PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Push Grows for Fast Choice on a Successor to Kennedy


jAZ
08-26-2009, 10:43 PM
There is no denying that this is a purely partisan move, but I actually think it's the better policy overall. But it's still partisan doing it this way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/us/politics/27succeed.html?_r=1&hp

August 27, 2009
Push Grows for Fast Choice on a Successor to Kennedy
By ABBY GOODNOUGH

BOSTON — The push for swiftly naming an interim successor to Senator Edward M. Kennedy intensified Wednesday in the wake of his death, with Gov. Deval Patrick coming out strongly in favor of the idea and other top state lawmakers indicating they were reluctant to leave the seat vacant for months.

Mr. Kennedy, concerned about the loss of a Democratic vote during the fevered effort to pass a national health care overhaul — his most cherished legislative goal — had asked state leaders in a letter last week to make such a change possible.

Wednesday, Democrats in Washington stepped up pressure on the governor to see Mr. Kennedy’s wish fulfilled, and state legislative leaders said they would immerse themselves in the issue after a mourning period for Mr. Kennedy.

Under current law, a special election could not take place until at least 145 days after a Senate seat opens, in this case, mid-January. Mr. Kennedy’s proposal would let Mr. Patrick, a Democrat, appoint a temporary replacement sooner.

The governor said he would sign a change in the law if the legislature approved it. He said it was important for Massachusetts to have two voices in the Senate as Congress prepares to vote on overhauling the health care system — contentious legislation whose passage may well require every Democratic vote.

“It’s a particularly timely request at a time when there are such profoundly important issues pending in the Congress,” Mr. Patrick told reporters outside the State House, adding that he had spoken with Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, earlier in the day about the importance of filling Mr. Kennedy’s seat. “I’m looking at the issues that are in front of the country right now and how important they are to all of us.”

Republicans have attacked Mr. Kennedy’s proposal as flagrantly partisan, and indeed, the state’s Democrats are in the awkward position of being asked to reverse their own 2004 vote to keep vacant Senate seats empty until a special election.

Until that year, Massachusetts law had called for the governor to appoint a temporary replacement if a Senate seat became vacant. But when Senator John Kerry, a Democrat, was running for president in 2004, the Democratically-controlled State Legislature wanted to deny the Republican governor at the time, Mitt Romney, the power to name a successor if Mr. Kerry won. The resulting law requires a special election 145 to 160 days after the vacancy occurs.

kcfanXIII
08-26-2009, 10:58 PM
Under current law, a special election could not take place until at least 145 days after a Senate seat opens, in this case, mid-January. Mr. Kennedy’s proposal would let Mr. Patrick, a Democrat, appoint a temporary replacement sooner.



i'm pretty sure this is the way ted wanted it a few years ago isn't it? and really should be the end of the discussion.

2bikemike
08-26-2009, 11:05 PM
i'm pretty sure this is the way ted wanted it a few years ago isn't it? and really should be the end of the discussion.

Exactly But that won't stop them from pushing forward. Because you know this is different. Its more important now. :rolleyes:

orange
08-26-2009, 11:08 PM
Exactly But that won't stop them from pushing forward. Because you know this is different. Its more important now. :rolleyes:

Yes, it IS different... isn't it? Who exactly did they elect to replace Kerry? You, know, back when the law was first used.

jAZ
08-26-2009, 11:09 PM
i'm pretty sure this is the way ted wanted it a few years ago isn't it? and really should be the end of the discussion.

I don't think his opinion matters a bit one way or the other.

But if his opinion matters to you, then you'd have to go with his last stated opinion from just last week.

jAZ
08-26-2009, 11:14 PM
Exactly But that won't stop them from pushing forward. Because you know this is different. Its more important now. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure people understand the details here.

In early 2004 the Gov named a replacement until the next election (up to 2 years, I beleive). The change was made for political reasons, but created a 5 month absence before a special election is held.

I think this approach (team appointment + special election) makes perfect sense. If it's done in a non-political way, I think most would be ok with the plan.

Can't seperate the politics at this point. It's 100% political.

orange
08-26-2009, 11:21 PM
Back in 2004, the Republicans argued for adding a temporary appointment before the special election - just like this new measure being considered.

I don't know why it went down to ignominious defeat.

