Comments
Cheap_Coffee t1_j36hn53 wrote
It's the Globe. You need to fact check the their articles.
3720-To-One t1_j37aojn wrote
And acting governor has all the same powers and responsibilities as an elected governor.
She was the governor.
All “acting” means is that she wasn’t elected as governor and was serving out the rest of her predecessor’s term.
It’s like saying LBJ wasn’t POTUS when he finished out the rest of JFK’s term.
I can assure you, on November 23rd, 1963, LBJ was in fact the POTUS.
mikemerriman t1_j37b0as wrote
I understand its a distinction without a difference. But shoddy reporting is inexcusable.
mikemerriman t1_j37bs52 wrote
and you're right - LBJ (and gerald ford for that matter) were POTUS, however the Mass constitution https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution#chapterIISectionII only allows for the Lt Governor to perform the duties of governor - not become the actual governor.
3720-To-One t1_j37erlq wrote
And it’s a distinction without difference.
It’s like saying Massachusetts isn’t a state, it’s a commonwealth. For all intents and purposes, it’s the same thing with zero difference.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j37zw6p wrote
Splitting hairs level of semantics isn't really "shoddy reporting" to me
mikemerriman t1_j380xtf wrote
good thing you're not a journalist then
mikemerriman t1_j35krml wrote
Jane was never governor. She was acting governor.