Can anyone explain to me how this isn't pure political hyprocrisy?

Back in 2004, there was a good chance that Senator Kerry would win the presidential election and vacate his senate seat. The governor of Machusetts was a republican, and would have the authority to select an interim replacement. That would have probably been a republican. The democrats ped a law abolishing that authority, instead requiring a special election. As they said in debate, "...in a democracy the US senator for this Commonwealth will be selected by the people. Democracy is not static. It is a goal. Our founders created a system that wasn't perfect. Women didn't vote. African-Americans were enslaved. Step by step we improve our democracy. The Democrats in this House supporting this are doing a major reform. We are removing a political patronage appointment and replacing it with an election." Well now that the governor isn't a republican but a democrat they sure seem to be perfectly happy with political patronage appointments, so long as it's a democrat doing the appointing. Can anybody explain to me how this isn't the purest form of political hypocrisy? Can anyone tell me how the process is just and noble when a republican is governor but stifling and damaging when a democrat is governor?