I'm sure the story will be reprised in the coming days - probably by the Boston Globe.

jAZ
08-26-2009, 11:39 PM
Back in 2004, the Republicans argued for adding a temporary appointment before the special election - just like this new measure being considered.

I don't know why it went down to ignominious defeat.

I'm sure the story will be reprised in the coming days - probably by the Boston Globe.

At the time they were angling for their own (Romney) gain, in response to the Dems angling for their own (election of Dem) gain.

Sounds like 100% politics.

Doesn't make their proposal bad. Does make their opposition just as political as the MA Dems support though, I guess.

orange
08-27-2009, 12:05 AM
After Kerry, The Deluge
July 16, 2004

Massachusetts Democrats sure would love for one of their own to move into the White House next January -- but they don't want to lose a seat in the closely divided U.S. Senate to a Republican for the first time in a quarter-century as a result. That may well happen, however, if Kerry is elected president this November.

Back in early March, when it became clear that Kerry would win the Democratic nomination, state Representative William Straus and state Senator Brian Joyce, Democrats both, filed legislation that would strip Republican Governor Mitt Romney of his power to fill the Senate seat Kerry would vacate if victorious in November. The new legislation called for a special election to be held within a few months of a Kerry victory.

Romney and Republicans complained that the bill would destabilize the constitutional balance (and Lord knows what else). Democrats blamed Republicans for attempting to stifle the will of the people; more than two-thirds of Massachusetts residents polled by the Boston Herald said they'd rather pick a new senator than have the governor appoint one on their behalf. Republicans accused Democrats of exploiting their majority status to smother Massachusetts' already asthmatic GOP.

The bill passed in early July, but instead of vetoing it (Democrats would have been able to override his veto anyway), Romney sent it back to the Legislature with a compromise amendment: Massachusetts would hold a special election soon after the seat becomes vacant, but Romney would be able to appoint a senator during the interim period. Romney's compromise would give the “incumbent” Republican a leg up against his much more well-known, and better-financed, Democratic challengers. The odds are that the Legislature will reject Romney's gambit.

Now that a special election is almost certain -- if, of course, Kerry wins -- candidates on both sides of the aisle are champing at the bit. Should Romney's amendment pass, his possible appointments include former Governor William Weld, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, Massachusetts Convention Center Authority Chairwoman Gloria Larson, John Hancock Financial Services general counsel Wayne Budd, and White House Chief of Staff Andy Card.

On the Democratic side, Joseph Kennedy II is an early favorite, according to a Boston Herald poll, and U.S. Representative Barney Frank is running a close second. Representatives Edward Markey (a longtime Kerry associate whom the presumptive nominee has designated as his liaison to Capitol Hill during the campaign) and Martin Meehan will put up a tough primary fight, however, as both have already started raising funds for the race -- and have done exceptionally well.

And there's one more scenario to keep in mind: Romney isn't without his own political aspirations. While it's unlikely that he would nominate himself to the interim post, don't be surprised if, through the infinite magic of American politics, he ends up on the special-election ballot.

--Rob Anderson

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=devil_in_the_details_071604

BigRedChief
08-27-2009, 06:56 AM
Sure, its politics but the people of Mass are in favor of it so they are doing the will of the people. It's not like they are ramming something through that the majority of its citizens are against. That would not be right.

RaiderH8r
08-27-2009, 08:45 AM
Back in 2004, the Republicans argued for adding a temporary appointment before the special election - just like this new measure being considered.

I don't know why it went down to ignominious defeat.

I'm sure the story will be reprised in the coming days - probably by the Boston Globe.

Because in 2004 the Governor was a republican. Now the governor is a democrat. F'em. This is what they wanted now they can have their just desserts. It was a weak willed bullshit move to make the change in the first place. So, to sum up, HA HA.

KC Dan
08-27-2009, 09:48 AM
Back in 2004, the Republicans argued for adding a temporary appointment before the special election - just like this new measure being considered.

I don't know why it went down to ignominious defeat.

I'm sure the story will be reprised in the coming days - probably by the Boston Globe.sure you don't

Garcia Bronco
08-27-2009, 10:00 AM
You can't change election laws in the middle of an election. If the law says there is 145 day special election then that's what has to happen. Any violation of that can be challeged in court as well as any vote laid down by an illegal appointment.

