You reasons given in your article are mostly bogus. Patrick SHOULD appoint someone who will run. A caretaker is a useless.

Leaving aside the politically obsessed who can't find anything that isn't a springboard to political and personal attacks Scot raised a good many issues regarding the replacement of Kerry, if that comes to pass.  However, it seems to me these special elections whether it is in Mass or anywhere else are not really a good expression of democracy.  They are generally poorly attended, they are expensive and seldom represent the actual will of the electorate.  I realize the Dems would get hammered if they changed the rules in the middle of the game but surely after this the state should write legislation that calls for any replacement to hold the position until the next full election. 

It really doesn't matter whether Patrick puts in a caretaker or someone who will run.  Either way the state will face a bogus election in the spring probably an election in which a previously rejected Brown will run against some Dem. and a tiny portion of the electorate will decide who gets to hold the seat for a couple of more years.  Whoever wins, especially if it is a Republican will keep his head down until the next election in hopes of offending no one and therefore do very little for the state.  Special elections just end up meaning poor choices and poor representatives.

High-mindedness is a fine attribute but sometimes difficult to define. The account of Lincoln’s attempt to pass the 13th Amendment in the recent movie is a good example of the difference between different shades of political high-mindedness. The greater good as defined by Lincoln was to get that amendment passed before the opportunity slipped away. The means to do so were, well…not exactly pretty. The Republican Party in recent years has not been so very high-minded. Tying the Senate in knots by filibuster, Congress bringing us to the edge of default, voter suppression, undermining international treaties, environmental depredation, refusing to confirm appointments in order to hinder the workings of the government they hate. We have no head of ATF because Republicans believed he might actually try to control guns! They have used every legal, procedural and/or dubious trick in the book to advance their agenda. What lesson should the Governor and the Legislature learn from this example?

The Governor should appoint someone like retiring Congressman John Olver, who will not run for the seat, who is a loyal Democrat, and has a career of sober service to his constituents. This appointment would be a fitting tribute, and would cause no grief for the Governor.

Spoken like a true representative of the media.  Let's have another campaign - where we can spend our time   debating foolish side issues that gobble up news print, but fail to fairly reflect the real issues.  And of course - so important to have another expensive campaign for a two year term - and then we get to do it all over again. Governor Patrick - appoint someone who will finish out the term!

Fair editorial - but unless the democrats put up a felon (and maybe if they do) the Globe will endorse the democrat.

If I'm reading you correctly Scot, I'm not getting the sense that you are that worried about another Scott Brown special election. This time around, we know so much more. Let the Republicans trot him out again. And as an aside, Mike Capuano would make a great Senator. 

No special election, please!  Let's just appoint someone to go through the rest of the term if necessary! 

Is Governor Patrick under any obligation to appoint anyone at all? Massachusetts amended the process to  replace a vacant Senate seat by special election, but I don't recall any requirement that the seat be kept warm while a special election is organized and held. 

Hi Scot,

TheSystemWorked is up to his old tricks: liking his own posts, reporting people that disagree with him, and attacking other posters.  

I know the Globe no longer has an Ombudsman.  Is there someone to contact?

Thanks

I think all would agree that it's unlikely that Scott Brown or any Republican would win except in a special election, no matter the opponent. He did not receive significantly more votes in 2012 than he did in 2010. This might not be true if the political climate in DC were diferent, but most MA voters do not want to vote for Mitch McConnell and more gridlock.

Considering the expense of a special election and the fact that so many of us are damned tired of elections, Massachusetts voters would be better served by electing a hypothetical replacement at  the next regularly-scheduled election. With its higher turnout, a regular election better reflects the will of the people.; waiting for a regular election is fair to the candidates and the voters.

Either way, a placeholder should be appointed; I don't think it makes a difference if they make themselves elgible for the election or not -- Ted Kennedy connived to be sworn in early for seniority, and most MA voters would agree that worked out well.

It seems the intolerable has suddenly become so gosh darn reasonable!

"incredible1" I wasn't really speaking to the politics of it.  I just dislike special elections, they seem to be a waste of money and time.  I'm not even that big a fan of off year elections, no one except the politically obsessed and a few sincere voters show up and then one side or the other goes, "See the public is with us".  Right, probably 30 percent if that. We've become a country interested in voting only during Presidential years probably be simpler just to make that the only time we vote for anything.  Conservatives should love it, it would save money.  Wait no they won't because then a lot of people show up even those folks who live in apartments. 

Mr. Lehigh, what makes you believe a politician who claims he "will not run" for the job, after the appointment expires? It ain't going to happen.

The issue of conniving Democrats and Patrick's dilemma of appointing someone to the Senate seat is ludicrious. Conniving Democrats are a fact of life: While Patrick's dilemma is that he would love to appoint himself.

The whole purpose of their actions are politics as usual in Massachusetts. The Democrats want to ensure a Republican, most likely Senator Brown, will not win the Senate seat. The Dems want to circumvent the political process and democracy as it was visualized by America's founding fathers. There isn't a Democrat politician in this state who dosen't want the appointment, and the assist of a step up.

Ahhhh_ Patrick, is probably thinking of winning 'brownie points' with this opportunity.

Mr. Lehigh, it's admirable (I guess) that you're trying to take the high ground, but in politics the high ground is usually a losing location.

Wherever Republicans control state legislatures they gerrymander districts and try to restrict the vote. Democrats were in a difficult position this past election because Republicans are in control in most states. If the Republicans' only opposition doesn't use the advantages that it has, that opposition may lose much of its effectiveness.

I agree that changing the election laws are a little much, but appointing someone as interim Senator who agrees not to run is just plain foolish. Do you really think Weld, Celuci, or Romney would have done that? If so, your credibility is zero.

It would take a great act of political courage for Patrick to appoint Brown to the seat. He's going to win the seat anyway.  The Democrats "shot their load" when the got Warren elected. There's nothing left in the tank and Brown is very popular.

I voted for Warren. I stand by that vote. I don't agree with Brown's stance on a lot of items. However, he is very popular and was  sitting senator who did work well with John Kerry.  I don't agree with him, but I do respect him as a politician.

Why not appoint him at interim senator. (That way he won't run for govenor ;-) )

Then there will be that much less drama this spring.