Isn’t it ironic..
I don’t think it’s ironic at all. Democrats requested an adjustment to the Senator appointment process that seems more fair than it was. A truly balanced approach will be beneficial or harmful to either party.
Isn’t it a little ironic that the same law that the Democrats changed in 2004 is what lost them the Massachusetts Senate seat in such a dire time?
(The Democrats, fearing Mitt Romney would appoint a Republican Senator if Kerry were to win the presidential election and vacate his Senate seat in 2004, submitted a bill to change the law to require a special election within 145-160 days after a Senate seat becomes vacant. Even more ironic is that Kennedy was instrumental in that change. Even more ironic is that they’d still hold that seat if the previous law was upheld.)
-
haine-online liked this
-
blinds-uk liked this
-
yuetching reblogged this from dihard and added:
From my politically savvy friend from MA: They actually repealed...within weeks of Teddy’s...
-
pseudonym reblogged this from mikehudack
-
aglaw reblogged this from dihard
-
radoration reblogged this from dihard and added:
thinking this about this last week. Funny stuff.
-
randyhaddock liked this
-
giin liked this
-
heymissy reblogged this from dihard
-
bdougherty liked this
-
sixtyfourwest liked this
-
em reblogged this from dihard and added:
I don’t think it’s...requested an adjustment...Senator...
-
hipsterdiet liked this
-
complex liked this
-
pinkhotel liked this
-
ifightevil reblogged this from dihard and added:
Even more ironic: That Kennedy, after campaigning to have...prevent Kerry from...
-
abcsoupdot reblogged this from mikehudack
-
section9 liked this
-
jamesnord liked this
-
muppetpants liked this
-
menstrom liked this
-
mikehudack reblogged this from dihard
-
dihard posted this
