly in conflict with the provisions of the seventeenth amendment.? Accordingly, the Senate adopted the proposed resolution without dissent. 1939 Congressional Record, p. 1058.

          • Achance

            to the MA SC or maybe even the USSC, the whole senate term would be long over. Thinking is a good skill!

      • Achance
        • Scope

          when there was a fear that Harry Reid would do all he could to delay the seating of Brown. How many sighted the law that Brown was the rightful senator upon his election? Again, how fast have the very newly elected Congressional Democrat reps. or Senators run, the next day to vote on the Democrats policies? Are the Republicans so on the “high road” to not want/demand that newly elected Republicans do the same. If there was nothing of consequence being voted in the Senate, so be it. The vote to raise the debt limit was on party lines, 60 Dems, 40 Repubs. If Brown was sitting in the senate, the bill most likely would not have passed. Brown campaigned on lower taxes, and, more importantly not allowing the Democrat majority to run wild over the country. That was an important vote that Brown should have been there for.

          Read SY diary again. I will never buy giving someone a pass because they are “not ready.” He won the support of Republicans, Independents, and even some Democrats. They voted for him to stop the crazyiness in Washington. He has already let some down, if they are aware that he missed this very important vote. I have never known you to give anyone such an easy pass. In fact, you have railed against the Repubs for being so weak.

          • Achance

            This is the game with government; can you afford the time and money for the court appeal? Or, do you just find a way to do business?

          • Scope

            how will you make them (the Senate) seat him. If Brown isn’t making any noise, and, the Senate leadership isn’t making any noise, the point is moot. This is my biggest problem with the Republicans. They are still acting as though they have been cut off at the knees. The Dems would have had him in the Senate the day before yesterday. We must stop the nicey nice routine.

          • http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com/index.cgi IronDioPriest

            Is take the situation to the people, and highlight the fact succinctly and often that the Democrats are allowing a Senator whose term has expired vote on important issues on the Senate floor. Make them eat it.

            You’re right, there is no effective way to unseat Kirk in the time given. But the game is politics, and the enemy on the Left gives no quarter. They are breaking the law and precedent. Make them own it, is all I’m saying.

          • dwander

            Not sure if this is true on the east coast; each county must certify the the election results prior to official declarations. Counties are given up to 10 business days to certify and then seven days to forward to the Secretary of State.

            As one can see, this is not a quick process.

          • Scope

            in the 23rd in Congress, voting the day after his election, long before the election was certified. His election was alot closer in totals than the Brown election.

            It seems that the Secretary of States in Blue states agree to send their Democrat winners to Washington immediately. Everywhere else, not so much.

          • Scope

            he got the “proper paperwork.” Did Pelosi get the proper paperwork before considering the NY 23rd Dem’s vote to be valid. Every time the Repubs give more and more on this issue, the farther and farther they allow the Dems to push the envelope. As I have read, the more the Repubs give in to the left, the farther and farther the middle gets pushed leftward.

          • dwander

            If there are dems filling all processing and reporting positions, one would expect the process to be sped up for a fellow dem and slowed for someone else.

            The problem is how do you prove one way or the other? It isn’t even helpful to try and walk the paperwork through since only authorized individuals are allowed in certain areas (to ensure the integrity of the vote)

  • bs

    “elections have consequences”. If we were in power, it wouldn’t be a problem. They hold the cards right now. I think you’re pretty much on target here. By the time we finished with any sort of legal case, Brown would be seated and Kirk would be a distant memory.