February 04, 2010
— Slublog MA Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin seems to believe that having the power to sign a piece of paper signifying the will of the voters gives him the right to lecture the man they just elected.
Galvin expressed concern about the 41st vote Brown has come to represent. His upset election last month ended the Democrats’ super majority in the Senate.In the words of DrewM, writing on Twitter, he's more worried about what's good for the Democrats than what the people of his state were trying to say with their election of Scott Brown. Galvin's statement represents the sort of sneering elitism on the part of Democrats that helped propel Brown's candidacy.“I think much of what we’ve seen in this whole discussion is about the 41st vote. Last time I checked the Constitution, it didn’t say anything about needing 60 votes for every single thing that needs to be done. I think that contributes to gridlock,” Galvin said. “This is about a process where the majority rules. Hopefully he will respect the rights of the majority.”
Galvin was elected secretary in 1994. While certifying Ted Kennedy's 2006 election win, I don't remember Galvin lecturing Kennedy about the rights of the majority, even though Kennedy had threatened to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee.
Scott Brown ran with a clear message that can be summarized as 'if you want the insanity in Washington to stop, vote for me.' And they did. What Galvin either doesn't realize, or willfully ignores, is that Mass voters want Brown to stop the majority because they didn't like what the majority was doing. Judging from the comments at that article, Galvin's inability to keep his opinion to himself has only fueled the anti-incumbent fire in Massachusetts. The independents and Republicans got a taste of victory last month, and it's clear they want more.
Related - I'll ask this question Howie Carr-style: why the bleep is Paul Kirk still voting in the Senate? Brown's certification was signed this morning. Kirk voted to confirm an Obama nominee just after noon. Precedent and history seem to indicate that he can't do that. Aren't any Senate Republicans going to make noise about this?
Posted by: Slublog at
09:57 AM
| Comments (80)
Post contains 373 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: William Galvin at February 04, 2010 10:00 AM (U0oFg)
Last time I checked the Constitution, it didn’t say anything about needing 60 votes for every single thing that needs to be done. I think that contributes to gridlock,” Galvin said. “This is about a process where the majority rules. Hopefully he will respect the rights of the majority.”
Galvin has shit-for-brains. He knows nothing about the Constitution, which was written to curb the power of government and to protect the minority from the majority!
Posted by: This is Randolph Mantooth at February 04, 2010 10:01 AM (jVldi)
Another useless hack, he could have hid forever NOW you are GONE in November.
Posted by: mongerel at February 04, 2010 10:01 AM (ZszgD)
Posted by: ECM at February 04, 2010 10:03 AM (nYKDd)
Posted by: George Orwell at February 04, 2010 10:04 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: The Rock at February 04, 2010 10:04 AM (Sghlv)
Posted by: George Orwell at February 04, 2010 10:07 AM (AZGON)
Last time I checked the Constitution, it didnÂ’t say anything about needing 60 votes for every single thing that needs to be done.
I believe the Constitution says the Senate can set its own rules. So, um, fail, there, Bill.
Posted by: Farmer Joe at February 04, 2010 10:07 AM (z4es9)
See?
Do you all finally see what the Democrats are all about? The Democrats are not happy with super-majorities. They're just like the Palestinians: they have no interest in coexisting with their political opponents; they want them wiped out.
Democrats hate you and everything you stand for. And they want to either convert you or obliterate you.
Posted by: This is Randolph Mantooth at February 04, 2010 10:07 AM (jVldi)
I'm pretty sure the 60-vote requirement wasn't a typo.
Posted by: Michael at February 04, 2010 10:08 AM (FC2+c)
Posted by: Just a Cynic.... at February 04, 2010 10:08 AM (v4UYp)
Don't expect to bring your tired old shit to November and keep your job.
This ain't your Dorm Room Marxism 101 pillow fight.
We are serious about saving the country from your experiments.
Posted by: sifty at February 04, 2010 10:09 AM (N3/wa)
Posted by: Holger at February 04, 2010 10:09 AM (8NGHm)
Perhaps Mr Galvin you could point us to where the Constitution says the federal government can mandate that you purchase government approved health insurance?
Posted by: 18-1 at February 04, 2010 10:09 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: George Orwell at February 04, 2010 10:10 AM (AZGON)
They know a statement was made. They're trying to convince US that it wasn't.
Posted by: Farmer Joe at February 04, 2010 10:10 AM (z4es9)
The Democrats trotted out the same bullshit when Gore got more (popular) votes than George Bush but lost the electoral college vote.
When the Democrats lose, they want to change the rules.
Posted by: This is Randolph Mantooth at February 04, 2010 10:10 AM (jVldi)
3
Last time I checked the Constitution, ...
Galvin has shit-for-brains. He knows nothing about the Constitution, which was written to curb the power of government and to protect the minority from the majority!
=======================
You sound like one of those fucking retards I keep hearing so much about.
Posted by: William Galvin at February 04, 2010 10:10 AM (U0oFg)
Posted by: This is Randolph Mantooth at February 04, 2010 02:07 PM (jVldi)
Good analogy.
Posted by: mongerel at February 04, 2010 10:10 AM (ZszgD)
Posted by: John Mason at February 04, 2010 10:12 AM (4Kl5M)
Posted by: GarandFan at February 04, 2010 10:13 AM (ZQBnQ)
Posted by: George Orwell at February 04, 2010 10:14 AM (AZGON)
Oh, and another point. The Democrat platform in 08 had three points:
1) Cutting taxes for 95% of Americans
2) Reducing the deficit
3) Ending the WoT without explicitly losing
The Democrats now want to raise taxes for pretty much everyone. They have sextupled the Bush/Republican deficits. Their WoT policy seems to be best described as "whatevah!"
So the Democrats ran on a lie. And people actually noticed this time. And they want the Democrats stopped. Even in true blue MA...
Posted by: 18-1 at February 04, 2010 10:14 AM (7BU4a)
The pot ( instead of calling the kettle black ) calls the clear winner his bitch
Posted by: SantaRosaStan at February 04, 2010 10:15 AM (JrRME)
Posted by: George Orwell at February 04, 2010 10:15 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Martha Coakley at February 04, 2010 10:17 AM (7BU4a)
So let it be written, so let it be done.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at February 04, 2010 10:17 AM (Jdtsu)
Bill Galvin, Secretary of State for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Constifuckingtutional scholar.
Posted by: This is Randolph Mantooth at February 04, 2010 10:17 AM (jVldi)
Posted by: George Orwell at February 04, 2010 10:18 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: fluffy hates the tricksy democratses! at February 04, 2010 10:19 AM (4Kl5M)
gives him the right to lecture the man they just elected.
Of course I have the right you dirty peasants. Just wait until I start taxing your precious tea.
Posted by: Lord Willian Galvin at February 04, 2010 10:19 AM (7BU4a)
Gridlock is good. Everytime that congress passes a law, someone loses a liberty.
Posted by: Max Entropy at February 04, 2010 10:20 AM (uuZjB)
Posted by: The Chicken at February 04, 2010 02:14 PM (N3/wa)
You want a day off? Honey, warm up the frying pan.
Posted by: wrg at February 04, 2010 10:21 AM (7t+Ws)
Posted by: FireHorse at February 04, 2010 10:21 AM (cQyWA)
Gridlock is good. Everytime that congress passes a law, someone loses a liberty.
Posted by: Max Entropy at February 04, 2010 02:20 PM (uuZjB)
The business is tyranny...and business is good...
Well it was, until you damn voters started noticing
Posted by: San Fran Nan at February 04, 2010 10:21 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: PJ at February 04, 2010 10:21 AM (FG8qn)
Posted by: George Orwell at February 04, 2010 10:22 AM (AZGON)
"I'll certify this anomalous election result, but make sure you know your place among your betters."
Posted by: krakatoa at February 04, 2010 10:23 AM (hQbvm)
Posted by: fluffy is no Aristotle at February 04, 2010 10:24 AM (4Kl5M)
Like electing a senator for Massachussetts...
Posted by: Editor at February 04, 2010 10:24 AM (tyJ6Q)
What does Rush always say? He says the Democrats act as if they have a right to the majority control of government.
Posted by: This is Randolph Mantooth at February 04, 2010 10:27 AM (jVldi)
Posted by: George Orwell at February 04, 2010 10:30 AM (AZGON)
Scott, Welcome! now KICK SOME ASS!
Posted by: MelodicMetal in MA at February 04, 2010 10:31 AM (x4S2a)
I am the sole independent in my crowd. They are all dems/libs. They hat the fact that I am an independent. They went so far as to tell me during the election that I would "miss out on the perks of having voted and contributed to BO, when he wins". I would respond, "that isn't how the presidency works, there aren't going to be any perks, presidents represent all the people" and they would give me the elitist snear and say "we'll see now, won't we". Now, those same "in your face 24/7 people are suddenly quiet and "don't want to ruin the evening discussing politics". Feel we should follow the presidents lead and go out side, smell the roses and breathe the fresh air and "give politics a rest". Today they emailed and said that there is a call with the president today. Is there anyone know? but not with the same fervor and excitement as before. Apaprently, the never ending campaign has been asking them for money in the form of small contributions and this has never stopped and they have been asked to make phone calls, talk to their friends, host watching parties and send emails, still, and they are I think growing weary of the "constant BO campaign". Funny I keep pointing out to them that the guy is saying two things at once, go out and smell the roses, forget politics but don't forget to campaign for me for the next term. They have taken to shrugging their shoulders and rolling their eyes. They are beginning to agree with me that "all politicians are the same". Guess that allows them to not feel so stupid and to "save face". Since I'm not an "I told you so" type, they are safe with me but some have faced angry co workers and friends on company sports teams who are "I told you so" types and they aren't liking the experience. the talking points of how to deal with "those people" haven't been sent out yet. So I'm thinking if there is a conference call with the pres tonight that it is happening while the independents, republicans and independents are out there ignoring the news, not boiling everything down to politics and smelling those "roses". which for most of the country is an approaching storm.
Posted by: curious at February 04, 2010 10:34 AM (p302b)
To Big Putz Galvin: You worry about the "majority" in D.C.
Well more than the majority of voters in your state said stick Brown in.
More than the majority of voters in the USA think Obamacare is about as welcome as a diagnosis of terminal fiscal cancer.
What majority you talkin' about boy? A majority of liberal douchebags in Boston?
Posted by: Corncob Supporter at February 04, 2010 10:34 AM (ktYjH)
Not unless it would actually change an outcome. Nothing says that the Senate cannot do business while they seat a Senator. So the best they could hope for is changing his vote to a not present. Which unless it actually changes something, just makes you look like a jerk.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at February 04, 2010 10:36 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: curious at February 04, 2010 10:39 AM (p302b)
His vote did change something. Just before that, he was the 60th vote to invoke cloture on her nomination. Not sure why the GOP is letting that happen.
Posted by: Slublog at February 04, 2010 10:40 AM (qjKko)
Not sure why the GOP is letting that happen.
Yes, golly gee, hmmm, this is a real mystery, Nancy Drew.
Could it be because they're stupid pussies?
Posted by: This is Randolph Mantooth at February 04, 2010 10:43 AM (jVldi)
Posted by: George Orwell at February 04, 2010 10:44 AM (AZGON)
Ah, yes. No further explanation needed.
Posted by: Slublog at February 04, 2010 10:46 AM (qjKko)
Well, I would but I'm at a cocktail party right now.
Posted by: Senate Republican at February 04, 2010 10:48 AM (8/DeP)
Of course, one would think Brown's victory and the rapid decline of the Democrats would embolden them. As much as I'd like to have the GOP back in the majority, I'm not entirely thrilled with our choices for a Majority Leader.
Posted by: Slublog at February 04, 2010 10:48 AM (qjKko)
Posted by: George Orwell at February 04, 2010 10:51 AM (AZGON)
The progressive squealing will rise to a feverish pitch late summer. The lies will get more outrageous in hopes convincing the ignorant, we will prevail. Like the dems did, the gop must run a road block on nominees and legislation, tea partiers demand it.
Posted by: Mike Bowler at February 04, 2010 10:53 AM (1wt6f)
Posted by: Demonsheep at February 04, 2010 10:53 AM (DIYmd)
Posted by: RickS at February 04, 2010 10:58 AM (hKB1N)
Posted by: soulpile at February 04, 2010 11:00 AM (afWhQ)
Yes, the people of Massachusett[e]s voted for a republican for the 41st seat because they wanted to show support for a rubber-stamp for anything the Democrats want to do... that's why they broke the 60 vote majority.
In other news from crazy town, your local water pipes are full of ants, crawling all over you. Also, darting your eyes around wildly will keep the aliens from sucking your brain out your retinas.
Posted by: Gekkobear at February 04, 2010 11:31 AM (X0NX1)
Fuck no. They're Senators first. The are Of The Body.
Plus, there are personal deals they want made. Gettin' rolled is how they get them. Watch that budget.
Posted by: oblig. at February 04, 2010 11:36 AM (F6Q7U)
55 Loved your post.
So will you wake up tomorrow morning and suddenly feel like shouting:
I TOLD YOU! to those illiterate mindless drones? I sure hope so.
And to the Galvin apparatchik: It's not the majority's seat, it's the people's seat. Bitch.
Posted by: kallisto at February 04, 2010 12:02 PM (+FkcS)
Posted by: docj at February 04, 2010 12:26 PM (dt6br)
Posted by: PJ at February 04, 2010 12:40 PM (pizFh)
Probably not. Go-along-to-get-along, remember?
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at February 04, 2010 12:52 PM (8PFPH)
Posted by: curious at February 04, 2010 02:13 PM (p302b)
Posted by: Ken Pittman WBSM at February 04, 2010 07:27 PM (ihb3s)
Posted by: Yehudit at February 04, 2010 09:52 PM (DzbKN)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2559 seconds, 208 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: dagny at February 04, 2010 10:00 AM (l9p7n)