Ensign resigns - Who will be appointed to replace him?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mcrain, Apr 22, 2011.

  1. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #1
    If I were in charge of the Democrats in Nevada, I would make a fuss and insist that the GOP governor agree to ONLY appoint someone who promises not to run to fill the seat in the next general election (similar to how the GOP insisted anyone appointed to fill Kennedy's seat must agree not to run for the open seat).

    Anyone from NV and familiar with Heller? If he is appointed, would that require a special election to fill his congressional seat?
     
  2. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #2
    So you agreed with the Republicans' position on the issue when Kennedy's seat needed to be filled? I ask because I would have thought you wouldn't have agreed with that position, but you seem to like it now. Just curious.
     
  3. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #3
    What is good for the goose...

    If the standard for filling a vacant seat imposed by one party is that whoever fills the seat must promise not to run, then why not impose that same standard when a seat opens where they get to fill it?
     
  4. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #4
    So you prefer political tit-for-tat than what may be best for voters?
     
  5. MyDesktopBroke macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    #5
    More like:
     
  6. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #6
    If a party considering a policy that is wrong knows that the policy will be applied to them, then maybe they won't do it in the first place. Maybe that will prevent such silly policies in the first place.
     
  7. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #7
    I didn't see the words "best for oters" in your answer.

    I'll take that as a "yes."
     
  8. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #8
    It hasn't thus far in the history of politics in the U.S. Why would you expect them to be dissuaded now?
     
  9. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #9
    I think what would have been best for voters would be if the GOP hadn't insisted on imposing restrictions on the Governor of a state when filling a vacant Senate seat.

    I think that unless there are repurcussions for actions like that, then what they do next will be even worse.

    Are you suggesting that the Republicans should be able to do anything they want, even things that are improper, unwise, and wrong without any consequences?

    (edit) Either we stand up and insist that both parties play by the rules, or we end up with one party passing laws that take away our rights, eliminate democratic government, and potentially do far more.
     
  10. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #10
    I think a law stating that Congressional appointees can not run for the office they are being appointed to would be great. If you weren't elected by the voters, you should not be given the power of incumbency.
     
  11. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #11
    So in other words, you think that by doing 2 bad things you will end up with things being better?
     
  12. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #12
    Is that as thoroughly exhausting as it seems - to base your current and future voting decisions on avenging prior political maneuvers by Republicans? It must be so tiring - to have to remember or research how Republicans acted in prior similar situations before deciding what position to take. It seems like it would be much, much easier to just decide what you believe, what you want, rather than google-news what Republicans did when faced with a similar situation, and take a position based solely on that.

    So, the way to change is to mimic?

    Let me know how that strategy works out.

    Where have I ever said anything remotely close to that?

    Woops, my bad. Sorry to waste space with an answer. I see now your question was an attempt to kill two losing birds (create a strawman and ask a rhetorical question) with one rhetorical stone.

    And you suggest the way to "stand up" is to repeat prior mistakes?

    Strong.
     
  13. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #13
    The way to change in this situation is to point out how one party was happy to impose a rule on the other, but only when it benefits them. Perhaps that will generate a conversation and demonstrate the value of either enforcing the rule uniformly, or not at all. Isn't that more fair than allowing one party to arbitrary create and force a policy, but only when it is politically expedient?

    Either you are for fairness, or you are not. I think it would make sense to always have whoever fills a vacant seat be someone who is barred from running, or, as under current law, allow the governor to fill the position. I actually think the GOP was onto something in Mass., but they just made up the policy. They should have changed the law so that it applied to every similar situation in the future. I think that we should have a blanket rule like rdowns suggested above.

    That being said, from a political point of view, why wouldn't the Dems push this in the same way the GOP did, all while actively pushing for a formal rule/law change. Why not take advantage of the GOP flip-flopping on this issue?

    Where have I ever said anything remotely close to that?

    Woops, my bad. Sorry to waste space with an answer. I see now your question was an attempt to kill two losing birds (create a strawman and ask a rhetorical question) with one rhetorical stone.

    Two can play that game.
     
  14. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #14
    Mcrain, I enjoy debating you a lot, probably more than anyone on this board, so let me make a humble - albeit unsolicited - suggestion.

    Take your phrase above - "two can play that game" - and swap it with your Firefly signature, because every position you take on any issue is based upon mimicking the mistakes, or spiting the successes, of Republicans, and never on the issue as it stands by itself.
     
  15. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #15
    Really, because this situation points out the need for a uniform rule, and I'm suggesting that we have one. Not tit-for-tat, but a uniform rule so that everyone is on equal footing.

    You agree, right? I mean, you aren't suggesting that whenever a Democrat is filling a vacant seat, the person can't run for the seat in the next general election, but when a Republican fills a seat, the person is free to run? Right?
     
  16. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #16
    Here's your problem, mcrain, you are incapable of framing it in and of itself. I'll give you an example of how it works. Take filibustering for example. I can't stand it. I give two shites whether Republicans or Democrats have used it, who is in office, and who is more hypocritical on the subject. I don't mention either party when I talk about filibustering, because it is irrelevant.

