Time for Ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy to Resign
In mid August, 2009, Ted Kennedy sent a letter dated July 2, 2009, to the Governor of Massachusetts and Massachusetts legislative leaders, requesting that the law be changed to permit the Governor to appoint a senator. [1] [2]
In 2004, when William Weld Mitt Romney was the Republican governor of Massachusetts, and John Kerry was running for president, the Democratic Legislature overrode Weld's Romney's 2004 veto of the change in the law for filling vacancies for the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, removing the governor's opportunity to appoint a senator. Massachusetts is one of the few states that enjoins the governor from appointing a senator to fill out a vacant term. An Election is mandatory to fill a vacancy.
If Kennedy wishes to establish a non-vacancy, the expedient way to do so is to resign as of an effective date, greater than 145 days from the submission of the resignation. The law is structured so that that resignation can be received and acted upon, even if the effective date of the resignation is several months in the future. An election may occur, and there might be no vacancy at all. No request to the legislature is required.
At present the state of Massachusetts has a very sick senator in office that cannot appear for public events, or appear in the Senate for issues of the greatest import to either himself, the state, or the nation. He is the chair of the committee in charge of the Health Reform bills, and it is well known that health care is one of the most important issues in Kennedy's senate career. Witness Kennedy's inability to appear for the recent medal awarded by Obama, and the public service for his deceased sister that he did not appear for.
It is time to have a presence in office where genuine advocacy, legislative negotiation, and promotion of the interests of the people of Massachusetts can be felt by the rest of the United States House and Senate.
More than a few articles have been published regretting that the most important project of Kennedy's political life does not have Kennedy's interaction, presence and promotion. It is time to have an active senator for Massachusetts, and Kennedy can provide that senator by resigning on September 1, effective February 1 2010. February 1st a key date in the statue.
That is within the bounds of the statutory regime, for an election betweeen
held 145 to 160 days from the notice of resignation.
January 31, 2010 is 152 days from September 1 2009.[3]
Get out of the way Ted Kennedy, we need an active Senator for Massachusetts. Your time is up for the duties that you were elected to. They are not being accomplished.
From the Statute:
"Filing a letter of resignation creates a vacancy under this section, even if the resignation is not effective until some later time, but the date of the election to fill a vacancy under this section shall be after the resignation is effective."
Addendum: Senator Kennedy died Tuesday, August 25, 2008, in Hyannisport Massachusetts, at the Kennedy compound. We won't see a people's advocate like him again. Ted Kennedy (via Wikipedia)
[1] Phillips, Frank. "Kennedy, looking ahead, urges that Senate seat be filled quickly Seeks law change for interim post." Boston Globe August 20, 2009 http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/08/20/kennedylookingaheadurgesaquickfillingofsenate_seat/
[2] Kennedy, Edward M. Letter to Massachusetts Governor Duval Patrick, President of the Senate Therese Murray, and Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo. July 2, 2009. http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Third_Party_PDF/2009/08/20/kennedy_letter__1250757221_6262-2.pdf
[3] Chapter 236 of the Acts of 2004 - An Act Relative to Special Elections to Fill Vacancies for Senator and Representative in Congress http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws//seslaw04/sl040236.htm
Perhaps the biggest vote of his life--on an issue he has advocated for his entire public life-- coming up in less than a month and you want him to resign???
August 21, 2009 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
He, like any Senator, owes more than a vote. We need an active participant in the formulation and advocacy for the legislation. He cannot provide that advocacy to his Senate peers any longer, and has been unable to do so for more than a year now.
August 21, 2009 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
A corection: Mitt Romney was governor in 2004, not Weld.
August 21, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Troll alert! Troll alert!!
Why is it the Republican/Bush Base trolls, of which Comment Planet is a member, are so willing to tell others what they 'owe' the nation, and when 'their time is up', but never do so for themselves or their party?
This is the only participation Comment Planet has ever made at TPM, and his self righteous belief he has the right to tell another human being what to do with the last weeks or months of his life screams loudly of a typical right wing 'no values' 'we tell you how to live but no one can tell us' mindset.
August 21, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hear you. I was quite disturbed when I read CP's post.
August 21, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it that when people write things that you oppose they are "trolls" but people that write things you agree with are given praise?
August 21, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I posted the definition of trolls, MCB, for what good it will do your limited powers of perception. This poster fulfills a good number of these traits.
