Close Kennedy Aide to Fill Late Senator’s Seat
EmailABC News' David Chalian and Rachel Martin Report:
Almost a month to the day after the death of Senator Edward Kennedy, Massachusetts is set to name his replacement. Democratic sources tell ABC News that Governor Deval Patrick (D-MA) will name former Kennedy staffer, Paul Kirk as the interim successor to the late Senator Kennedy. Patrick is expected to make the announcement at a press conference in Boston this morning.
Before his death, Senator Kennedy had written a letter to Gov. Patrick, asking him to push through a change in the state law that would allow him to appoint an interim successor who could start work immediately, instead of leaving the seat open until filled in a special election. In accordance with Kennedy's wishes, the Massachusetts legislature altered the succession law, paving the way for a special appointment.
Paul Kirk, 71, served on Edward Kennedy's staff for eight years and went on to chair the Democratic National Committee in the 1980s. Today he is a Boston-based attorney and the chairman of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation's board of directions. Kirk is reportedly the favorite pick of the immediate Kennedy family, including Kennedy's widow Victoria Reggie Kennedy – who was thought early on to be a lead contender to fill her husband's seat.
Kirk will hold the seat until a special election is held January 19th and as part of the appointment, he must refuse to run in that election. Kirk's appointment gives Congressional Democrats a filibuster-proof 60th vote that will help the party and President Obama push through key legislative priorities, like the increasingly controversial health care reform bill.
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012 
Not quite nepotism.
Posted by: Huh | September 24, 2009, 11:29 am 11:29 am
They had to declare an “emergency”. I guess losing the “supermajority” is an emergency to this administration. How about sending troops to Afghanistan and getting that war overwith? Oh, our troops and war do not constitute an “emergency”.
Posted by: lfrichar | September 24, 2009, 11:38 am 11:38 am
If this doesn’t represent the clearest abuse of partisan political power (3 times fast) then nothing does. Mass politics are exactly what is wrong with a 2 party system. This was done our of partisanship and there is no way to convince anyone otherwise. The ghost of Kennedy is alive and well in the Democratic party.
Posted by: lfrichar | September 24, 2009, 11:53 am 11:53 am
This time the dems didn’t even bother to manipulate the law. They totally disregarded the laws of Massachusetts which should offend the good people of that state regardless of party affilitation.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | September 24, 2009, 12:14 pm 12:14 pm
It is partisan politics. Republican gerrymandering drew a convoluted map of Texas. What this country needs is a parlimentary system of government and about 10-15 viable parties.
Posted by: Russell Allen | September 24, 2009, 12:14 pm 12:14 pm
I expected this behavior from the democrats. Typical. Change the rules for political leverage in one case, then change it for sheer partisan politics again. It’s the same with the unions. Demand a secret ballot in order to advance their political agenda and then demand a public ballot to intimidate and force people into the union for political leverage and power. It’s a common theme.
Posted by: TexBork009 | September 24, 2009, 12:16 pm 12:16 pm
Ok all of you folks in Massachsuetts…why is it NOT ok for Romney to have the power to appoint, yet its ok for the Dems to do as they please? Thank god I don’t live there…as a suggestion, why don’t you change the name of your state to Kennedy land? Be more fitting…
Posted by: angus | September 24, 2009, 12:25 pm 12:25 pm
I do not see where this is partisan politics. Ted Kennedy was elected to fill this Senate seat. He died while serving in his elected position. An election for a replacement will be held in January. This is a temporary appointment. The appointment should be a Democrat, because Kennedy was a Democrat. And yes, I am aware that the rules were changed. They should have been. Mitt Romney was the Governor in 2004 when John Kerry was running for President. Had Kerry won, Romney would have appointed a Republican. That would have been wrong, because the people had elected a Democrat to serve in that Senate seat. No Governor, be it a Democrat or a Republican, should be able to change the party of the person serving in a Senate seat through an appointment. That is partsian politics. If the election in January changes the party of the person occupying that seat, then that is fair and square. But to have an appointment change the party is not.
Posted by: savethemiddleclass | September 24, 2009, 12:29 pm 12:29 pm
dumbocracy in action.
Posted by: davidfrat21 | September 24, 2009, 12:40 pm 12:40 pm
Wow, Pass a law to keep a republican governor for appointing a republican replacement for Romney, and then go around it to put a Democratic person in the seat, and you don’t see the politics in that. I can see it and I live in Florida. Kennedy is dead, If he weren’t a kennedy he would not be in Politics after the Mary Joe thing.
Obama gets his way. Maybe when the democrats go to the bathroom they can crap out enough money to pay for all the plans they are trying to dump on us. by the way, the republicans are not stopping the healthcare thing from going through, that is because some of the democrats either have some morals, or they just want to get re-elected. Probably the latter.
As always, the dem’s don’t care about laws, rights or the constitution, they are only out for themselves and keeping their sorry asses in power. Power is the key word because they are not serving the people!
Posted by: mike florida | September 24, 2009, 12:44 pm 12:44 pm
savethemiddleclass; The Massachusetts law states that the post will be vacant until another election is held. What part of that is hard for you to understand?
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | September 24, 2009, 12:47 pm 12:47 pm
Massachusetts comes to the rescue! Thank you for saving the day and foiling the plans of those evil Republicans.
Posted by: Ed | September 24, 2009, 1:03 pm 1:03 pm
mmonroeliveson: There is nothing in what the previous law stated that is hard to me to understand. That law was put in place to prevent then Governor Romney from exercising partisan politics. The law was changed to enable the state to have two votes on important issues which would be coming to the Senate floor. I will not ask you what is hard about the change for you to understand, because I believe the question is discourteous and belitting. My parents taught me to be civil and respectful to others.
Posted by: savethemiddleclass | September 24, 2009, 1:10 pm 1:10 pm
Savethemiddleclass
Step away from the Kool-Aid. You must know your argument is intellectually dishonest. I understand the first step is to admit it to yourself.
Posted by: Kelly | September 24, 2009, 1:55 pm 1:55 pm
The question is how fast will the Dems change the law again when a Rep. becomes governor next?
Posted by: Mike_C | September 24, 2009, 4:08 pm 4:08 pm
I hope he can be as honest and loyal to the American people as our previous Senator, Kennedy!!!
Posted by: jack lord | September 25, 2009, 3:19 pm 3:19 pm