HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Dukakis seen as possible ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:07 AM

Dukakis seen as possible Senate replacement if Kerry tapped for State

Source: The Hill

Former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, the 1988 Democratic presidential nominee, may be headed back to the political spotlight as he’s considered a likely interim replacement for Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).

President Obama is set to tap Kerry to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of State, according to media reports.

This means Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) needs to find someone to fill Kerry’s seat until a special election can be held in the late spring or early summer.

Dukakis, who is 79, has remained politically active. He campaigned for Sen.-elect Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) this fall and teaches at Northeastern University.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/273151-dukakis-seen-as-possible-senate-replacement-if-kerry-tapped-for-state

60 replies, 5723 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 60 replies Author Time Post
Reply Dukakis seen as possible Senate replacement if Kerry tapped for State (Original post)
Freddie Stubbs Dec 2012 OP
BootinUp Dec 2012 #1
WI_DEM Dec 2012 #2
plethoro Dec 2012 #8
karynnj Dec 2012 #16
Mass Dec 2012 #20
karynnj Dec 2012 #38
julian09 Dec 2012 #46
FailureToCommunicate Dec 2012 #21
brooklynite Dec 2012 #32
FailureToCommunicate Dec 2012 #36
JI7 Dec 2012 #48
FailureToCommunicate Dec 2012 #54
brooklynite Dec 2012 #3
Jackpine Radical Dec 2012 #27
brooklynite Dec 2012 #33
Marrah_G Dec 2012 #52
XemaSab Dec 2012 #59
patricia92243 Dec 2012 #4
CreekDog Dec 2012 #5
bigdarryl Dec 2012 #6
cstanleytech Dec 2012 #47
cosmicone Dec 2012 #7
DonViejo Dec 2012 #12
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #42
Jackpine Radical Dec 2012 #44
blueclown Dec 2012 #9
HomerRamone Dec 2012 #10
JustABozoOnThisBus Dec 2012 #11
blueclown Dec 2012 #50
Mass Dec 2012 #13
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #14
Mass Dec 2012 #15
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #17
Mass Dec 2012 #18
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #19
CreekDog Dec 2012 #24
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #25
patrice Dec 2012 #22
Myrina Dec 2012 #23
SwankyXomb Dec 2012 #29
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #31
Mass Dec 2012 #39
Jackpine Radical Dec 2012 #45
Euphoria Dec 2012 #26
Berlum Dec 2012 #28
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #30
The Stranger Dec 2012 #37
blm Dec 2012 #40
cstanleytech Dec 2012 #58
patrice Dec 2012 #34
Bucky Dec 2012 #49
LineLineLineNew Reply .
patrice Dec 2012 #56
bec Dec 2012 #35
Gormy Cuss Dec 2012 #41
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #43
Marrah_G Dec 2012 #51
graham4anything Dec 2012 #53
former9thward Dec 2012 #55
Iggy Dec 2012 #57
Kingofalldems Dec 2012 #60

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:09 AM

1. cool. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:15 AM

2. Wouldn't it be better to appoint somebody who actually would be the Senator

at the time of the special election? That is my thinking anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:16 AM

8. This is the best consideration, Wi_Dem. But I

 

didn't agree with the Kerry pick so I'll leave it at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:52 AM

16. Maybe not - that person would possibly be forever seen as Patrick's choice,

not the voters' choice. There are several Democrats who are reported to have been interested. Selecting one over the others may seem almost undemocratic. I think being an incumbent helps, but is that true of an incumbent with only a few months there. Not to mention, consider the distraction getting set up in DC to actually do the job - even if just moving from the House to the Senate - would have on the ability of the person to campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:58 AM

20. Patrick has been consistent in saying it was not his job to choose the MA Senator.

It was up to the people to elect this person.

Anyway, if Markey or somebody like him run, they will have as much or more name recognition as a caretaker senator who will be there for 5 months.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:56 PM

38. Completely agree - you said it far better than I could or did

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:49 PM

46. That is the opposite of Niki Haleys' position, which is the sensible one.

 

Patrick is not choosing the senator in Mass, the voters will in special election. Maybe he wants a weak candidate so he can run himself in 2016 against Brown. Patrick is probably sorry he promised, he would finish his term.
Markley didn't want it in last special election, why this time. Well, he's up on the red sox roster, that should help. Whoever temp would be wiil have a few votes by the time the special election happens, wouldn't hurt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:03 AM

21. I believe the pretzel logic current law is that the appointed person can NOT run for the

office. That's why Paul Kirk was put in to fill Ted Kennedy's seat. And then of course Coakley ran, and lost to Brown.

It's kinda crazy, but I believe that is the way the legislature and the Governor laid it out.