General characteristics, Trolls:
Fake liberal values.
Lie, confuse or misstate facts.
Try to apply values to Democratic leaders they would never hold for themselves or the GOP.
Demanding or using the government to infringe on the lives of others, while at the same time accusing Democrats of trying to limit their freedoms.
Fear the government unless it is run by Republicans.
Excel at telling others what they need to do, (while often having serious failures in their own personal life).
Claim they represent only what is best for 'Americans' or another population subset.
Never admit they supported or voted for George W. Bush.
Never admit error, by themselves or the GOP.
Have long memories for everything political; but not for the empty promises or gross failures of the GOP, George W. etc.
May claim to support the Constitution (but only when Democrats are in the White House).
May select names like 'Progressive Conscience' that sound liberal.
Equate Bush critics and nutjob teabaggers "both sides have their extremes'.
Similarly, feel seeking health care reform is more extreme than starting wars of aggression.
Have little or no record of comments or posts - true trolls when discovered never return with the same name.
May game the recommend system at TPM.
August 21, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Troll is one of the most overused words on here. Somebody posts something that you disagree with and they automatically get labeled a "troll".
If a liberal posts something on here that's equally inflammatory, they get slapped with high-fives.
I think people on here should have thicker skins and just let people express their opinions.
August 22, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you please just pick one or two of the traits you listed and explain why this post on Kennedy is trolling?
I think people have a valid concern over how Kennedy is trying to game the system to favor his own party. Does it happen with Republicans too? Sure. But that doesn't make it right.
August 22, 2009 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
If a Democrat holds the seat, how is replacing him with a Democrat gaming. I would say that replacing an elected Democrat with an unelected/appointed Republican is gaming. The same would be true in the reverse, appointing a Democrat to an untimely vacancy of a Republican would be gaming.
August 23, 2009 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's trying to change the rules (again). He was responsible for getting the law changed in 2004 so the state could have a special election to avoid having Romney name a successor to Kerry. But now special elections are good enough for him.
Kennedy's interest in changing the law is completely partisan, and nothing to do with democratic principles.
With your logic, I guess we'd never have elections again. If somebody leaves office unexpectedly, just throw in somebody else from the same party no matter if the people like him/her or not. We saw how well that recently worked in Illinois and New York.
August 23, 2009 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon, Bill. Calm down. We would have elections on the election cycle, or we would get a stand-in from the same party until a new election, rather then have a complete vacancy. No one here is suggesting we never have elections again once the Dems hold the seat, although I like where you're going with that.
August 23, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am very calm. But Kennedy can't have it both ways. Special election in '04 and now a special appointment in '09.
August 23, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
cosign, tpmgary. I think Kennedy knows his condition more than we do. And Kennedy also has moral capital here, and if he is able to vote for it, it will be an inspiring and historical moment. So trust Kennedy to do the right thing on health care.
August 21, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you completely. Ted Kennedy has devoted his entire adult life to cuases greater than himself. Not many of us know or realize what that truly means or how truly selfless that is. Even while he is gravely ill, Kennedy is still devoted to his fellow man. Regardless of his current state of health, he has EARNED his senate seat and he can remain in it as long as he pleases.
I've heard many say that Kennedy has far surpassed Jack and Bobbie in his service to this country, but I would add that Kenndy has far surpassed many in Congress as well.
August 21, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow . . .
Interesting. First and only blog post and it gets 21 recommends as of this posting of mine after 7 hours on the site? There must have been a lot folks busy here last night.
Can anyone let us know it they for voted a recommend on this post?
I smell a lunker that's come up off the bottom of the pond.
~OGD~
August 21, 2009 5:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't recommend this post. I only commented. But I did see it go from zero recommends to like maybe ten in a really short period after about 2am.
August 21, 2009 5:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Must have been the early risers in the east . . .
They might have picked it up off the post that Josh placed in his queue over on the front page...
But the weird thing about that is that Josh posted his comment at 08.20.09 -- 11:16AM and this shows a time stamp of August 20, 2009, 11:36PM.
And it's still sitting with 21 recommends as of my comment here.
?????
~OGD~
August 21, 2009 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I smell a troll...
