And that one Mass. senator would be counteracted by the two VA senators who are now Dems with a Repub legislature and governor. I'll make that trade...
You're either not familiar with how many state legislatures in this nation have lopsided RAT ruling them, or you're very bad at gambling.
Is there any doubt we're dealing with wishful thinking rather than facts?
We're supposed to believe Roland Burris' appointment was a fluke and an exception to the rule that would result in decent Senators being appointed. Are ALL the other Senators that currently owe their jobs to state governments -- Ted Kaufman, Michael Bennet, Bob Menendez, Lisa Murkowski, etc., ALSO an "exception" to the rule? Are we to believe that Lisa Murkowski was selected for the job because she was truly the BEST qualified person to serve Alaska's interests? (Sarah Palin and Joe Miller just successfully otherwise to voters). If not, we're supposed to believe Frank Murkowski's blatant nepotism by elevating his worthless RINO daughter to the Senate was also a "rare" example of a politician doing things to increase his own clout? Are we to believe the fact that at least 80% of the state-appointed Senators CURRENTLY in office are hacks and NOT the best and brightest people from their state is merely a coincidence?
Massachuttes Demcocrats would oppose Obamacare. That's one of the things being seriously argued here. And we're supposed to accept this at face value. What's next, an article claiming San Francisco Democrats would ban gay marriage if we left it up to them instead of the entire stae?
The Illinois House impeached Blago when his approval rating was in the teens and it would have been political suicide NOT to so. That way they got him out the way and did damage control to prevent him from dragging them down with him (but NOT before Blago got to appoint the Senator of his choice, of course!) Wow, those Illinois state legislators are just shining examples of profiles in courage, aren't they? Give them a round of applause for saving their own hides!
You know what's really amusing, all these "repeal the 17th amendment" advocates always make it a huge point to argue they're not for changing the way the house is elected, only the Senate. We'd still be allowed to vote for our own Congressman (which makes a difference for the 30% of Americans in districts that aren't gerrymandered for one party! the rest of us are out of luck in having any say over our federal officials). But think about it -- if they're so certain that an APPOINTED U.S. Senate chosen by state legislators would be VASTLY superior to elected ones (it would save our Republic! it would stop Obamacare! it would stop amnesty!), why would they WANT House members to be chosen by the "inferior" system of popular votes? After all, this is the very system they claimed DESTROYED the Senate. But you want Congressman chosen by the SAME horrible system? Touche. If I thought having state legislators choose Senators would restore that body into a grandeur meeting of statesmen that look out for the best interests of their states, I'd want them appointing EVERY damn federal job available.
Why not the BEST, guys? Since the Senate will soooooo much better, let's have these wonderful state legislators pick our President too. And our Vice President, and our cabinet. And every since member of the House of Representatives. Plus all their staffers and every single person holding a federal job, right down to the janitor at the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. Aren't you excited about the possibility of a federal government made up of the cream of the crop, WHOLLY composed people 100% committed to the BEST interests of their states (with only extremely RARE exceptions, of course) ? ;-)