Chiefshrink
08-27-2009, 10:28 AM
Because in 2004 the Governor was a republican. Now the governor is a democrat. F'em. This is what they wanted now they can have their just desserts. It was a weak willed bullshit move to make the change in the first place. So, to sum up, HA HA.

THIS!!

jAZ
08-27-2009, 10:32 AM
You can't change election laws in the middle of an election. If the law says there is 145 day special election then that's what has to happen. Any violation of that can be challeged in court as well as any vote laid down by an illegal appointment.

There is no election at the moment. There is a minimum timeline before an election can take place.

RaiderH8r
08-27-2009, 10:41 AM
There is no election at the moment. There is a minimum timeline before an election can take place.

Any idea on the form of the election? I can't seem to find it, granted I haven't really concerned myself with looking. I've been too busy laughing at how this has bitten Massholes right in the Mass. Will it be a plurality to win or will it be a run-off or some other form?

I'm going to go back to doing the HA HA courtesy of Nelson.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 10:43 AM
Any idea on the form of the election? I can't seem to find it, granted I haven't really concerned myself with looking. I've been too busy laughing at how this has bitten Massholes right in the Mass. Will it be a plurality to win or will it be a run-off or some other form?

I'm going to go back to doing the HA HA courtesy of Nelson.

No idea. And it's perfectly reasonable to laugh at them. They seem to have the votes and support to make the change. If that's true, politically they have the last laugh.

Garcia Bronco
08-27-2009, 10:45 AM
There is no election at the moment. There is a minimum timeline before an election can take place.

But once he died we are under the provisions of the law already in place. You can't change the rules of the game in the middle of the game. You can change the rules for the next game.

orange
08-27-2009, 10:56 AM
Because in 2004 the Governor was a republican. Now the governor is a democrat. F'em. This is what they wanted now they can have their just desserts. It was a weak willed bullshit move to make the change in the first place. So, to sum up, HA HA.

sure you don't

The hangup seems to be that the appointed temp will be able to use the office to his advantage in the special election. There's still resistance to this and they're trying to include some sort of provision to prevent the appointee from running.





You can't change election laws in the middle of an election. If the law says there is 145 day special election then that's what has to happen. Any violation of that can be challeged in court as well as any vote laid down by an illegal appointment.

But once he died we are under the provisions of the law already in place. You can't change the rules of the game in the middle of the game. You can change the rules for the next game.

Did you see this in a dream or something? I've never heard of an actual law like that, however much you may think it's fair or just.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 10:56 AM
But once he died we are under the provisions of the law already in place. You can't change the rules of the game in the middle of the game. You can change the rules for the next game.

"the game" isn't a legal term. You are making a legal argument.

If you are saying "it's not fair" to change the laws today as opposed to 3 days ago, well only the law matters.

If you are saying "it's not legal", I think you are wrong.

If you are articulating a stall tacktic to pull a 9 month Franken, well then good luck with that.

Amnorix
08-27-2009, 11:01 AM
This isn't that hard. Mass is completely dominated by Democrats, so they'll do whatever the hell they want. Either the governor can appoint an interim person, or he can't.

Only thing I really care about is that, if they do change the law to allow the governnor to make the interim appointment, that interim appointee should be absolutely prohibited from running in the special election. That neatly avoids a whole host of potential headaches.

And because it is such an obviously good idea, I'm sure they won't do it.

Donger
08-27-2009, 11:06 AM
I hope they don't push too hard. Those left turns are mighty hard to navigate.

BigRedChief
08-27-2009, 11:14 AM
I hope they don't push too hard. Those left turns are mighty hard to navigate.They need nascar drivers?

jAZ
08-27-2009, 11:15 AM
This isn't that hard. Mass is completely dominated by Democrats, so they'll do whatever the hell they want. Either the governor can appoint an interim person, or he can't.

Only thing I really care about is that, if they do change the law to allow the governnor to make the interim appointment, that interim appointee should be absolutely prohibited from running in the special election. That neatly avoids a whole host of potential headaches.

And because it is such an obviously good idea, I'm sure they won't do it.

So what's your take on the you can't change the law now that he's died claims?