August 21, 2009 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fascinating. But first my comment about Ted Kennedy. If anyone deserves to have his final wishes upheld it's this man. He has worked tirelessly for the people of this country and against special interests. The logic behind getting him to resign may even be sound but there is no heart there. Give the man whatever he wants. It'll be a sad, sad day when he's no longer in the senate.
But about the recommends: How does one cheat on rec's? What does trolling have to do with it? Dumb questions, I know, but I'm still trying to figure out the workings of TPM.
August 21, 2009 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's pretty easy actually by screwing with how they pick up on your IP address, Ramona, though I don't want to advertise it. The logic behind Kennedy's letter is to ensure there is a senator in that seat. The 'logic' of this post is to ensure there either is not, or to pile all the industry money into a hotly contested election that will be all about the HC bill. Not trollish to you?
August 21, 2009 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, yes, definitely trollish. I really just wanted to know how it's done--but don't tell me. I don't want THEM to know. . .
Thanks.
August 21, 2009 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
In any case, I follow most regular readers, and none rec'd this. Maybe Lalo did, but that's probably about it. Just very fishy...
August 21, 2009 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The logic is that Kennedy can provide for a successor without a vacancy in the office, and without needing the change in the law that he requests.
He need only resign with a 160-day lead time on the effective date of the resignation, and voila, there is no period of time in which there is no second Senator from Massachusetts, since an election is mandated to have occurred by that time.
August 21, 2009 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dumb troll. Such a resignation ensures no successor can be seated for 145 days. Go away.
August 21, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
A reading of the statute (link at original post) would show your conclusion to be incorrect. And from the original post:
From the Statute:
“Filing a letter of resignation creates a vacancy under this section, even if the resignation is not effective until some later time, but the date of the election to fill a vacancy under this section shall be after the resignation is effective.”
August 21, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
wow. these responses are so dumb they've got to be computer-generated. I'm done here.
August 21, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "logic" behind Kennedy's letter is to ensure that there is a DEMOCRAT in his seat, not just any Senator.
August 21, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, you wear your allegiance on your sleeve. So no problem with you. This poster is a troll for the reasons given by Noblecommentdecider. We can have an argument about the sanctity of the democratic process as it applies here. But that is not what this post is about.
August 22, 2009 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody has a problem with Kennedy's attempt to change the Mass. law and that makes him/her a troll? Seems like a silly accusation to me.
August 22, 2009 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a post about the ethics of the situation, Bill. It pretends to be about the pragmatics of ensuring the seat is not left empty. An appointment procedure does that, this idea doesn't. Period.
As for appealing to the progressive conscience, all I can do is laugh. Sure, and all Dem states should scrap the all-or-nothing approach to the electoral college irrespective of Repub states, likewise the partisan drawing of districts, and all less than squeaky clean 'pure democracy' procedures should be revised EXCLUSIVELY in Dem states to weaken the Dems. This kind of argument is the essence of trolling...
August 22, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not really, but it's OK for you to have that opinion.
Unfortunately anyone who writes something here the Left disagrees with is lambasted as a "troll!!!".
But if somebody writes something that upsets the Right, that's fine to do. And most Liberals on here will applaud that writer for doing so.
August 22, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
And could you please just give me one or two reasons why this poster is a "troll"?? If it's just because you don't agree with them, that's not a very good answer.
August 22, 2009 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Obey, get the bug spray! Another pompous a**hole troll who wants to tell you or Kennedy how to live, when, like many Republicans, he is probably not doing very well on his own.
August 21, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did not vote to recommend this post, nor will I.
August 21, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kennedy should have resigned as soon as it was clear that he was battling serious health issues. He had been in Congress for so many years, I'm sure the importance of his vote was something he had thought about and Democrats thought about. Why that didn't happen - we don't know.
On another note, the fact that Democrats keep playing games with the law, by changing it back and forth to ensure only a Democrat gets a seat and the special election is held only when convenient to them - that's makes a bit of a mockery of those who profess their love of the democratic process.
August 21, 2009 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I recall, the Repub Legislature in SC passed a law insuring that only a republican would be appointed to fill the pending vacancy for Strom Thurmond. And I'm certain other such examples can be found perpetrated by both parties.
The point is that this kind of political game is not the sole domain of Democrats. Kennedy's effort to ensure a voice is maintained in the US Senate for Massachusetts, however, can hardly be construed as a similar ploy.
