That's a pretty stupid idea...just about what I would expect from a Republican...or a Democrat.

Not every battle has to be fought. Some people understand this. Most don't.

I'm a liberal. Tragedies are tragedies.

Generally speaking, why should an aide take over in the event of the untimely removal of a politician?

I understand the sentiment that the voters put a D or an R in power to do X, and when that person gets taken out of the picture it could be argued that the voters are somehow disenfranchised when that person is replaced by the opposite views.

On the other hand, if popular views have shifted since the original election such that the opposing side now more accurately reflects the views of their constituency, are not the voters being better represented by a new election?

May I just say that if you use the word "anointed" in scare quotes, (or anywhere) well, you're automatically an jackass deserving of derision?

That said, we are talking about a couple of months here, and there is an argument for skipping all the trouble and letting someone who will vote the way gabby did carry out her work.

Sneaky bastard. He gets the GOP candidates to not waste their money on a special election, and he looks like the bigger man for letting Gabby's choice finish out her term. Very sneaky...

He's showing a modicum of class...RINO!

/you heard it here first, folks.

Serious Black: Sneaky bastard. He gets the GOP candidates to not waste their money on a special election, and he looks like the bigger man for letting Gabby's choice finish out her term. Very sneaky...

Clearly he is histories greatest monster.

/I assume you'd be praising him if he had opposed this?

CapnBlues: it's kinda cute when isolated and naive republicans think that their party can, for even a brief time, be generous, empathetic, and decent.

Awesome.

Republicans play typical politics: what a prick.
Republicans do something decent: what a naive prick.

Sounds like a GOPer trying to entice La Raza for his own campaign race. Anyone familiar w Tucson knows it is a La Raza (The Race) stronghold....they even got the schools there to teach Aztlan and Reconquista (La Raza studies)

Smackledorfer: I'm a liberal. Tragedies are tragedies.

Generally speaking, why should an aide take over in the event of the untimely removal of a politician?

I understand the sentiment that the voters put a D or an R in power to do X, and when that person gets taken out of the picture it could be argued that the voters are somehow disenfranchised when that person is replaced by the opposite views.

On the other hand, if popular views have shifted since the original election such that the opposing side now more accurately reflects the views of their constituency, are not the voters being better represented by a new election?

You sound ___________. (conderned/racist/sexist) Might as well pick one now.

UCFRoadWarrior: Paranoid racist delusions

Look how pathetic you are.

watson.t.hamster: Serious Black: Sneaky bastard. He gets the GOP candidates to not waste their money on a special election, and he looks like the bigger man for letting Gabby's choice finish out her term. Very sneaky...

Clearly he is histories greatest monster.

/I assume you'd be praising him if he had opposed this?

Man, it's easy to rope in trolls! Anybody want to buy a troll? Ten bucks! Any takers?

CapnBlues: watson.t.hamster: CapnBlues: it's kinda cute when isolated and naive republicans think that their party can, for even a brief time, be generous, empathetic, and decent.

Awesome.

Republicans play typical politics: what a prick.
Republicans do something decent: what a naive prick.

There is one party that is calling for child labor laws to be relaxed, taxes raised on the poor while lowered on the rich, letting uninsured people die, and to start yet another war, this time in Iran.

You're damn right they're pricks no matter what they do.


Awesome.

Serious Black: watson.t.hamster: Serious Black: Sneaky bastard. He gets the GOP candidates to not waste their money on a special election, and he looks like the bigger man for letting Gabby's choice finish out her term. Very sneaky...

Clearly he is histories greatest monster.

/I assume you'd be praising him if he had opposed this?

Man, it's easy to rope in trolls! Anybody want to buy a troll? Ten bucks! Any takers?

So . . . you wouldn't be praising him if he had done the opposite of what you were condemning him for?

/I wonder what percentage of "troll" accusations are made by people simply too lazy to come up with a response. Not 100%, but close.

20 responses and no one has yet to remark: "I'd fill her seat!"

Fark is all growed up.

He's just afraid of Colonel Martha McSally's A-10

Smackledorfer: I'm a liberal. Tragedies are tragedies.

Generally speaking, why should an aide take over in the event of the untimely removal of a politician?

I understand the sentiment that the voters put a D or an R in power to do X, and when that person gets taken out of the picture it could be argued that the voters are somehow disenfranchised when that person is replaced by the opposite views.

On the other hand, if popular views have shifted since the original election such that the opposing side now more accurately reflects the views of their constituency, are not the voters being better represented by a new election?