But I am not too worried about Scott Brown winning again. Someone strong like our great Rep. Ed Markey will likely run...and the great team that got Elizabeth Warren elected would come out in force again because MUCH of the energy to get her elected came from wanting to make sure Brown didn't. The voters know a lot more negatives about Brown now. He's damaged goods. AND the Koch Bros may not be so ready to throw millions at him this time around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FailureToCommunicate (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:22 PM

32. Not how I read the law...

PART I
ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
TITLE VIII
CHAPTER 54
Section 140

Section 140. (a) Upon failure to choose a senator or representative in congress or upon creation of a vacancy in that office, the governor shall immediately cause precepts to be issued to the aldermen in every city and the selectmen in every town in the district, directing them to call an election on the day appointed in the precepts for the election of such senator or representative. The day so appointed shall not be more than 160 nor less than 145 days after the date that a vacancy is created or a failure to choose occurs. 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.

(b) If a vacancy under this section is created after February 1 of an even-numbered year, the governor shall not issue the precepts required by subsection (a), except as subsection (c) provides for a vacancy for senator.

(c) If a vacancy is created for senator in congress after April 10 of an even-numbered year, the governor shall issue precepts under this section, unless section 152 requires that office to appear on the biennial state election ballot in that year. If this section prevents issuance of precepts for senator, the office shall appear on the biennial state election ballot in that year. If a vacancy for senator is created after April 10 of an even-numbered year, but on or before the seventieth day preceding the regular state primary, the precepts shall appoint the day of the regular state primary and the biennial state election for holding the special primary and special election required by this section.

(d) If at the time a senator or representative in congress is elected at the biennial state election, there exists a vacancy in that office, the senator or representative shall also be deemed to have been elected to serve out that vacancy.

(e) A senator elected to fill a vacancy under this section shall serve for the remainder of the unexpired term.

(f) Upon failure to choose a senator in congress or upon a vacancy in that office, the governor shall make a temporary appointment to fill the vacancy; provided, however, that the person so appointed shall serve until the election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy pursuant to subsection (a) or (c).


All this says is that the appointee serves until the Special Election is held; doesn't say anything about the appointee being ineligible to run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:47 PM

36. But it IS how Gov. Patrick got the legislature to agree, so unless he changes

his mind and Beacon Hill, it is effectively the way it stands:

From AP:
"During the 2010 special election - prompted by the death of longtime Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy from brain cancer - Gov. Deval Patrick said he would only appoint someone as interim senator if they agreed not to run in the special election, and he appointed former Democratic Party chairman Paul Kirk.

Under current law, if Kerry resigns Patrick would appoint an interim senator to serve until a special election could be held.

Asked recently if he would seek the same promise if Kerry stepped down, Patrick said it was too soon say.

Patrick has said he would prefer a system where he could appoint someone to serve until the next statewide election in 2014, but said there's no appetite on Beacon Hill to change the law."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FailureToCommunicate (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:51 PM

48. Coakley would have easily won if she just campaigned and not made stupid

comments about how she already had this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:56 PM

54. Many of the campaigners felt they were working harder then she was. Plus it was January and

nobody is motivated much to vote in January in New England.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:17 AM

3. Poor choice...

...no objection to his legislative abilities or his political philosophy, but this seat needs to be filled with someone who can hit the ground running to win the Special Election in July; someone who 1) lost to George Bush Snr and 2) has been out of electoral politics for 25 years isn't the optimal choice. Remember what happened when Walter Mondale was put into the Election to replace Paul Wellstone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:23 AM

27. That's exactly what I thought until

I read #21 above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:23 PM

33. See my #32

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:31 PM

52. I'm hoping Mike Capuano will run again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:30 PM

59. Kerry has seniority

Dukakis might not have that same legacy in the senate, but he's an elder statesman of the party.

I would imagine that someone else would run for that seat in the next election.

We could do a lot worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:25 AM

4. Bad Decision. Hope minds are changed - and soon> n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patricia92243 (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:31 AM

5. why is it a bad decision? it's a temporary appointment until new candidates win a special election.

do you understand?

and if you think something is a bad idea, why don't you tell us why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:52 AM

6. OH GOD!!!!! can't they find any young bloods ALRIGHT KENNEDY'S!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:56 PM

47. What about Joe Kennedy? Doesnt he qualify?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:55 AM

7. Caroline Kennedy would have been better

any Kennedy family person actually ... to defeat Scott Brown easily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:41 AM

12. Except she doesn't live in MA nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:46 PM

42. She was an embarrassment when under consideration for Hillary's replacement.

Some of her interviews were positively Palinesque.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:37 PM