DJ's left nut
08-27-2009, 11:16 AM
Of course it has to be fast.

Everything this Congress and this administration has attempted to do must be done at breakneck speed.

To hell with making sure we do it right, just as long as we do it quickly.

ClevelandBronco
08-27-2009, 11:29 AM
...purely partisan move,...still partisan

No shit.

orange
08-27-2009, 11:42 AM
Only thing I really care about is that, if they do change the law to allow the governnor to make the interim appointment, that interim appointee should be absolutely prohibited from running in the special election. That neatly avoids a whole host of potential headaches.

And because it is such an obviously good idea, I'm sure they won't do it.


They can't directly prohibit the appointee from running. The Supreme Court ruled in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. vs Thornton that states can't change the qualifications for congressmen.

They'll have to finesse it somehow, perhaps by limiting political parties from supporting the current occupant of the seat in the special election or some other prestidigitation.

ClevelandBronco
08-27-2009, 11:54 AM
They can't directly prohibit the appointee from running. The Supreme Court ruled in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. vs Thornton that states can't change the qualifications for congressmen.

They'll have to finesse it somehow, perhaps by limiting political parties from supporting the current occupant of the seat in the special election or some other prestidigitation.

I don't know how the ruling applies in this case without looking it up, but Sen. Kennedy was not a Congressman. A Congressman (or Congresswoman) is a member of the House of Representatives.

BTW, I love your use of "prestidigitation."

RaiderH8r
08-27-2009, 12:17 PM
This isn't that hard. Mass is completely dominated by Democrats, so they'll do whatever the hell they want. Either the governor can appoint an interim person, or he can't.

Only thing I really care about is that, if they do change the law to allow the governnor to make the interim appointment, that interim appointee should be absolutely prohibited from running in the special election. That neatly avoids a whole host of potential headaches.

And because it is such an obviously good idea, I'm sure they won't do it.

That would make a great floor amendment for the opposition to offer. It is reasonable and if/when it is voted down it is a good idea that was shot down for partisan reasons. BLAM!

ClevelandBronco
08-27-2009, 12:33 PM
That would make a great floor amendment for the opposition to offer. It is reasonable and if/when it is voted down it is a good idea that was shot down for partisan reasons. BLAM!

If any part of the current law is shot down it's clearly a partisan thing.

orange
08-27-2009, 12:38 PM
If any part of the current law is shot down it's clearly a partisan thing.

Massachusetts House of Representatives
Each Representative represents about 40,000 residents. Representative districts are named for the primary county in which they are located, and tend to stay within one county, although some districts contain portions of adjacent counties. The current composition of the House is 141 Democrats and 19 Republicans.

Massachusetts Senate
There are 40 senatorial districts in Massachusetts, named for the counties in which they are located. The current composition of the Senate is 35 Democrats, 5 Republicans.


"Partisan." Please. First, prove there is a "Republican Party" in Massachusetts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_General_Court

BigRedChief
08-27-2009, 12:57 PM
Massachusetts House of Representatives
Each Representative represents about 40,000 residents. Representative districts are named for the primary county in which they are located, and tend to stay within one county, although some districts contain portions of adjacent counties. The current composition of the House is 141 Democrats and 19 Republicans.

Massachusetts Senate
There are 40 senatorial districts in Massachusetts, named for the counties in which they are located. The current composition of the Senate is 35 Democrats, 5 Republicans.


"Partisan." Please. First, prove there is a "Republican Party" in Massachusetts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_General_CourtROFL

ClevelandBronco
08-27-2009, 12:59 PM
Massachusetts House of Representatives
Each Representative represents about 40,000 residents. Representative districts are named for the primary county in which they are located, and tend to stay within one county, although some districts contain portions of adjacent counties. The current composition of the House is 141 Democrats and 19 Republicans.

Massachusetts Senate
There are 40 senatorial districts in Massachusetts, named for the counties in which they are located. The current composition of the Senate is 35 Democrats, 5 Republicans.


"Partisan." Please. First, prove there is a "Republican Party" in Massachusetts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_General_Court

What the **** does that have to do with whether a Senator and a Congressman are the same thing?

Another idiot democrat.

Garcia Bronco
08-27-2009, 01:03 PM
"the game" isn't a legal term. You are making a legal argument.

