U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 24, 2009 02:11 AM UTC

George Will's pathetic attack on Feingold's appointment solution

  • 41 Comments
  • by: wade norris

(cross posted at Daily Kos)Like most citizens, some of the arcane rules of government barely register a blip on our radar. But that is not the case this year. After a robust mobilization of grassroots politics, the people are paying attention to how their government functions and are asking questions about how it conducts itself.

One of the arcane rules of our government is now being exposed publicly and embarrassingly through the trials and tribulations of Rod Blagovich and Roland Burris. The public is paying attention and learning a new fact: our government still allows the non-democratic appointment of a U.S. Senator by an executive.

But George Will thinks this is all fine. In fact, he is attacking Russ Feingold and his proposed  amendment and uses some strange arguments for this flawed system. More below…

This year’s political appointment fiasco has allowed the impeached Governor of Illinois to appoint someone who has lied under oath, and has allowed appointee Gov. Patterson to appoint a candidate that was so surprising, that he now will likely lose in in a Primary to Andrew Cuomo. The same could be said the pick here in Colorado, where Governor Ritter ignored several (read 5) qualified elected officials to appoint a person who had only lived in Colorado 5 years, (scratch that – apparently 10 years?)and had never run for public office, to a U.S. Senate seat. This pick has stirred the ire of traditional Democratic Party members and has even lead me to suggest a a primary in Colorado.

These type of non-democratic political irregularities have inspired Wisconsin’s Russ Feingold to speak out against these arcane rules that have led us to this moment. But George Will thinks this violates the original intent of the framers of the Constitution.

here is a summary from Mr. Will’s piece in this week Washington Post

The 17th Amendment says that when Senate vacancies occur, “the executive authority” of the affected state “shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.”

Feingold’s amendment says: “No person shall be a Senator from a State unless such person has been elected by the people thereof. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.”

Feingold says mandating election of replacement senators is necessary to make the Senate as “responsive to the people as possible.” The Framers gave the three political components of the federal government (the House, Senate and presidency) different electors (the people, the state legislatures and the Electoral College as originally intended) to reinforce the principle of separation of powers, by which government is checked and balanced.

Although liberals give lip service to “diversity,” they often treat federalism as an annoying impediment to their drive for uniformity. Feingold, who is proud that Wisconsin is one of only four states that clearly require special elections of replacement senators in all circumstances, wants to impose Wisconsin’s preference on the other 46. Yes, he acknowledges, they could each choose to pass laws like Wisconsin’s, but doing this “state by state would be a long and difficult process.” Pluralism is so tediously time-consuming.

Irony alert: Feingold’s amendment requiring elections to fill Senate vacancies will owe any traction it gains to Senate Democrats’ opposition to an election to choose a replacement for Barack Obama.

That opposition led to the ongoing Blagojevich-Burris fiasco.

By restricting the financing of political advocacy, the McCain-Feingold speech-rationing law empowers the government to regulate the quantity, timing and content of political speech.

So to Mr. Will’s thinking,  free speech will be endangered by doing away with this arcane law. Rationally, you would think he would avoid using  the Blago-Burris scandal to strengthen his argument, since it is the clearest reason why we must have elections, not appointments.

The only people who should fear elections for open seats are the people who would stand to lose a seat for their party.

Therefore, in traditionally Republican states, appointments could potentially lose a seat for a Democratic caucus and vice versa. But it really is the right thing to do, despite Mr. Will’s use of Federalism and Free Speech to obfuscate this issue.

What is lacking in Mr. Will’s argument is the perspective of time from when the Framers made the appointment system. Originally, our parties were thought of as being 2 sides of the same coin, advocating for Colonist’s rights against England. The Framers did not foresee orginally the amount of acrimony between parties – that is why the original Presidential election was different until 1800. Up until then, whoever won the most votes was the President, and the person who came in 2nd became Vice President. (Obama-McCain?) Now we know even more, how important even one Senate seat is to the way we make laws and govern. (Ask Harry Reid if seating Franken would help him any)

The people of New York, Illinois and Colorado certainly know how surprised they can be by their Governor on an appointment, and while not everyone cares, I submit these picks prove that this process needs to be changed.

Thanks Mr. Feingold for saying what many of us were already thinking. Join me by emailing him a note of thanks and support for taking a principled stand on this issue.

Tweet
Share

Comments

41 thoughts on “George Will’s pathetic attack on Feingold’s appointment solution”

          1. …or, is the number of years that Bennet has lived in CO irrelevant to your view of this topic?  That can’t be true!  Otherwise why would you have included that (fictional) fact in your original diary?  Simply for an immaterial shot at Bennet?  A PERSONAL attack even?  Nah…not you!  You are above that.

            1. for Colorado voters. I have only lived here 9 years, and that is not a personal attack, it is a fact. And the fact that he has never run for an office, much less a statewide office in Colorado is not being personal, it is a fact.

              And it is an important fact to Dems in this state.

              However, instead of focusing solely on Mr. Bennet, why not comment on the diary’s subject matter – the issue of appointments, Russ Feingold’s amendment solution, and even George Will’s article, rather than trying to swerve this into a pissing match about Bennet?

              1. rather than trying to swerve this into a pissing match about Bennet?

                That describes almost all of your posts here of late, including your latest diary (in which you made false, pissy charges against Bennet along your meandering route to rail against George Will).  Have you discussed anything else lately?

                1. since Feb.1

                  the last one

                  on Romanoff’s table at the JJ –

                  which did not say shite about Bennet – only commenters brought that up

                  http://coloradopols.com/showDi…

                  an interview with Mr.Ferrandino

                  http://coloradopols.com/showDi…

                  a story on Ethics and Mike Coffman

                  with interview

                  http://coloradopols.com/showDi…

                  a brief note on Obama signing stimulus in Denver

                  http://coloradopols.com/showDi…

                  and a diary on supporting Romanoff for a primary

                  http://coloradopols.com/showDi…

                  So that’s 2 stories out of 5, which if my math is right, is not “almost all”

                  and what

                  false, pissy charges

                  are you speaking of?

                  I will admit, I had the number of years he lived here wrong, but what else? I don’t know enough about Bennet (as most of us don’t) to know anything to make up.

                  But i know how you feel. I have been there.

                  But attacking me is not going to change the fact that if Andrew Romanoff wants to run for a primary, he will have a lot of support.

                  So you can’t change that.

                  complain, gang up on me in these diaries, whatever. I have talked to people – lots of people – and they are for this.  

                  1. …you have had 44 posts since Feb. 1.  And in whole Hell of a lot of them, you have been bitching about how Romanoff was screwed by the appointment of Bennet.  Admitting your obsession is the first step!

                    1. which you can see cover several topics

                      as for obsession –  you guys are obsessed with me. all of my posts are in response to the people having a hissy my suggestion. Why? Don’t we have a right to a primary?

                      If I am obsessed with anything – it is the unfair process of the appointment system and how it can be used the exact way Ritter did, to put someone in office who was not the choice of the people. And I am not talking of just Romanoff, there were at least 5 quality candidates in the running for that seat – no one in all of the Dems I know knew who Michael Bennet was.

                      And i am not the only one, apparently, who feels this must be changed. Russ Feingold has a pretty popular following among us dems, and he even has a republican, Sensenbrenner co-sponsoring the bill.

                      So this is not fringe stuff.

                      Romanoff could run, and if he does, we will be behind him.

                      And you still did not answer me

                      what

                      false, pissy charges?

  3. is always an entertaining discussion.  I can barely figure out the “intent” of my friends most of the time…and I see them regularly…and the stuff they do didn’t even happen 230+ years ago!

    We get this idea that we live in some sort of a democracy where we get to decide everything.  Where did that come from?  Certainly not the “Framers.”  More often than we’d like to think, they didn’t want the almighty “people” to decide much of anything.  Now a few Govs screw up a few appointments and we need to change the Constitution?  In the name of the “Founders,” no less?!  Come on…

    The process isn’t perfect…but adopting Feingold’s  solution wouldn’t be either.  Special elections don’t draw a much voter turnout (as you well know) and the reality is that these are temporary appointments.  Would it be more democratic?  Sure…but so would abolishing the Senate and changing the House to a PR-elected body.  I anxiously await the introduction of that amendment…

    This is something that states should decide for themselves.  46 states are fine with the process.  If there’s such a groundswell to change it, let people make their way to their state capitols and argue their case.  But requiring states to spend money on a special election that they don’t necessarily want isn’t necessary.  Democracy costs money…if states want to spend it on a temporary Senator, let them…but it doesn’t need to go in the constitution…

    At least that what I think…  🙂

    1. especially in today’s economy, is a valid point. I could see a lack of political will to do this on that point alone.

      Another point is the fairness of electing someone who might be from the other party. one person commented that special elections like this would only be fair if only the party of the replaced Senator gets to vote on the Replacement – in other words, Salazar’s replacement would be decided by a special election of Democratic voters – like a primary vote.

