• DEMOCRATS = HYPOCRISY

THE LAW IS THE DEMOCRATS' PLAY TOY TO FIDDLE WITH
Change It, Change It Back & Change it again
Liberals embrace dishonesty & hypocrisy
as a matter of course
This is just the latest example

Liberals are consistent, you have to give them that. When John Kerry appeared to have a shot at being elected President in 2004, one thing liberals could not have happen was to allow Mitt Romney, then Governor of Massachusetts, to appoint Kerry's successor to the Senate.

Never mind that this was his RIGHT and DUTY under Massachusetts law. Never mind that Democrats (in office and in the mass left wing media) have recently argued that Governor Deval Patrick should not be DENIED his right and duty to appoint a Senator to replace the recently expired Ted Kennedy.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

In 2004, Democrats in the Massachusetts legislature, encouraged by the State's Senior Senator Ted Kennedy, changed the law in the state and took from Governor Romney his right and duty to appoint a Senator to replace John Kerry. Democrats of course feared Governor Romney being able to change the course of politics in Massachusetts by picking a Republican.

The law was changed, and instead of having the Governor of the state appoint a Senator to complete the Senator's term, Massachusetts now has a special election 4 to 5 months after (in that case) Senator Kerry was elected President. So, as long as Massachusetts was avoiding a Republican appointee, it was perfectly fine to go months without one of its two Senators.

It is my belief that Mr. Obama
prompted that letter to the
Massachusetts Legislature

Kerry of course went on to lose the election, but the law was changed and should Mr. Kerry have won, Mr. Romney would have been denied his appointment. The pawns in this scheme were, indeed, the citizens of Massachusetts.

By now most of you know that shortly before Senator Kennedy assumed room temperature, he wrote a letter urging Massachusetts lawmakers to give Governor Patrick the right and duty that Mr. Romney would have been denied. Kennedy knew that his time was short, and Kennedy was focused for many years on passing a federal take over of the health care industry.

One thing President Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy wanted to prevent was having the Senate vote on ObamaCare™ without that Senate seat being filled. They could not wait until four or five months down the line to have a new Senator elected.

It is my belief that Mr. Obama prompted that letter to the Massachusetts Legislature. Having this liberal hero, the Lion of the Senate or whatever he was called, write a letter from his death bed was a much more appealing option than having Mr. Obama follow Mr. Kennedy's demise with a plea from the White House to have the law changed to benefit . . . Mr. Obama's health care bill.

Not that Mr. Kennedy would have had any problem with changing the law. Liberals are fine with anything that gets the job done. They don't mind appearing to be self serving or hypocritical. That's how it works -- make the law whatever they need at any particular moment.

So of course the Democrats in Massachusetts are enthusiastic about changing the law to again to allow Governor Patrick the ability to appoint a new Senator to take Kennedy's place, but be clear: This is, more than anything else, an act to ensure that Kennedy's vote for health care reform can still be counted on.

There will still be a special election in January, and if Mr. Romney runs he still has a chance of winning, especially if Governor Patrick appoints he who is said to be the first choice: Michael Dukakis (Ok, I can hear you snickering).

I believe that, if Dukakis is the choice, it makes even more clear the intent -- to simply make certain they still have the vote for health care. I do not think that the the Governor wants to take any chances, appointing someone that might piss of the left or the right. There are few politicians more milquetoast and less exciting than Michael Dukakis. I doubt you would see him run for re-election in a few months, but who knows.

Democrats practice the art of hypocrisy as if it were a good and decent value. Democrats exploit the people as often as they need to. If they don't want a Republican Governor to do what his job allows him to do, they change the law. Then, when the recently changed law is now inconvenient, they change the law again. Is there any doubt that if another Republican were elected Governor and given an opportunity to appoint a Senator they would change the law again?

When Mr. Romney was the Governor, it was perfectly alright for Massachusetts to end up with only one Senator for a number of months. Now that Mr. Patrick is Governor, it is deemed entirely unacceptable! This, my friends, is classic hypocrisy being exhibited by the party who does it better than anyone -- The Democrats.