If you are saying "it's not fair" to change the laws today as opposed to 3 days ago, well only the law matters.

If you are saying "it's not legal", I think you are wrong.

If you are articulating a stall tacktic to pull a 9 month Franken, well then good luck with that.

The law is this knuckle head Gunga Din:

"law in 2004 to require a special election within 145 to 160 days of a vacancy"

This has to be followed. The process is underway. The Governor cannot appoint anyone in the mean time.

orange
08-27-2009, 01:11 PM
What the **** does that have to do with whether a Senator and a Congressman are the same thing?


I was going to let it slide, but since you insist...

CONGRESSMAN is a general title that applies equally to BOTH Representatives AND Senators. It is rarely used when addressing a Senator because of tradition, but it certainly includes both in formal use, such as a Supreme Court decision.

We learn this in, oh, third grade or so. For some people, it just doesn't seem to take.

ClevelandBronco
08-27-2009, 01:13 PM
I was going to let it slide, but since you insist...

CONGRESSMAN is a general title that applies equally to BOTH Representatives AND Senators. It is rarely used when addressing a Senator because of tradition, but it certainly includes both in formal use, such as a Supreme Court decision.

We learn this in, oh, third grade or so. For some people, it just doesn't seem to take.

Thanks for admitting your error.

Would you ever call a Senator "Congressman?"

orange
08-27-2009, 01:16 PM
The law is this knuckle head Gunga Din:

"law in 2004 to require a special election within 145 to 160 days of a vacancy"

This has to be followed. The process is underway. The Governor cannot appoint anyone in the mean time.

And when the Massachusetts General Court CHANGES the law in September, the Governor WILL appoint a temporary Senator.

That's the whole point of this thread.

What on earth makes you think they can't change the law in the meantime?

ClevelandBronco
08-27-2009, 01:16 PM
Would you expect him (or her) to correct you?

Yep.

orange
08-27-2009, 01:22 PM
Thanks. Would you ever call a Senator "Congressman?"


Yes, I certainly would. In fact, I DID just minutes ago. Right here.


They can't directly prohibit the appointee from running. The Supreme Court ruled in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. vs Thornton that states can't change the qualifications for congressmen.

Before your very eyes.

Do you plan to insist that U.S. Term Limits, Inc. vs Thornton doesn't apply to Senators? Or are you going to step back from that cliff?

RaiderH8r
08-27-2009, 01:29 PM
I was going to let it slide, but since you insist...

CONGRESSMAN is a general title that applies equally to BOTH Representatives AND Senators. It is rarely used when addressing a Senator because of tradition, but it certainly includes both in formal use, such as a Supreme Court decision.

We learn this in, oh, third grade or so. For some people, it just doesn't seem to take.

No. Congressman refers to Members in the House of Representatives. Members of Congress is the general term referring to those serving in the House and Senate. Congressman and Representative are terms for House Members while Senator serves for the Senate.

ClevelandBronco
08-27-2009, 01:32 PM
Do you plan to insist that U.S. Term Limits, Inc. vs Thornton dosen't apply to Senators? Or are you going to step back from that cliff?

No idea and not interested.

ClevelandBronco
08-27-2009, 01:36 PM
Yes, I certainly would. In fact, I DID just minutes ago. Right here.




Before your very eyes.

Do you plan to insist that U.S. Term Limits, Inc. vs Thornton dosen't apply to Senators? Or are you going to step back from that cliff?

Would you please spell correctly?

Would you please use honorifics correctly?

Norman Einstein
08-27-2009, 01:46 PM
When John Kerry was running for president the state changed their law to block the governor, then Romney, form appointing a replacement for Kerry should he win the election. Ted Kennedy was behind this legislation fully.

To change the law based on individual desires or circumstances every time something like this is forseen is just bad policy.

Leave the law as it is, if all rolls out as it most likely should, the vote for health care reform will not be voted on until after the first of the year anyway.

If you live there and want to be the new senator, start your campaign now.

orange
08-27-2009, 01:50 PM
Would you please spell correctly?

Would you please use honorifics correctly?

Would you quit being anal retentive?

