I was thinking about the exact same thing. I was hoping to see someone bring up that misconceived idea up cause now there’s a smackdown argument a sane person couldn’t argue with.
Yet the more I think about it, the more it seems a painfully ACCURATE report of how events would really unfold if the Massachuttes RATs were left to their own devices in the U.S. Senate race. I can definitely see the RAT politicians there turning the appointment vote into a "Wellstone funerally" type moment with over the top and blatantly biased and endless "tributes" to Ted Kennedy during the proceedings (RATs can't help themselves when the TV cameras on). I also went with the real-life current party breakdown of the Mass. legislature, so it's no exaggeration to say Coakley would have won with a overwhelming share of the vote. And I can honestly say there'd a good chance the only party dissenters would be a couple of Specter-type "Republicans" bought and paid for by RAT interest groups, along with a RAT so flakey that Coakley isn't liberal enough for her.
An upper house appointed-for-life reminds me of the argument for universal heath care. It has utterly failed in EVERY single country it's been tried, but it's supporters refuse to accept that reality and continue to beat that dead horse claiming it will revolutionize America and solve all our problems.
It's interesting how quite the "Abolish the 17th amendment now" advocates have been since Scott Brown won. Shades of Lieberman's FR fans after he voted for Obamacare.