August 21, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The point is that this kind of political game is not the sole domain of Democrats"
- Agreed. But does this fact justify it in the Kennedy case? Perhaps you think so. I don't - that would mean condoning a vicious circle that will never be broken, hope/change be damned.
August 21, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I carefully and correctly pointed out, the Kennedy example is not anything like the cynical political games to which you refer. It is in fact a very responsible request that there be continuity in the Mass delegation to Congress at this most critical juncture. And I'm certain you can see the difference sans need to make an absurd and unrelated point.
August 21, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry but that's just your personal opinion.
There isn't anything different in these two scenarios because both of them are about preserving a seat within a particular party.
August 21, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of opinions . . .
Why is it that the Black Cat in the Hat's opinion smells like the the Cat didn't wipe?
There's a "table" missing it's chair.
~OGD~
August 21, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If The Cat in the Hat was one of Dr. Seuss's masterpiecs, I'd have to day that the "Black Cat in the Hat" was on of Dr. Sauer's epic failures.
August 21, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can you be sure that he is just looking for "continuity" and not trying to ensure that another Democrat takes his seat?
August 21, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go suck it Lalo, you and your troll dittoheads have no right to run 'resignation/death panels' on Kennedy.
August 21, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Resignation/Death Panels"
Gotta love that turn of a phrase...
August 24, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure if anyone remembers Ted Kopple's special on cancer, but the consensus among those who were battling cancer was to press on with life, that they knew they would die of cancer eventurally, but the important thing was to keep on living.
With that being said, I could not agree with you less.
And as I said earlier, Kennedy has certainly earned the right to remain in his Senate seat as long as he is able and willing to do so.
I hope none of you sad sacks are around to pull the plug on me. Jeez.
August 21, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"earned the right to remain in his Senate seat as long as he is able and willing to do so"
- Fair enough. Although there's a big dose of cognitive dissonance on this blog on this issue.
Senate seat is not an honorary or hereditary fiefdom, regardless of how much its occupant may be lionized.
In fact, one could have a lot of respect for Kennedy and everything he's done and still think he should have stepped aside to let someone else be more involved and productive. One doesn't exclude the other.
August 21, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that what you are saying Lalo, that you respect the man and his accomplishments?
August 21, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
??????????!!!!!!!!??????
Kennedy does more of benefit to the people (remember them? We The People?) - even just as an inspiration, and even in his recent absences - than this troll could ever hope to accomplish with his sorry-ass attempt to assault perhaps the greatest, most genuine advocate for universal health care that has walked the Halls of Congress. And this worm has the audacity to dictate to Kennedy that he should "get out of the way?"
Out of the way of whom? The Insurance Industry? Big Pharma? The other corporate parasites who would bleed this country's health care system dry?
I cried yesterday upon reading Kennedy's letter to Weld. How unfair it is that he has had to wait until he's personally debilitated for a chance to finally take on the corporations and gain for all the right of health care. And I cannot imagine what it must be like for Ted Kennedy, in particular, to confront his own mortality in such a courageous fashion after all he has been through in the deaths of his brothers who were so cruelly lost at the very time they, too, stood on the threshold of great accomplishment.
I hope this troll is well-payed for his efforts. And he best enjoy it now, for there is a special place in hell reserved for scum such as this who would attempt to stir controversy over a dying man's attempts to ensure that his constituents will be heard on this issue.
Kennedy knows the honor of his actions in this regard, and I thank him for it from the depths of my being.
The scum who posted this knows the level of honor and integrity he introduces to the public discourse, as well, and I can only hope that it poisons him from the inside as it should and that horrible consequences result for him personally.
"At last, man, have you no shame whatsoever?" This is simply beyond the pale of legitimate discourse and should be roundly rejected and castigated for the bile that it is.
Oh, and BTW .... Definitely NOT rec'd!
August 21, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
My bet is also my hope: Kennedy will show up for the final vote, cast it to the cheers of his colleagues and those outsides the Senate Chanber, and then pass on with a "well done, my good and faithful servant" ringing in his ears.
My reluctant second hope would be that should he pass peacefully and office grieving Senate and nation would pass Health Reform in his memory. The final bill needs his name attached to it.
August 21, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Roll Ted in on a gurney for the cloture vote and see who has a soul.
August 21, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's tough to read, Jonnie. Really tough, actually.
But I do hear you.
August 21, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant alive.
