Redstate

....he hasn't resigned because he doesn't want to give Mitt Romney the opportunity to appoint a Republican to his seat.  Or something like that -- I could be wrong.

wouldn't Romney get the chance to name a replacement after he is elected?  Or is he planning on taking home both paychecks in  vain attempt to match his wife's income?

The Massachusetts legislature has ordained that the seat shall be filled by general election after a certain point -- presumably 2 November.  Hence the non-resignation.

Anyway, don't take my words for any of this....I'm not looking it up at the moment.  I just think the resignation call is a bit of a red herring.  Didn't GWB stay Texas Governor until he won in 2000?

Everybody knew exactly who would replace Bush, or Clinton, or Ridge for that matter.  The lieutenant governor exists, at least in theory, as an understudy and ready replacement.  They can also fill in for the governor on minor matters when he or she is off doing other things. Kerry doesn't have a "Lieutenant Senator" to cover his committees, or act as proxy.

Since I'm not a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it's largely academic to me, but if Santorum or Specter missed as much work as Kerry has in the last year, I'd be hopping mad.

Trevino, you are absolutely right.  But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't pester him about it.  I think it is a great issue on the "you know you are going to lose" front.

As noted above previously the GOP govenor Romney would have replaced Kerry in the event he resigned.  This could have justified Kerry keeping the seat.

However, during the summer the MA legislature changed the law so that a special election had to be held instead of letting Romney appoint a replacement.  Note the legislature overrode Romney's veto of this bill.  Many thought this paved the way for Kerry to resign while the Dems could hold the seat.  In fact there was speculation that Kerry would resign the senate seat at the DNC to give himself a boost.

But Kerry hasn't resigned.  My believe is that his overconfidence led him to think he didn't need to resign until he won.  The problem now is that, since he is trailing Bush, resignation would be seen as a desperation move instead of a principaled move.  And like Treverino I'd rather he didn't resign so the GOP could portray it as a lack of faith in his presidential run chances.

It should not be legal (with the exception of the President) to run for two offices at once. It is clear that Kerry has been shirking his duties in the Senate (for which he is paid handsomely) to run for President. Bob Dole resigned in 1996 because he said he couldn't fullfil his Senate responsibilities and run for President at the same time. He was derided by libs for it, but he had more class and dignity in his little finger than most liberals have in their entire bodies.

If GWB stayed on as Governor of Texas in 2000 (I don't know if he did or not) then I don't like that either. Run for the office you want; don't keep one as a fallback.

For those who don't live here, the Governor is more of a figure head. The lieutenant governor has probably more power than the governor, and the reason for doing this is historical in nature.



But regardless, IIRC, when Bush ran, the lieutenant took over his duties. I'd have to go back and refresh my memory on the timeline of who did what when, but the office was not left unmanned.

I recall some discussion of a rather obsure federal law that requires that the pay of Senators be 'docked' for each day they are not present while the Senate is in session. Someone filed suit under this provision to force the Senate to withhold Kerry's pay but I haven't heard much about it lately.

I'm not a Texan but I've heard that this is true.  Thus, it appears that Bush was even less prepared to be president than everyone thought in 2000 (and has demonstrated the consequences of this lack of experience ever since).

Sorry, I'm still bitter that my man McCain got shafted.

By the way, there's only one governor of a state but 100 senators, so the consequences of absence for a senator are far less (or should be, unless the office is a sham, as you are almost suggesting is the case in Texas).  Negligence is negligence, but people should be consistent.  So, if you didn't think Bush should have resigned during the 2000 campaign, it's disingenous to think Kerry should.

....it's a ridiculous interpretation of the Governor's role there.

I had said "more of a figurehead" which may be a little overstated. Kap took that to mean "nothing but a figurehead" which is obviously both wrong and an inaccurate quote of me. In any case, semantics aside, I found a couple of old links to what happened back when Bush was running in 2000.



First, Perry filled in while Bush was out of state. Second, the line of succession was that Perry would move up to governor and the Lieutenant Governor position would be then be filled. So there was no issue of vacating seats, appointees, and/or special elections. The bottom line is that duties were not neglected when he ran.



Note that both articles mention that some believe the Lieutenant Governor to be a more powerful position. That statement is what I was trying to say in the first place. But that is a far cry from saying the Governor is "nothing but a figurehead."

Actually, those of us in the GOP in Massachusetts (and there are a few) think that the less time he spends in Washington, the better.  Of course, he wasn't doing much anyway.  But he did do some damage to the country and state.  (See:  Votes, U.S. Senate, Defense Appropiation, J. Kerry.)

Now, if we could just get Ted "Leave the Bottle" Kennedy to run for President one more time....