    As for filling a vacant seat, I give to shites what Republicans or Democrats have done in the past. I like the idea, as stated very simply and non-partisanly by rdowns above, of not allowing appointees to run in the immediately following election.

    Frankly, I'd never thought about it one way or another before. Had rdowns' post been the subject of a thread, I would have jumped in, and said, "You know, that sounds like a smart idea."

    Instead, you once again use a current situation/issue as a subterfuge to lash out at Republicans. Your title asks, "Who will be appointed to replace him," but as is typical, you use your thread to point out deficiencies in Republicans.

    I actually opened your thread to learn who the contenders were, because I don't know who they are. But, of course, that was just a mcrain red herring.
     
  17. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #17
    The purpose of the thread was to raise a discussion about Ensign resigning and that he may be replaced by a guy who wants to run for the seat. I haven't seen anyone suggest that whoever is appointed can't run for the open seat. That reminded me of the recent situation in Mass. where the GOP insisted that whoever fill the seat not run in the general election.

    If there was already an ongoing discussion about whether we need a uniform rule about open seats, then it would have been easy to link to that story, and raise the question. There isn't, so I pointed out the inconsistency between Mass. and how the GOP pushed a policy, and how they aren't doing the same thing in NV.

    I don't really know which side of the issue I fall on. Initially, I thought the GOP was wrong in Mass., but now I think I like the idea. I don't really know. What I do know is that a uniform rule makes sense to me. Since you didn't really answer my question, I'll assume you agree as well. I'm sorry you don't like that you were painted into a corner of either agreeing we need a uniform rule, or supporting an unsupportable position.

    (edit) Kavika - of course I can frame the issue in and of itself. Have you ever cross examined a hostile witness? If so, then you might understand that the point is to get the answer you want. Frame the issue. Just like what happened here. Can you, or anyone, really defend not having a uniform rule now?

    (edit2) There is nothing more satisfying funnier than the look on a witness' face when s/he finally realizes s/he has been led down the primrose path.
     
  18. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #18
    As I said above, I agree with rdowns simple assertion. Sounds like you do, too. Yippee. We all agree. Whether it is in furtherance of a [trumpets sounding] uniform rule [/trumpets sounding] matters to me not. I am looking at the situation in front of us, and trying to decide what I think is best.

    If the importance of [trumpets sounding] uniform rules [/trumpets sounding] is really what you are getting at with this thread, start a thread entitled, "Do you believe in uniform rules?" and use this situation as an example. It's not our problem that you are tripping over your own thread title wording.
     
  19. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #19
    I'm pretty sure that the point of the thread was who was going to replace Ensign now that he was resigning. Following the tips that BV laid out, I quoted the article, gave a working link, and added a few sentences of my commentary. (See http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1082685&highlight=prsi+tips).

    Part of the original story is whether the person appointed will run for the seat in the general election. The article mentions Harris' desire to run. Considering how that is the exact opposite of what happened in Mass., I thought it might be something the Democrats could use for political gain, or perhaps even to try to get a uniform rule passed.

    Seemed relevant.

    (edit) By the way, did the article or my comments force you to turn this into a discussion about my thoughts on a uniform rule instead of who was going to replace Ensign?
     
  20. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #20
    Like you, I opened this thread cold, based only on the title. Unlike you, however, I haven't felt the slightest need to infer things that mcrain never said (as you did in all of your first three posts), nor to get sarcastic [trumpets sounding] about a perfectly reasonable desire that both parties play by the same rules.

    So, rather than continue the petulance, I'll discuss the topic mcrain brought up. I'm buoyed by Nate Silver's assertion that appointed senators only win their seats about 50% of the time. Sounds like a good shot for the Democrats, especially if Heller is the extremist he is being portrayed as, and especially since the GOP is already running off the rails (Ryan/Trump/Snyder/Kasich/Walker/et. al.).
     
  21. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #21
    There is one small issue to be resolved with this idea: I had set up a campaign office to run for the senate next year, and started fundraising. Then the senator suddenly died, and the governor (from the other party) appointed me to fill the seat. Some had said that I was probably the strongest candidate, so the governor's action looks like a maneuver to bump me out of the race. Unfortunately, there is no clear rule regarding refusal. The leaders of that other party a saying that I am legally obligated to accept the nomination.

    The thing that is also obviously missing from this process is Advise and Consent. How is it that governors have been given this much power ("...it's o=3*ing gold, I tells ya...") without at least some kind of veto power in the legislature?
     
  22. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #22
    I haven't heard anything about Heller. Do you know anything about the guy? Any links?

    I'm really surprised by the 50% figure. I thought there would be a greater benefit to being the incumbant, even when appointed.
     
  23. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #23
    What I'm seeing is mostly not good. He's no friend of gays, environmentalists, health care proponents, and immigrants, among others.
     
  24. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #24
    so he's a republican? :p
     
  25. bruinsrme macrumors 601

    bruinsrme

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #25
    You mean the People's seat that Kennedy was filling
     

Share This Page