Oh, and note - I corrected my TYPO minutes before you posted. :doh!: And since I didn't capitalize "congressmen," where do you get the idea it was an "honorific?" - certainly not from the context, in which the word was clearly applied to a senate seat.

orange
08-27-2009, 01:56 PM
CONGRESSMAN is a general title that applies equally to BOTH Representatives AND Senators. It is rarely used when addressing a Senator because of tradition, but it certainly includes both in formal use, such as a Supreme Court decision.

No. Congressman refers to Members in the House of Representatives. Members of Congress is the general term referring to those serving in the House and Senate. Congressman and Representative are terms for House Members while Senator serves for the Senate.

No, I'm right, you're wrong.


A Member of Congress (also known as Congressman, Congresswoman or Congressperson) is term used for a politician who is a member of a congress. In countries with a parliament rather than a congress, the term Member of Parliament (MP) is often used instead.

In the United States, the term technically applies to members of both the upper house Senate and lower House of Representatives as "Congress" technically refers to both houses. In common practice, Member of Congress is used to refer to members of the House of Representatives as members of the Senate are referred to as "Senator."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressman

The fact that Senators historically have a stick up their ass and insist on the title "Senator" doesn't change the plain meaning of the words "congressman," "congressperson," or "congresswoman" - or "member of Congress" for that matter.

morphius
08-27-2009, 02:04 PM
So the new battle cry for democrats is, "I was for it before I was against it"? Maybe if he would have thought a little more long term instead of being petty partisan this wouldn't be news.

kcfanXIII
08-27-2009, 02:48 PM
At the time they were angling for their own (Romney) gain, in response to the Dems angling for their own (election of Dem) gain.

Sounds like 100% politics.

Doesn't make their proposal bad. Does make their opposition just as political as the MA Dems support though, I guess.

i think we see eye to eye on this for the most part.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 03:49 PM
So the new battle cry for democrats is, "I was for it before I was against it"? Maybe if he would have thought a little more long term instead of being petty partisan this wouldn't be news.

They have enough power in MA to get their way politicaly in both situations. That's reality.

googlegoogle
08-27-2009, 03:55 PM
I'm built a money burning robot just in time.

KCTitus
08-27-2009, 08:19 PM
They have enough power in MA to get their way politicaly in both situations. That's reality.

Then why change the law? If they have that power, why change the law? Your complete lack of intellectual dishonesty (who am I kidding) is a joke.

party over country is the reason why this country is circling the toilet of history

Garcia Bronco
08-28-2009, 08:46 AM
And when the Massachusetts General Court CHANGES the law in September, the Governor WILL appoint a temporary Senator.

That's the whole point of this thread.

What on earth makes you think they can't change the law in the meantime?

A court cannot change a law.

orange
09-23-2009, 05:46 PM
Bill Approved to Expedite a Successor to Kennedy

Published: September 22, 2009

BOSTON —Fulfilling one of Edward M. Kennedy’s dying wishes, the Massachusetts State Senate approved a bill on Tuesday allowing a temporary replacement for the late senator.

The measure was pushed through by the Democratic leadership in an effort to deliver what might be a crucial vote when health care overhaul legislation comes before Congress this fall. Mr. Kennedy had made health reform one of his lifetime priorities.

The vote in the State Senate, 24 to 16, means that Gov. Deval Patrick could appoint an interim senator within days.

In Washington, aides said that Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, pumped his fist after a note about the Massachusetts vote was passed to him in his conference room.

....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/us/politics/23mass.html

KCTitus
09-23-2009, 07:37 PM
There is no denying that this is a purely partisan move, but I actually think it's the better policy overall.

This keeps with the formula...everything my side does is 'ok', but if your side did it, it's Bush Lied People Died.

KC Dan
09-23-2009, 08:09 PM
In Washington, aides said that Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, pumped his fist after a note about the Massachusetts vote was passed to him in his conference room.
I will laugh out loud very hard when Reid's constituents fist pump his sorry useless azz out of office next year.

Pioli Zombie
09-24-2009, 04:46 AM
Who could replace Ted Kennedy's intellect and personality? There is only one choice. Robert Downey Jr.
Posted via Mobile Device

KC Dan
09-24-2009, 09:09 AM
Who could replace Ted Kennedy's intellect and personality? There is only one choice. Robert Downey Jr.
Posted via Mobile Devicenope, there is another...