44. That's the vague impression I retain from then.

Like, she was about as deep as a kiddie wading pond on political issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:18 AM

9. He would be great for the Senate.

DUers should not let the right-wing talking points about Mr. Dukakis warp their view of why he would be a great senator for the state of Massachusetts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueclown (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:26 AM

10. no--too old--I live in MA and we need someone electable for the long haul nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HomerRamone (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:31 AM

11. +1 ... find someone who will be electable for the next seven years

or thirteen or nineteen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:29 PM

50. You run for election in the Senate every six years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HomerRamone (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:48 AM

13. Caretaker senator. Just like Kirk, the person will not be able to run in the election.

The point being that the governor should not be able to choose our senator for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:51 AM

14. Well...this is stupid. It's apparent that they have no good batters

on deck in MA. Doesn't give me hope that we will be able to hold the seat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:52 AM

15. No, what is stupid is to ignore the context. This is a caretaker senator.

He probably will be chosen on the basis he will not run in the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:53 AM

17. Why would it be a bad thing to appoint someone who also has

the capability to run and win? I don't understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:55 AM

18. Patrick has said in 2010 he will not name a senator who will run.

He sees that as choosing for the people. I appreciate my governor thinks people should be able to elect who they want, and not support somebody he has named.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:58 AM

19. I'm going to be honest, that's a ridiculous position.

The people can choose not to elect his appointee. Republicans would grab an upcoming star and send him out there. This is why we lose seats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:11 AM

24. ugh, you aren't reading

people keep trying to explain it to you, but you are just wanting the law to say what you want it to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:18 AM

25. It's not really an "ugh" moment. I disagree with the policy.

I think it's stupid. I don't see the point of putting in an 80-year-old instead of a viable future candidate. Whether it's the law or a governor's stance, I don't agree with it. We should be taking advantage of opportunities to promote viable and fresh new candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:06 AM

22. Definition of "a" "likely"? How many other possibilities are there? I'd like someone younger. nt

Last edited Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:07 AM

23. Just give me a Kennedy, please?

Jeeez, already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:58 AM

29. If not a Kennedy, how about ...

She'd have to move to Mass, and probably quit at NBC, but Chelsea Clinton's old enough now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SwankyXomb (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:16 PM

31. Welcome to DU and I hope you enjoy the site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SwankyXomb (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:04 PM

39. Thanks, but no thanks.

Probably the best way to lose the seat to Brown is to get somebody who has no ties to the state.

BTW, it may have escaped you, but there are already a few people who have said they are interested. Among them, Ed Markey, who would be a good choice.

(Note: I would not propose Vanessa Kerry, and at least she lives and works in Boston, so Chelsea Clinton is not even something I want to think about).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:39 PM

45. ABC

Anyone
But
Caroline

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:21 AM

26. Great idea! I lived in MA during his tenure

and Dukakis did a great job. Also supported his run for presidency against G.H.W. Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:56 AM

28. The Duke

Love it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:15 PM

30. Kerry should have the maturity and patriotic spirit to refuse the appointment.

This is the loss of a Senate seat at a time when we need Kerry in the Senate. This is a bad, bad mistake on President Obama's part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:55 PM

37. Yes!

Someone here agrees with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:02 PM

40. When did irrational fearfulness become a mark of maturity, JD? When was patriotism defined

as skipping over the best person for the job in order to calm those in your party who are increasingly fearful about political fallout?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:22 PM

58. What if Joe Kennedy gets it though? No loss then is it? Plus you would think

it would make it harder for someone to beat him in an election for the seat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:25 PM

34. I'd like to see an END to this "It's __________ 's turn" crap! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:24 PM

49. So you don't like my alternative suggestion then that they appoint Walter Mondale?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:19 PM

56. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:37 PM

35. Just like Ted Kennedy's

seat, a temporary replacement will be named until the special election. I am hearing Ed Markey may run for the seat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:40 PM

41. Excellent choice.

He's obviously not going to be in it for the long haul but he's a seasoned elder statesman who knows and loves the Bay State. The only other person that I can think of who would do as good a job would be Barney Frank.

Kudos to Patrick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:47 PM

43. At least he knows not to go for a ride in a tank (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:30 PM

51. He is too old for a campaign

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:34 PM

53. TED KENNEDY passed the torch to PRESIDENT OBAMA, who will pass the torch to VICKY KENNEDY

 

America needs a Kennedy again and this is perfect

Vicky is already pro-major gun control

what could be better than Vicky leading Mass. and America

THE DREAM LIVES ON!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:13 PM

57. Oh Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!

 

yet another OLD white guy in the senate. that's a great choice!!





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:02 PM

60. Not news and not even true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread