You will be missed.

8/26/2009 1:27:27 AM

link?

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 1:32 AM. Reason : rip ]

8/26/2009 1:31:37 AM

I saw the report on CNN, i'll look for a web link

8/26/2009 1:32:14 AM

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TedKennedy/story?id=6692022

^However, you had it up before I got the breaking news email.

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 1:36 AM. Reason : ^]

8/26/2009 1:35:14 AM

No surprise that Faux News is dragging their feet reporting this. I guess they are too busy lacing up their shoes to dance on his grave.

8/26/2009 1:35:59 AM

http://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/08/25/should-kennedy-resign/

fox is covering it...10 hours ago they wondered if he should resign

8/26/2009 1:37:15 AM

8/26/2009 1:39:48 AM

ding dong?

8/26/2009 1:53:20 AM

my GOD.Leave it to you people to start a fox fight in this thread.

btw, I guess it's a shame he fought so hard to overturn that appointment thingy back in the day

8/26/2009 1:54:44 AM

leave it to a female to exaggerate things...

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 1:59 AM. Reason : \/ dont be jealous i called your exaggeration out]

8/26/2009 1:56:20 AM

leave it to dnl to be retarded

8/26/2009 1:58:41 AM

Quote :

"No surprise that Faux News is dragging their feet reporting this."

that is some Grade A hooksawesque posting right there.


anyway, nihil nisi bonum and whatnot.

8/26/2009 2:01:18 AM

nvm

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 2:01 AM. Reason : nvfm]

8/26/2009 2:01:39 AM

the gov killed him just like they killed his 3 brothers a long time ago.

8/26/2009 2:42:47 AM

This thread will not end well. It will be just like the Jesse Helms thread....except its the other side this time.

8/26/2009 3:01:27 AM

Except that Edward Kennedy was never known as a public racist...

Whore killer, maybe.

8/26/2009 3:03:05 AM

Quote :

"whore killer"

8/26/2009 3:12:47 AM

RIP

8/26/2009 7:14:33 AM

God. Everybody is going to be talking about this today, all day. >.<

8/26/2009 7:33:14 AM

That's quite a legacy, politics aside, for the Kennedy brothers.

I hope people have the good taste to not muck and mire up this thread. RIP Teddy...

8/26/2009 8:16:34 AM

Ted you stuck to your beliefs and thats admirable I did not like what you stood for and you got to where you were because of your older brothers. Rest In Peace


Guess that makes John Kerry the Senior Senator from Mass now, so which Mass democrat will take his spot.

Quote :

"This thread will not end well. It will be just like the Jesse Helms thread....except its the other side this time."

No it won't be as bad because there aren't as many Republicans and conservatives on this site, the Liberals on here make sure of that.

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 8:23 AM. Reason : .]

8/26/2009 8:18:02 AM

RIP.

However, Im sure we will hear his last words were "pass the public option, for camelot."

8/26/2009 8:27:04 AM

^^

8/26/2009 8:28:21 AM

RIP

8/26/2009 8:29:18 AM

One year to the day after his speech atthe Democratic Convention.....


RIP Teddy.

8/26/2009 8:30:19 AM

Quote :

"there aren't as many Republicans and conservatives on this site, the Liberals on here make sure of that. "

LOL

8/26/2009 8:40:22 AM

Quote :

"whore killer"

8/26/2009 8:48:15 AM

Quote :

"No it won't be as bad because there aren't as many Republicans and conservatives on this site, the Liberals on here make sure of that."

Fairly certain, it's not the fact that Liberals make it uninviting and that you're somehow oppressed, but rather that it's a website populated by early to mid 20-somethings.

Also, this really hurts the State of the Union drinking game...

8/26/2009 9:07:37 AM

The Man was a murderer - I feel no sadness over this.

8/26/2009 9:10:01 AM

So long dickface, don't come back.

8/26/2009 9:18:54 AM

RIP Senator Kennedy. Love him or hate him, Massachusetts and the US Senate won't be the same without Ted. You have to respect the man for standing by his convictions.

On a tangent, I find it deliciously ironic that Massachusetts will now have to go with one less senator for 145 days. The governor can't appoint a temporary replacement; a new senator must be chosen in a special election. The governor used to hold that power, but back in 2004, with the possibility of John Kerry being swept away into the White House, Massachusetts Democrats didn't want a Republican governor (Mitt Romney) appointing a new senator so they changed the law. Kerry never made it to the White House, but now Massachusetts has shafted themselves. They tried to game the system for political purposes, and now its come back to bite them in the ass.

8/26/2009 9:26:15 AM

They're probably better off down one crazy liberal senator, to be honest.

8/26/2009 9:28:33 AM

Quote :

"No it won't be as bad because there aren't as many Republicans and conservatives on this site, the Liberals on here make sure of that."

eheh, typically, on here most (not all of course) republicans act in a much less inflammatory manner than most of the liberals on here. just what i've noticed the last 9 years or so (example hooksaw will say something radical and 10 liberals jump all over him)

8/26/2009 9:35:52 AM

Well it didn't take long for this thread to turn tasteless like Jesse Helms one. Is this tit for tat?

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 9:40 AM. Reason : gremmars]

8/26/2009 9:40:06 AM

RIP Mary Jo Kopechne

8/26/2009 9:49:20 AM

Quote :

"Well it didn't take long for this thread to turn tasteless like Jesse Helms one. Is this tit for tat?"

you must have never really read the helms one

8/26/2009 9:52:45 AM

Quote :

"so which Mass democrat will take his spot. "

Ironically, the Democratic legislature was running around this week trying to repeal a law they put in place during the 2004 election which requires a special election, instead of gubernatorial nomination. It was intended to prevent Governor Romney from naming a successor.


From a national politics perspective, this takes the Democratic Block from a theoretical 60 to 59. How this affects the health care debate will be interesting.

8/26/2009 10:01:28 AM

^ Actually...

Quote :

"That plea, which was widely perceived to be Kennedy's attempt to ensure his voice and vote would be there on health care if need be, fell on (largely) deaf ears among the Democratic-controlled legislature -- many of whom were loath to change state law at the behest of one person even if that one person was the most famous politician in the Bay State."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/the-death-of-sen-ted.html

8/26/2009 10:11:15 AM

From what I gather though on the news, many in the legislature are quietly regretting the decision back in 2004 as now Massachusetts has to potentially go with one less senator for six months during a very crucial congressional period.

8/26/2009 10:14:40 AM

^^ Interesting. If that is the case I have a bit more respect for the Massachusetts legislature now.

8/26/2009 10:16:30 AM

Quote :

"They're probably better off down one crazy liberal senator, to be honest."

i thought the same thing when Helms & Strom Thurmond died. fuck those crazy right wing moon bats

8/26/2009 10:16:57 AM

6^ By referencing the content of the Jesse Helms thread, its implied that I've read said thread. This is logic. If you want to indicate otherwise, maybe you should provide some kind of reasoning.

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 10:26 AM. Reason : counting]

8/26/2009 10:20:45 AM

message_topic.aspx?topic=533067

message_topic.aspx?topic=532521

message_topic.aspx?topic=532526

8/26/2009 10:22:30 AM

Quote :

"The Man was a murderer - I feel no sadness over this."

8/26/2009 11:58:43 AM

Quote :

"this takes the Democratic Block from a theoretical 60 to 59"

So question here...

There are 100 seats in the senate, right? Before last night it was split 60-40. Now it is 59-40. When votes are counted, will it be out of 99? Or still out of 100 with Kennedy's vote an automatic abstention (and therefor counting in favor of the majority anyway)?

Either way, it doesn't change any congressional voting. You're just talking about a 59.5% majority as opposed to 60% (and if Kennedy's vote becomes an abstention then it is still 60%). I don't know how it changes the ability to block a filibuster, but I don't think it will really matter.

8/26/2009 2:08:46 PM

And concerning any health-care reform, the Democrats may try reconciliation, which would mean they only need 51 votes.

8/26/2009 2:13:27 PM

Quote :

"Or still out of 100 with Kennedy's vote an automatic abstention (and therefor counting in favor of the majority anyway)?"

Kennedy, until now, was seated but absent. Therefore, on measures requiring a majority (or 2/3) of seated membership, it was out of 100, with Kennedy being an automatic abstention (which does not count toward the majority - in fact, in a seated vote, abstaining harms the affirmative). In issues of requiring a majority (or 2/3) of present members, Kennedy would automatically be excluded (i.e., 99 or less, since other Senators are frequently absent).

Now it will always be out of 99 until his replacement is seated.

8/26/2009 2:13:52 PM

^^or would they only need 50?

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 2:14 PM. Reason : .]

8/26/2009 2:14:33 PM

^ According to NPR (and the process itself), it's 51.

Quote :

"It's a legislative strategy that limits debate and requires 51 Senate votes for passage, rather than the 60 that most controversial legislation requires."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102280111

This would be a majority.

8/26/2009 2:19:47 PM

The month after the 40th anniversary of Chappaquiddick.

8/26/2009 3:34:19 PM