August 21, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I caught the meaning the first time, amigo. Cheers.
August 22, 2009 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
With you on this, amike. Really, really with you on this. Been thinking it myself a lot lately. And wishing he could have been well enough to take an active part in all of this. As I’m sure he’s been wishing himself.
August 21, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I got to thinking this way through thinking about Senator Robert Byrd, ailing since the beginning of this year and frail as can be. The Robert Byrd who defended the Constitution during the Bush years with the vigor of a much younger man.
Most particularly I thought of Robert Byrd being wheeled into the Senate Chamber to cast his vote for Judge Sotomeyer. I would wager it was one of the proudest votes he cast in his long career. It wasn't "needed", but he needed to cast it. I'm very happy he got the chance.
August 21, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it’s good that Byrd had that chance.
As I’ve been reading and hearing all the brouhaha over health care reform, I started wondering if it could have been different if Kennedy were healthy and active. I don’t know how much of a difference it would have made, but I have this nagging feeling that it could have helped. I suppose that may be just wishful thinking...
August 21, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the FUCK are you talking about?
Are you stoned?
Stupid?
Delusional?
Full of FAIL?
I sure hope that you have someone who loves you, who keeps you away from sharp objects, windows, and choking hazards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Massachusetts
Jackass.
Willard Mitt Romney was Governor at that time, plutocratic hack and slash-n-burn capitalist extraordinaire, and he had been in the running for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2004.
A fellow traveler of Bush/Cheney, and you expected the Commonwealth to acquiesce to his appointing a replacement in the event that their Democatic junior Senator became President? After all the bad-mouthing this "liberal" state got during Bush's first term?
Willard did get his revenge in some respects - and pay attention to this folks, as it is illustrative.
He co-opted the progressive push for Universal Care in the Commonwealth, and added a Republican flavor to it. Mandatory coverage with a penalty for non-compliance that had the effect of taking money from those least able to afford coverage.
And a distinct lack of a public option which allowed the major corporate providers to offer low cost and lower coverage plans that people were coerced into(see penalty above) to drive profits.
It was, effectively, a subsidy to private insurance, by forcing residents to do business with them when they had already indicated they didn't want to.
Some of us have speculated that Willard was trying to pre-empt the healthcare coverage issue, and spike the wheel of any national universal coverage attempt - unsuccessfully.
The universal coverage in MA has been pretty nearly achieved, and costs to taxpayers have not been as high as feared. Whether it is universally sufficient coverage remains to be seen, and budget constraints make it difficult to fund proper analysis.
And we don't know how it has affected consumer spending in the recession, or what impact it has had on small businesses that found themselves forced to provide some form of healthcare option to employees.
It's pretty safe to assume it has been negative what with consumers having less discretionary income and small businesses having hire labor costs, although as I said, we don't have any analysis to prove it.
August 21, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd to ensure it gets seen by TPM. Come on, TPM. This is not a genuinely supported post. The tactic gains momentum every time they initiate a new "phantom blogger". This site is being diluted and needs some serious policing.
August 21, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gregor, I agree. The site is being diluted. Not with diverse opinion. Which I welcome. But with people who are using the site in bad faith. Gaming the recs.
I don't even know how you police something like that. I guess all I ask is that Josh ensure that what is going on is dealt with fast.
August 21, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me they could create a demand that bloggers post a comment, or something every 30 days. If they do not, then they are inactivated. They can reactivate with activity. We could then self-police because we can see what comments are made and if they are useless, then TPM can inactivate them again. That's just one of the first ideas I have. There are probably more saavy people who can come up with something more precise, and more automated. I think that would be key to helping TPM make a decision whether they will respond to this takeover.
August 21, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, I would most likely be inactivated. My profession is "sporadic"; I'll work 18 hour days for 6-8 weeks then have a month off. So, your first recommendation is impractical. If I was inactivated, I simply would find a more welcoming site.
August 21, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fascinating! I click on your name to see your page and you have nothing on it. In fact, the avatar is the standard 18th century writer, not this ladies Room avatar. How is that?!?
August 21, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are you the blog police. I don't have to answer to you. I've been here since the blog started. I don't know you either, so F off.
August 21, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fascinating, indeed!
August 21, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fascinating, indeed!
