would they say the same of a Republican Gov replaced a R with a D for the seat?
You know, sir, this whole Senate appointment thing is becoming a farce.
It used to be that when a Senator died or resigned during his term, in all states the governor named a replacement. That was just the way it was, and everybody accepted it.
But then during the 1980s, the Democrats wanted to tweak the system, so as to gain some sort of advantage.
And so new rules evolved; some states mandated that the governor had to name someone from the same political party as the late or resigned Senator, other states mandated a special election.
These new rules were made because for some really odd reasons, Democrats thought that Republicans had an advantage, when in fact it's always been usually 50-50.
You might recall in Massachusetts in 2004, when some idiots thought the Bostonian Billionaire would be elected, vacating his Senate seat.....leaving it up to the then-Republican governor of Massachusetts to fill it. So they changed the law in Massachusetts, taking that power away from the governor and mandating a special election in case of a senatorial vacancy.
And there were places like Wyoming, with its perennially-Republican governors, and Democrats didn't like that. So they changed the law that the governor had to appoint someone of the same political party as the late or resigned Senator, just in case the guy happened to be a Democrat.
Well, as we all know, a blade has two edges, cutting both ways.....
It's like the California electoral votes issue of the 1980s.
The Democrats are always trying to change the rules so as to gain some sort of advantage.....but then neglect to remember things cut both ways, not just the way one wants them to.
It's just a bunch of stupid games.