      But, that also has a lot of problems in terms of how states register voters, what to do with independents or elected officials who are independent or 3rd party.

      Either way, though, this topic needs to be examined and at least Feingold has the cajones to bring it up.

      1. actually makes me rethink this a little.  States so rarely have to fill Senate vacancies, people don’t have much of a reason to care and change anything (perhaps, nor should they).  But as a country, since 1970, we average almost one Governor appointed Senator a year.  Some of those were really temporary or ceremonial (Barkley and Burdick, for example), so that should be kept in mind.  Regardless, looking at it that way, maybe having a single federal process wouldn’t be so bad…

    2. For me to make it to Congress.

      Sure…but so would abolishing the Senate and changing the House to a PR-elected body.  I anxiously await the introduction of that amendment.

      I would totally introduce that amendment.

  4. This is a solution in search of a problem, Wade. I know how much Romanoff not winning has hurt you – and me – but if an election had been held for the position maybe Romanoff wouldn’t have won, hey?

    So, to replace a senator each state would have to all of a sudden pony up an (expensive) election, people interested in the position would have to campaign instead of submitting a C.V. to the guv.  All this takes time, and sometimes the best man/woman won’t win.

    The two houses are supposed to be different in their formation, for pete’s sake.  Shoot, why not just make Congress unicameral?

    Feingold is wrong, wrong, wrong.  

    You are starting to sound like our friend Kate from awhile back.  All courts, all the time.  

    1. ..I meant Romanoff winning the position, not an election.

      I also meant to add that while the senator to be is campaigning, the state is without a voice in the Senate.  This is good?  How long would this process take?  I’d guess 60 days minimum and probably 90.  Or more.

      Dumb, dumb, dumb.

        1. Just like all things political.

          One of the problems with liberals, as I see it and speaking as a club member, is that every time something uncomfortable or problematic arises, a new law is suggested.

          As has been noted, I think, Colorado has had to replace a senator twice in 80 years, that’s really twice in 133 years of statehood.

          Next problem, please?  

          1. but let’s not forget – that things that are rare are still very important – heck, our past President was elected by a situation that was not rare, but a never-before situation of a Supreme Court ruling seating him as Prez.

            that should make us all take stock in every decision no matter how rare or small the decision seems to be.

            1. The Republicans got the ???? Amendment passed so that another FDR couldn’t come along and be president for 16 years.  If FDR hadn’t up an died on us, who knows?  Twenty?

              Well, that came back and bit them in the plutocratic ass when Saint Ronnie was in office. All of a sudden (and before conceding he had Alzheimer’s) it was really, really annoying that he was limited to two terms.

              Watch out what you ask for Wade, you might get it.  

                1. but are you high?

                  The durability of the Constitution has something to do with avoiding that level of micromanagement. If the Founders couldn’t foresee our current partisan environment, then why should we presume to guess how politicians will organize themselves generations from now? And why restrict the options of voters if your intention is to empower them?

                  Heck, why not throw in a requirement that replacement candidates live in the state for longer than five — do I hear, ten! — years?

                  1. however, if we were to do simple polling of public opinion, i tend to think, people would prefer elected officials, not appointed.

                    And, as I have said, because appointments are rare, most of us don’t even know about this non-democratic process.

                    The option to limit the voters to the party of the candidate who is leaving office, would only make it palatable to both parties, who don’t want the option of an election process that could potentially take away a seat, for instance a dem in a red state or a rep in a blue state.

                    The issue of requirements also needs to be examined, because as we have found out, a candidate running for office must submit numerous documents on their banking, investments, travel, writings, etc for public scrutiny. The appointment process skips this crucial vetting of a candidate, thus leaving voters like me to wonder, does my appointed official share the values of my party and/or does the appointee have any skeletons in their closet that will cause us to lose the seat in their first election?

                    And, y’all are right about Bennet’s time in the state, it is a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but we know that in a campaign, that will get brought up by the opponent.

          3. This reminds me a lot of when Dems were PO’d at the electoral college after 2000. I haven’t heard a peep about that now.

            It’s really short-sighted to modify the constitution whenever there’s a scenario we don’t particularly like because it affects a pol or party we like. The founders made constitutional amendments hard to do for a reason–Colorado is the perfect example of what can go wrong when you amend the constitution constantly.

            1. And yet getting rid of the electoral college is still a good idea that those with more interest in issues of constitutional reform certainly have not stopped talking about. Just as getting rid of the filibuster (not constitutional obviously) is still a good idea no matter who is in charge, but it is often mentioned by different people.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

81 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!