August 21, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that this blogger is a troll, but your suggestion about having certain levels of participation or otherwise get "deactivated" rubs me the wrong way. I think we can deal with trolls without having to be protected from them, and we do that pretty well IMHO.
I mean there are people here who blog more than once a day, which could be considered hogging the site; others who blog rarely, because they really are only moved to do so when they care a lot about a particular subject and haven't heard their ideas aired, and so they do the work, and produce a (rare) blog. Why should that be a problem? There are also plenty of lurkers, who may be shy or just interested in what everyone says but not confident, or just not desirous of sharing their ideas. Do we really need protection by "deactivation" from them?
The "rec" system seems to be somewhat under attack, but you admitted that you rec'd this one for some odd reason, which I fail to understand. If you want to bring a blog post to the attention of the management there are better ways of doing it than "rec'ing" them. I think you're way off base here, Gregor. (not usually, but this time)
August 21, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is a "troll" simply someone who posts something on TPM that has a Republican/Conservative mindset?
August 21, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCB, in this instance we suspect there is someone who has made more then a few "phantom" bloggers who they use to recommend posts of no interest such that they take the lead on Most Recommended thereby pushing more meaningful blogs off the chart. It seems to happen on Fridays and it creates a logjam that prevents this blog being used in the manner for which is was intended.
And then there are those other trolls....you know the ones. ;-{)>
August 22, 2009 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand "pushing others off the chart"?
Can't you just click on "All Reader Posts" and you can read everything?
August 22, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it could be a Chinese kid too. We don't like 'em round here. Commie bastards.
August 22, 2009 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cville, all I am trying to do is put one more step between these phantom bloggers and the carpet bombing of one blogger/troll. It adds a hoop that may discourage them from practicing this obstructionist tactic. I'm looking for a way to make it not worth the effort. If there are those who wish to contribute periodically, they can "reactive" quite easily. For one person to make one step is no big deal, but if one person, the phantom blogger needs to take ten more steps to add ten phatom rec's, then they might not be so interested any more. I do not think one step for one person will be much of a disincentive.
August 22, 2009 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you just change the name of the site from "TPM" to "Only Liberal Posters Allowed"??
August 22, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, since you regularly show up, that would not be true, would it, MCB?
August 22, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was a joke. My point is that kicking people off just because they haven't been on here "regularly" doesn't encourage people to use the site. I think we should be encouraging all people with all points of view to use the site.
However, when somebody comes on here and posts a conservative view or complains about a liberal such as Kennedy, they are labelled a troll because people on here only have tolerance for those who share their liberal viewpoints.
August 22, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one is getting kicked off, MCB. There is no TPM Death Panel, for crying out loud. I'm just in favor of inactive users needing just one more step to get back up and running to slow down these phantom bloggers.
BTW, it's not that we don't have tolerance. We don't agree. As Cville pointed out, there are plenty of people with differing views who post here all the time. You're living proof of it. You're characterization is inaccurate and tiresome.
August 23, 2009 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You left the part out of your last post that I am frequently accused of 'trolling' by others on here. So you see, trolls are simply people that the Libs on here don't agree with.
August 23, 2009 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
This blog is a piece of crap. The fact it has received as many recommends as it has just goes to show the freepers are still performing cyber-games here as well as their teabagging games at town halls. Can't win an argument based on logic? No problem, just flood the airwaves with Limbaugh stalking points to obfuscate and derail any intelligent analysis.
August 21, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're crazy like a FOX! Who cares about dominance, not democracy.
August 21, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This blog is an obscenity.
August 21, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
This blog is an obscenity.
August 21, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
A confession to my fellow bloggers and friends here at TPM - at least one of the rec's on this post was not phony. I rec'd it after reading it without a great deal of thought. Perhaps, as a former conservative republican, I have had a different view of Senator Ted Kennedy than all of you here. I won't go into great detail but I always had a hard time getting past Chappaquidick. I know how long ago it happened but I always felt his display of judgement during and after the tragic death of that poor girl displayed a lack of courage, morals, and responsibility. I felt, for those reasons, that he did not make a good choice as a senator or president of this country.
After reading the comments, not against a troll or
the character of the "blogger" but the stirring ones about Sen. Kennedy himself, I deeply regret my decision. I wish I could remove my rec but I don't think you can do that. My apologies for adding to the upset and controversy over this blog.
August 21, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's cool Maggie, they don't call us knee-jerk liberals for nothing.