By your reasoning, any time an elected official becomes unpopular we should just have a special election and remove them from power. That would be fabulous, if by "fabulous" I mean "the dumbest farking thing imaginable."

got it.
so now having elections and vetting candidates and their ideas is bad.

metztli: Smackledorfer: I'm a liberal. Tragedies are tragedies.

Generally speaking, why should an aide take over in the event of the untimely removal of a politician?

I understand the sentiment that the voters put a D or an R in power to do X, and when that person gets taken out of the picture it could be argued that the voters are somehow disenfranchised when that person is replaced by the opposite views.

On the other hand, if popular views have shifted since the original election such that the opposing side now more accurately reflects the views of their constituency, are not the voters being better represented by a new election?

By your reasoning, any time an elected official becomes unpopular we should just have a special election and remove them from power.

you do know that Giffords isn't leaving because she is unpopular, right? In fact, she is probably more popular and well known that before the shooting.
She determined she wants to leave.
So of course there should be an election.

metztli: Smackledorfer: I'm a liberal. Tragedies are tragedies.

Generally speaking, why should an aide take over in the event of the untimely removal of a politician?

I understand the sentiment that the voters put a D or an R in power to do X, and when that person gets taken out of the picture it could be argued that the voters are somehow disenfranchised when that person is replaced by the opposite views.

On the other hand, if popular views have shifted since the original election such that the opposing side now more accurately reflects the views of their constituency, are not the voters being better represented by a new election?

By your reasoning, any time an elected official becomes unpopular we should just have a special election and remove them from power. That would be fabulous, if by "fabulous" I mean "the dumbest farking thing imaginable."

That would only be my reasoning if you completely lack reading comprehension. I could be equally dishonest/retarded and say that by your reasoning if a congressman dies 1 day into their term we should just have some friend of theirs take over for the entire term, and that would be equally silly. Well, at least I ASSUME you aren't suggesting that be the new rule for all deaths of appointed officials.

The rule in this case is: someone steps down, we elect a new person. The level of tragedy behind why leave office shouldn't determine the rule of how we replace them, should it?
The time until the next normal election could certainly be used as a valid reason to determine the replacement, and by all means suggest a new ruleset to account for that; or, if all the players in the game choose to play by a new rule on the fly, that is fine too. But you can only get so pissed off that some people who don't benefit from that change choose not to go along with it.

Electoral results via sympathy?

Bad precedent, no matter who the candidate or party is.

Giffords husband should run for the seat, now that he's retired. There's precedent for a spouse taking over with good results

Knara: Electoral results via sympathy?

Bad precedent, no matter who the candidate or party is.

It's far from 'precedent'. It's routine. An aide will run, or the chief of staff will run, or the spouse will run, or the next of kin will run, or someone connected to whoever was in the seat. They usually win.

They win the one time. After that they're on their own.

Actually, most of the time they don't merely win. Most of the time the field is swept clean for them. Any opposition feels that it's not really worth contesting it. They push too hard against the successor so soon after whatever it is that happened, they're afraid of looking like vultures. That's just the general thought process. Nobody wants to be the guy that goes 'if she's dead, I call dibs on her parking space!'

Whether Giffords left under her own power or not and actively decided to step down is irrelevant. The circumstances under which she left are sufficient for the aide to qualify as a sympathy candidate.

And besides, the district won't even exist at the end of the year. You've got five Republicans wailing on this guy for stepping aside in a special election for a lame-duck seat he'll be sitting in while Congress is off campaigning in a Presidential election year when there's a regular election for a new seat in November. And the seat won't make any difference in the numbers anyway even if the GOP picks it up. It is seriously not worth it to risk the 'vulture' label.

Knara: Electoral results via sympathy?

Bad precedent, no matter who the candidate or party is.

HUH? It makes sense.. There's not much of the term left.. Let the substitute dude continue whatever their team was doing without disruption and not waste resources on both sides.

I'm in a pretty good mood, so I'm just going to ignore any ulterior motive he might have and commend him for showing some class.

Smackledorfer: I'm a liberal. Tragedies are tragedies.

Generally speaking, why should an aide take over in the event of the untimely removal of a politician?

I understand the sentiment that the voters put a D or an R in power to do X, and when that person gets taken out of the picture it could be argued that the voters are somehow disenfranchised when that person is replaced by the opposite views.

On the other hand, if popular views have shifted since the original election such that the opposing side now more accurately reflects the views of their constituency, are not the voters being better represented by a new election?

Why should republicans gain political advantage all through a violent act that killed people?

OtherLittleGuy: watson.t.hamster: CapnBlues: it's kinda cute when isolated and naive republicans think that their party can, for even a brief time, be generous, empathetic, and decent.

Awesome.

Republicans play typical politics: what a prick.
Republicans do something decent: what a naive prick.

Republicans waged a four-year war to keep a bunch of racists rednecks in the country, and we're still paying for that.

Huh?

DrBenway: You're damn right they're pricks no matter what they do.


Awesome.

Own it, Gerbils.

Own what? The claim by some guy on the internet that "no matter what they do" the republicans are always wrong?

K. I have no doubt that to him that is 100% correct. Factually speaking though that claim fails to stand up to any test.

Corvus: Smackledorfer: I'm a liberal. Tragedies are tragedies.

Generally speaking, why should an aide take over in the event of the untimely removal of a politician?

I understand the sentiment that the voters put a D or an R in power to do X, and when that person gets taken out of the picture it could be argued that the voters are somehow disenfranchised when that person is replaced by the opposite views.

On the other hand, if popular views have shifted since the original election such that the opposing side now more accurately reflects the views of their constituency, are not the voters being better represented by a new election?

Why should republicans gain political advantage all through a violent act that killed people?

So if I take out everyone in the succession line to the potus, then we do what? Make up a rule where the presidents buddy gets it?

Or what if the third in line is a member of the opposing party? Why should that guy benefit.

We can play this game all day. I just don't see the outrage on this one.

Corvus: Smackledorfer: I'm a liberal. Tragedies are tragedies.

Generally speaking, why should an aide take over in the event of the untimely removal of a politician?

I understand the sentiment that the voters put a D or an R in power to do X, and when that person gets taken out of the picture it could be argued that the voters are somehow disenfranchised when that person is replaced by the opposite views.

On the other hand, if popular views have shifted since the original election such that the opposing side now more accurately reflects the views of their constituency, are not the voters being better represented by a new election?

Why should republicans gain political advantage all through a violent act that killed people?

Stupid democracy, how does it work?


It would be so much better if the person leaving office just appointed someone to replace them and we took the voters out of the equation.

/the reason she's leaving is irrelevant. People voted for her, not her proxy. If she can not serve her term for whatever reason then the solution is another election to let the people directly choose a replacement.

Smackledorfer: metztli: Smackledorfer: I'm a liberal. Tragedies are tragedies.

Generally speaking, why should an aide take over in the event of the untimely removal of a politician?

I understand the sentiment that the voters put a D or an R in power to do X, and when that person gets taken out of the picture it could be argued that the voters are somehow disenfranchised when that person is replaced by the opposite views.

On the other hand, if popular views have shifted since the original election such that the opposing side now more accurately reflects the views of their constituency, are not the voters being better represented by a new election?

By your reasoning, any time an elected official becomes unpopular we should just have a special election and remove them from power. That would be fabulous, if by "fabulous" I mean "the dumbest farking thing imaginable."

That would only be my reasoning if you completely lack reading comprehension. I could be equally dishonest/retarded and say that by your reasoning if a congressman dies 1 day into their term we should just have some friend of theirs take over for the entire term, and that would be equally silly. Well, at least I ASSUME you aren't suggesting that be the new rule for all deaths of appointed officials.

The rule in this case is: someone steps down, we elect a new person. The level of tragedy behind why leave office shouldn't determine the rule of how we replace them, should it?
The time until the next normal election could certainly be used as a valid reason to determine the replacement, and by all means suggest a new ruleset to account for that; or, if all the players in the game choose to play by a new rule on the fly, that is fine too. But you can only get so pissed off that some people who don't benefit from that change choose not to go along with it.

Yes, what I was saying was incredibly farking stupid was your "on the other hand" thing. Whether or not popular views have changed is irrelevant; by suggesting that they are remotely relevant here you are opening the door for people to essentially try to throw out election results after the fact if they can some how make a compelling argument that "popular views" have changed and that the constituency is not being properly represented. That's a really mushy topic and all it would lead to would be huge moneyed interests buying recall elections, which is incredibly farking dumb.

tl:dr: I agree that the law in this case is what should be followed. I disagree that "on the other hand, popular views should be considered" is relevant.

OtherLittleGuy: watson.t.hamster: OtherLittleGuy: watson.t.hamster: CapnBlues: it's kinda cute when isolated and naive republicans think that their party can, for even a brief time, be generous, empathetic, and decent.

Awesome.

Republicans play typical politics: what a prick.
Republicans do something decent: what a naive prick.

Republicans waged a four-year war to keep a bunch of racists rednecks in the country, and we're still paying for that.

Huh?



That's a joke, son, you missed -- I said -- you missed it.

I don't doubt you intended it that way but it kinda failed.