March 31, 2005
House and Senate OK Stem Cell Bill
Veto-proof majorities. Romney crushed, now officially irrelevant, but liberated: free to shop his résumé of non-achievement elsewhere. Sure did great with those Olympics, though...
(Some of our readers are concerned about the gastronomical implications -- I hadn't thought of that.)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference House and Senate OK Stem Cell Bill:
Romney didn't lose. He staked out an issue.
Posted by: The troll | Apr 1, 2005 9:53:59 AM
Troll is correct. Romney arguably wins for losing this one on the national stage. Now he gets to say to Republican primary voters: "look, I'm ideologically pure - I'm against killing babies. And by the way, my state's economy is doing really well [because of the boom in scientific research occasioned by a bill that I vetoed, but don't sweat the details]." He may be an unprincipled prick, but he's no fool - this is exactly what he hoped would happen.
Posted by: David | Apr 1, 2005 11:43:14 AM
"... this is exactly what he hoped would happen."
I don't doubt it. Just because he hopes perversely doesn't disguise the fact that he lost hugely on the issue itself. I don't care what Romney wants, except insofar as it affects public policy.
Posted by: Charley on the MTA | Apr 1, 2005 12:35:17 PM
You know, here's another thing...
Come late 2007, when Mitt's looking for that Oval Office gig, it's not going to be good enough for him to say, "Well, I fought all those evil liberals in my state ... we sure gave 'em a tough fight... got our butts whipped, but we tried real hard, heh... Please love me ... "
Nope, that's not going to be good enough, because there are going to be other governors and senators and people with actual records. "Well, that's a right purty speech, Guvnur, but in the great state of Oklabama we strung up all the abortion doctors, tattooed the Ten Commandments on our judges' *foreheads*, and reintroduced sharecroppin'!" etc. If Mitt can't actually get anything done, he can't compete.
Posted by: Charley on the MTA | Apr 2, 2005 12:22:09 AM
Sorry Charley, that is good enough.
Posted by: The troll | Apr 2, 2005 8:55:40 AM
Mitt is dead in the water on the national stage. If he chooses not to run for reelection as MASS governor, or does run and gets his ass whooped (which isn't a given until it happens) he is mostly done with elected offices. He may get a cabinet appointment to a given re-THUG president somewhere down the line, but that's all he can look forward to. His best hope is to go back to Utah, where he doesn't have to deal with any actual opposition.
"veto-proof majorities"? I thought you needed 2/3 to override a veto... in the House, only 117 of 200 reps (at least according to the article linked) voted for this... don't you need 132 or 133 to override a veto?
Posted by: Marriage Equality Mass | Apr 2, 2005 4:02:20 PM
OK, I just read that 53 "No" votes are needed to sustain a veto. It's not a 2/3 override procedure, but the people who want to defeat vetoed legislation have to actually support the veto. Were the rules changed at some point, what with decades of Republican governors and Democratically controlled legislatures?
Posted by: Marriage Equality Mass | Apr 2, 2005 6:23:45 PM
Thanks for the research, MEM -- you had me worried, there.
Posted by: Charley on the MTA | Apr 2, 2005 9:55:45 PM
160 reps x 2/3 and 40 senators x 2/3/ If the governor vetoes then both hoese and senate will have to each, on seperate votes, over ride the vetoe. 107 reps, and and 27 senators. It is an over ride procedure. The same one they have ben using since the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and our state constitution was written. No conspiracy here.
Posted by: The troll | Apr 2, 2005 10:40:04 PM
Again, the troll is correct. The override stuff is all in the state constitution (part II, ch. 1, sec. 1, art. 2). Two-thirds of the members present in each chamber must vote to override a veto.
Posted by: David | Apr 3, 2005 12:28:40 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.