August 21, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
When one hangs out in an echo chamber, it's difficult to get out of it. You did it and you are still seeking. Good for you, Mum! Good for us!
August 21, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gregor - you make me feel a bit better. Thank you.
August 21, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gregor, you rec'ed it too, right?
August 21, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah Maggie don’t feel bad. The problem isn’t that you had your own reason to recommend the post and not even that you are of two minds on that now. The problem is that this juvenile delinquent and his friends are trying to corrupt the “recommend” function. They are just stealing hub caps and slashing tires because beyond that they got nothing. I remember reading somewhere, I think it was the Tao De Dickday, that “When the sage meets the unenlightened ones he is not provoked but simply chants: ‘Ahahahahahahah’ “ Chapter IX
August 21, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your reply to my comment is so true. I think part of my "guilt" in rec'ing was that I felt I was just adding to the number he is receiving. I am glad I wasn't one of the corruptors of the rec system. I too have been enraged by the trolls. Thanks for your words.
August 21, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maggie, you are not wrong in finding the Chappaquiddick episode to be disturbing. It certainly was a low point in Kennedy's life, and one that I am certain haunts him to this day - even without the help of the righteously pure political enemies who would define this man's whole career and life within the few hours in which this accident and aftermath occurred so many years ago.
The incident was dealt with in the courts, although they pulled up short of the public hanging that was called for by Kennedy's political enemies. To the best of my knowledge, it also resulted in a genuine (and I believe successful?) pursuit of sobriety by Senator Kennedy.
I cannot "forgive" Kennedy his personal shortcomings and failures. That is truly a matter to be considered between he, his God and his family.
Importantly, for me, I have not seen any personal integrity issues that have bore a negative impact on his conduct as a Senator. Indeed, as a Senator from Massachusetts, he has shown remarkable statesmanship and leadership and integrity on a wide range of issues that are important to Progressives including health care, labor, women's rights, civil rights, the environment and many more. In the cesspool that is Washington, I have never had to question who "owns" Kennedy; never had to suffer him selling out to the highest bidder, but instead have been very proud to see him champion the good fight for those who are so poorly represented in pay-to-play politics.
Furthermore, I've never seen him demagogue an issue, nor have I seen him feel compelled to engage in fear-mongering ("They're going to kill grandma!") or other dishonest hyperbole in an attempt to confuse people into working against their own self-interest.
As a United States Senator, Kennedy will always stand as one of a few in history who will stand as an example of what representative government is all about and how it can be effectively engaged. Would that there were a few more like him in the Senate, instead of the corporate whores that are so numerous and so corrupt as to actually legitimize the corporations as our "extreme benefactors" rather than the for-profit parasites they too often truly are.
August 22, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sleepin, you are keeping these somewhere, right? The day is going to come soon for Teddy, I think. This comment has to be pulled out and polished and blogged at that time.
Thank you for this, really.
August 23, 2009 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dickon, the time for this comment is NOT then, but NOW.
And I'm sure my mother realizes it too.
August 23, 2009 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are right on this, LisB. I wish I had time to write one now - may in fact have to take the time. The appropriate theme might be "Imagine if Ted Kennedy were President?"
Aw, hell....
August 23, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for saying what I’ve been thinking much better than I could have said it. I read Maggie’s comment shortly before the library closed yesterday, so didn’t have time to reply before losing my internet connection until the library opened at noon today. But my reply would have been along the same lines, only not as well expressed as yours. (Now I’m going to go back and read your new post.)
August 23, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey? Is this from the same mindset like that PR firm that forges letters from groups like the NAACP. the ACLU and others that purport to take stands diametrically opposed to those groups efforts?
You betcha!
August 21, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
*wink*
Also.
August 21, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in Massachusetts. I have voted for Senator Kennedy as many times as I could over the years.
And I voted for him in 2006 for a six-year term.
And I have no problem with my employee, Senator Kennedy, after decades of service, having paid time off while battling cancer.
And if he has to resign, I would have no problem with a change in the law to allow him to appoint a replacement until an election can be held.
As it is, the change to a 5 month appointee by the Governor, serving until an election is held is a suitable alternative.
So, as far as I, a citizen of Massachusetts and proud Democrat, am concerned, you who are neither should, in my humble opinion, STFU!
August 24, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink