NY-Sen: Louise Slaughter for Senate!

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 17:00


Caroline Kennedy is now officially running to be appointed to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. Frankly, I consider her to be undeserving of the seat, given that she has never won an election and that basically her only qualification would be her family name. Further, at a time when Democrats are suffering from a major corruption scandal over Senate appointments, appointing a dynasty candidate would only add fuel to that fire. Republicans will run in 2010 on an argument that one-party rule leads to waste and corruption, so nepotism like this would be a bad idea.

While I am pooh-poohing the Kennedy candidacy, allow me to offer a better choice: Representative Louise Slaughter (NY-28). Here are several reasons why Louise would make a great pick to fill Clinton's seat:

  1. Louise has won twelve terms in Congress. That is twelve more elections than Caroline Kennedy has won, and significantly more than almost any other current contender for the seat. She is not a dynasty appointment, in other words.
  2. She is a woman, a group that is undeniably under-represented in the Senate. It is probably a good idea to replace Clinton with another woman, which I am sure is one of the reasons why Kennedy is being considered.
  3. Her modest roots and lifestyle are anything but elitist and insider. She is the daughter of a Kentucky coal miner, and lives in a very normal, average housing developing in a Rochester suburb (two doors down from my Aunt Cathy and Uncle Bob, fwiw). Members of my family often say that they see her shopping at one of the local Wegman's.
  4. As chair of the rules committee, her ethical standing is beyond reproach, which is something that Democrats need in their Senate appointments right now.
  5. She will turn 81 in 2010, making it likely that she will not seek a full-term. So, rather than entrenching someone in the seat, effectively an caretaker is appointed and then the people get to decide.
  6. She is progressive, ranking 21st on Progressive Punch in 2007-2008 scores.
  7. She represents Upstate New York--parts of both Rochester and Buffalo--which right now is pretty much entirely lacking representation at the statewide level.
  8. Her seat is safe. With a PVI of D+15, whoever wins the special election will be a Democrat.
In short, there are no downsides, and a lot of upsides, to selecting Louise Slaughter for Senate. I, for one, sincerely hope that she gets the job.
Chris Bowers :: NY-Sen: Louise Slaughter for Senate!

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
NY-Sen: Louise Slaughter for Senate! | 48 comments
Sounds good to me. (4.00 / 1)
Then Dems, including Caroline Kennedy, if she wishes, can run in a primary in 2010.
Could you explain why someone shouldnt run from an appointed seat? (0.00 / 0)
It seems to me that a person good enough to run should be appointed.

Either do away with appointed seats completely or use them to benefit the people. It is not an run around democracy, it is an outgrowth of it, with an election following a.s.a. is legally possible.

Unless you do away with appointed elections they must be used to the greatest effect to benefit the people that elected you.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

My understanding (0.00 / 0)
is that they are specifically looking for someone who will run in 2010 and 2012.  It seems the the Governor does not want to appoint a caretaker ala Delaware instead he wants someone who will stay in the Senate, earn seniority and keep the seat safe in Blue.

That means it needs to be someone who can establish themselves quickly and raise something in the neighborhood of 35 million by 2010 and another 35 million by 2012.  I think that is why Caroline Kennedy is being considered.

I have also heard that some good people have been approached who weren't willing to commit to a 2010 run, and thus were taken off of the list.

My sense is that Kennedy is the safe choice that won't cost Patterson any of his slim political capital.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

[ Parent ]
If we are in danger of losing this seat come 2010... (4.00 / 1)
we have far bigger problems than a candidate who can't raise as much as Hillary could.
[ Parent ]
The rest of the NY political world would be resentful (0.00 / 0)
In that sense she is not a safe choice...having your Representatives upset with you is not a way to get done what is best for the state of NY.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
Who would be resentful? (0.00 / 0)
You say the rest, I assure not all of New York would resent this, do you mean just all elected officials? Democratic national figures or do you also mean all New York Senate and Representatives too?

Anyone who is not chosen will have some disappointment, disappointment is always tempered with, well she is the strongest, best known, he has the most money, he was in line.

Etc.

I dont think anyone is "In Line" do you?

And they want to show they are a stronger candidate, should they raise some money to challenge her in the primary?

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
They have all been raising money for the last 2 years (0.00 / 0)
because they knew they had to show they could do that.  

And I don't just mean just the elected officials who might be considered to replace Hillary Clinton, but also people who are involved in different levels of the electoral process...They have worked in public poltiical service at all differnt levels and it's like saying it doesn't matter and political skill and experience is irrelelvant.

If people were upset with Clinton because it was nepotism or dynasty...but at least she had participated in the political process for decades, she brought palpable skill ....then what is this but nepotism and dynasty,  but for someone who has not participated in political life and shows little native aptitude or relish for the nitty gritty of political life.

She is shy...how many politicians are shy?

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
No, I think not. (0.00 / 0)
A lot of people look for candidates thjat can be run. Like the crowd of people that formed around Obama. Not because he was all that great, tho he has an undeniable touch,but because they choose him and he would do.

I saw an amazing video opf Obama thanking his Chicago staff in the wake his finally taking the nomination, it was humbling. Mostly it was humbling of Obama, as he acknowledged their long trust and his and their duty now that they had won. This is the stuff of politics, these are the people that get it down.

If you want to argue that shes inept, that is a different thing. I am willing to listen to bad politics, bad skills, or can't raise money. If Bowers is arguing for a lame duck, well Kennedy may be one, or may prove her mettle.

I like the idea of using all the legal moral things to do to help people, fight climate change, stop wars, universal healthcare, fix the economy  and pay union wages to most not a few.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Appointed seat (0.00 / 0)
Only one individual in the last 25 years was appointed to a Senate seat and did not win the nomination to defend that seat if he/she wanted it (Sheila Frahm of Kansas in 1996).  Appointment of a non-caretaker tends very strongly to move selection of Senators from the people back to the bosses, in this case the Governor.

At it's worst, that produces Rod Balagojevich trying to sell the seat.  At its best, it produces some good candidates but the traditional root of primaries and open elections seems cleaner and better.

[ Parent ]
It Would Be A Fitting Tribute For A Truly Exemplary Dem (0.00 / 0)
Though I'd sorta hoped she would serve in the House till she turned 100.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
The state of NY benefits more if she stays as head of the very important Rules Committee (0.00 / 0)
She 78 , an amazing 78 but neverhteless 78.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
Sounds like a great idea. (0.00 / 0)
Any effort going on the try and make it happen?
If there is enough support (4.00 / 3)
I'll try to start one!
[ Parent ]
Fantabulous idea!! (0.00 / 0)
Bet she could do alot of good in 2 years.
[ Parent ]
NO she can barely get anything done (4.00 / 1)
She will be even more junior than the Dems who got elected to the Senate this time.  Remember one of Hillary's frustrations was how junior she was and how she actually have little to no areas to to be effective in.

She's too old to run 2 statewide campaigns in 2010 and 2012. It's grueling and how who she raise the money. She would lose her seat and she would have more power on Rules than as the most junior Senator in the Senate.

A short term Senator may elide some of the difficulies of making a choice,  but it is not good for the interests and well being of the state of NY in building up influence and acquiring needed resources.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
you make a good case (4.00 / 2)
I'm with you that a dynasty candidate is a poor choice when we have so many well-qualified Democrats in NY.

Speaking of which, Daily Kos diarist Laura Stein made a strong case for Representative Carolyn Maloney.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

Maloney Is A Better Choice (0.00 / 0)
I am a fan of Louise Slaughter.  If Louise were 10 years younger, I would say appoint her but at 81 she is unlikely to really want to go through the rigors of a statewide campaign.  Plus she would have to give up the Chair of the Rules Committee which is one of the most powerful positions in the House.  It seems highly unlikely she would want it.

Maloney is my Congresswoman and she is very good.  She is better choice than Slaughter at this point in their careers.

[ Parent ]
well, there's one downside (0.00 / 0)
What if she doesn't want to retire in two years?

My preference remains a placeholder appointment of the scion of a well-known family name -- an attorney with a demonstrated commitment to public service, political reform and civil justice, and a member of the board of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and other august bodies.

Not Caroline Kennedy, mind you: Frederick A. O. "Fritz" Schwarz.

NY does not benefit from place holders (0.00 / 0)
It may satisfy the idea the Senator should be elected...but it is antithetical to the actual intersets of the state of NY to have a placeholder.  Placeholders would have absolutely no power even for the 2 years they were there.

Schwarz rewrote the NY city charter and there are some real problems with that rewite in my mind.  The executive has far too much power re the legislature.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
well, the flipside is ... (0.00 / 0)
... if the person who's appointed wants to run in 2010, s/he will have to spend much of 2009 fundraising.
[ Parent ]
Whoever runs in 2010 must spend their time fundraising (0.00 / 0)
Whether they are appointed or run from antoher seat.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
If Paterson Appoints A Caretaker It Means (0.00 / 0)
he is running for the seat himself in 2010.  It was no secret that prior to Eliot Spitzer's implosion the likely scenario was that that if Hillary left the seat Paterson was going to get the appointment.  

Paterson has navigated tough political waters very well so far but I can see why he would want out of the Govs office consider the state of the economy.  He is going to spend most of the next year or so cutting the budget and raising taxes which never makes you popular.

Being a US Senator from NY probably looks very attractive right now and would probably be a lifetime job for him.  I have no problem with that since Paterson is a reliable progressive.

[ Parent ]
Well (4.00 / 2)
Why would she want to abandon a powerful position in the House for a two year stint as a unimportant Senator, possibly ranking last in seniority? Seems like a downside to me for her.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
Seems like a way to give a good D name recognition for 2010 (4.00 / 1)
Even when appointed, a Senator gets name recognition around a state - and that makes a huge difference in a big state like New York.

If a House member is to be considered, then appointment makes a huge difference in fundraising - minimizing the need for name building, saving funds for other important races.

If an upstate D rep is to be considered for promotion - with the intent of having that person hold the seat, it would be most efficient to have that person appointed, rather than trying to have to raise the requisite tens of millions ahead of time.

The fundraising point holds true for any appointment - if tens of millions can be saved for D candidates in other states, so much the better.

But of course, a poor choice in this scenario is quite possible.

The ironies abound... (4.00 / 2)
An unelected governor who is the son of a powerful former NY state politician, appointing the unelected daughter of a former president who has never run for or held elected public office, to replace the twice-elected senator wife of another former president, who herself had never previously run for or held elected public office, during the final days in office of a president who is the son of a former president and himself probably didn't win the office legitimately.

When did surreality replace reality? Was I asleep?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

And I didn't even mention (4.00 / 2)
Andrew Cuomo, Jr., Jesse Jackson, Jr., and Beau Biden, all supposedly vying for separate senate seats. Then there's Bob Casey, Jr., who occupies one, John Sununu, Jr, who just lost one, and Mary Landrieu, who just re-won one. How on earth someone so familialy out of the political loop as Obama won the presidency in today's political climate is beyond me.

And he's not even a real American! ;-)

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Cuomo not strictly a "Jr," (0.00 / 0)
but thanks for listing him. I just learned that his sibling, Maria Cuomo Cole, is married to the designer, Kenneth Cole, who just authored a new book on making a difference, Awearness.
[ Parent ]
Yeah, better to sell-off the Senate seat to the best (0.00 / 0)
political fund-raiser.*

*CAUTION: all deals should be made on the golf course, or at the health club. No phones, e-mail, or foul language.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
aptnik (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
I was trying to make a joke about Gov. Blago (0.00 / 0)
I don't know how you interpreted my comment.

But seriously:

What do we call it when "wrong-doing" has become "the way things work"?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Paterson (0.00 / 0)
In all fairness, Paterson may have been the son of a an elected official but he made his own name for himself.  He spent more than two decades in the State Senate and took on an incompetent and corrupt party leader to win the Minority Leadership in 2002.  He then set about a multi-cycle plan to win the Majority in the State Senate which came to fruition in 2008.  I get the nepotism thing but Paterson had a lot of accomplishments on his own prior to becoming Lt Gov.

And it is not Paterson's fault that Spitzer was not tempermentally suited to being Gov and then imploded after being caught with a prostitute.  If it weren't for that Paterson would probably be the one getting the Senate appointment.

[ Parent ]
Thank Goodness (4.00 / 1)
I was waiting for someone to make this argument.

Louise is a great progressive pick.  

I blog on InnermostParts.org

Thank God... (0.00 / 0)
Only one vote counts on this one. It is that of Governor Paterson. I think Kennedy is as qualified as any of the names been mentioned. All this brouhaha about her lack of elected office experience is bull... how much experience do you need to capitulate like Reid does on any given issue?
I like Carolyn Maloney myself (4.00 / 1)
Just as progressive, but much younger. My girlfriend worked with her on some community projects and said she's brilliant.
Couldn't believe her age! (0.00 / 0)
Watching her on C-Span as I do, I would never have guessed her age. Congresspedia says she's a descendent of Daniel Boone - maybe that's added longevity to her gene pool.
Woops (4.00 / 3)
Slaughter just endorsed Kennedy.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

"Keep the Faith"

I dont know..... this is impressive.! (0.00 / 0)
This is Kennedy's first endorsement. What timing. Someone is reading Openleft methinks.

OK Bowers makes them jump, now we see if if can refine the direction and distance.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Like many, I don't have a problem with Kennedy specifically (0.00 / 0)
so much as I do with this tendency towards nepotism and celebrities in Democratic politics these days, and sometimes both. Have we really so exhausted our political "farm system" that we're reduced to the level of sports teams that try to stay competitive by hiring expensive celebrity athletes instead of developing talent from within? Kennedy might well be quite qualified to be senator on merits, and might make a great senator. But seriously, is she really the most qualified person for the job, or the one most likely to be best at it? I think not.

Also, am I the only one who's noticing the prevalence of mindless cultism on Daily Kos these days, where the same exact sort of "I don't care what you say or what the stupid facts are, he/she's great and I'm for them!" idiocy that's so typical of Bushies is being displayed? I thought that it would go away after the election as these people went back to texting and Facebook and watching Gray's Anatomy or whatever it is that empty-headed 20-somethings do these days to fritter away the time (as opposed to thoughtful 20-somethings).

But they're all over her potential appointment and gushing with excitement, even though none of them can cite what she's done or why she's qualified. None of that matters, though, because she's GREAT and COOL and a KENNEDY! Where did these mindless pod people come from, and when did they take over the grass roots? I literally can't tell if I'm at a John Mayer concert or a political blog (and for the record, I like his work, but have never been at one of his concerts, and am just using him as an example of what I'm guessing a lot of people in their 20's are into, along with texting and Facebook).

It's FISA all over again, i.e. people who know what they're talking about vs. cultists.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

Christ we have so many problems of real people suffering and (0.00 / 0)
real wrong being done to argue about appearance when what we need is champions to stay on the ball 24 7.

You dont think this political tool, for that is what a candidate is, a tool to get things done, to ensure democracy, is the right skilled person, has the right policies to bring change. Argue about telephones being tapped, or war being wrongly waged again, argue about getting food delivered to the starving, or votes being counted, or paper ballots. But appearances...?, you dont like her because she has name recognition? She has a pre-approval rate?

So what.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
I love it when people incoherently put words in my mouth (0.00 / 0)
And set up straw men to knock down. I didn't say that I'm holding her celebrity against her, just that I'm not holding it for her, either. If she's going to get appointed, I want it to be on her merits, not her celebrity, and given that she's never run for or held political office, I question those merits for THIS particular job.

And anyone claiming that her celebrity isn't a big reason for her possible appointment is living in la-la land. Patterson would never name someone who'd never run for or help political office before if they weren't already well-known and liked. Her celebrity is clearly not the only thing she has to offer--and I never said otherwise. But it's also clearly an essential part of her appeal, and why she's being considered for it.

And the fact that we have so many serious problems to solve--which neither I nor anyone critical of her possible appointment has denied, thank you--well, how does that make her more qualified for this seat than anyone else? Oh my god, people, we're in a crisis right now so we can't afford a public debate and simply MUST do as our dear leaders say!

As always, lots of "Democrats" don't understand how democracy works. It's not a popularity contest or cult. If she gets appointed it might not be a bad choice, and she might make a good senator. But she first has to be put through the gauntlet, like all politicians, where her qualifications are put to the test. She knows it, and almost certainly respects it. Unlike her fanbot supporters. As was true of Clinton and Obama.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
I apologize for making you feel as if I was specifically attacking your single position. (0.00 / 0)
And I don't want to completely discount you point about those that are powerful, staying powerful, taking power in that way from people who could rise to power were it not for people like Ms. Kennedy, who can seize that power because they are already close to it. As have their families and friends, as if they deserve it by birth.

I understand and support the point, you made it well as have others.

I am more concrened, its not a strawman argument, with the position we are at now, with the problems we have now, with the tools we have now, with the problems we are going to have soon, and the incredible size of the onrushing crisis that emerley electing Obama is only going to focus our energies on in the short term.

So in order to deal with all these conflicting enraging impossible to solve problems and conditions, with the criteria of no rose colored glasses about where we have arrived, despite a progressive, or semi progressive, or centrist president who still kowtows or kneels to homophobic cultists in order to ensure the continuance of a freshly born coalition, I accept the high name recognition, the histiry of trust the patina of American history, the love of a nation born from tragedy, with a progressive certification that gives no fear, with a history of good work and support that matches the deliberations we have had here, endorsing Obama for example only weeks before openleft did.

I don't aim to discount you or make your contributions seem un-thought-out, or arising from a place I wouldn't admire. I am reacting to a too quick gut level writing that abounds in the blogoteria.

If it was yours that snapped my patience with the discussion about this potentially strong candidate, when the only other serious suggestion was to give up the power of this appointment for reasons that have nothing to do with outcome.

Again, it was not your argument, nor your specific objection. It was an ongoing toothache of about a seeming lack of understanding, IMHO, about using every damn single thing we can to achieve what needs to be achieved, or we don't make it.

Or we don't make it.

To me: the potential for barbarism is still our likely outcome. I am not convinced we have passed some magical line in the sand where survival is now most likely, where ecological survival is probable, or 50% or 70% of species will survive, where militarism won't be the form of our future.

So my hope based fear takes control, I grasp at powers like Ms. Kennedy who comes prepackaged with positives that one can only wish for, and infuse her with my hopes. I dont preclude the rising up of star we couldn't imagine, whose status outside the power structure, whose strengths of conviction and calm moves millions. I switched to Obama after all when Edwards left the race. But I am not adverse to using strengths already developed, and I am against throwing those away, when offered, for reasons that don't address the critical fierce power of the crisis now.


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
They've taken over kos (0.00 / 0)
since the primaries started.   That is when the establishment polls got interested in the netroots.
[ Parent ]
It does seem like it (0.00 / 0)
What I'm wondering is whether it's a spontaneous thing, the natural and unavoidable result of so many people suddenly becoming politically involved, to a large part due to the Obama candidacy, and since so many of them tend to still be politically unsophisticated, their numbers are disproportionately represented, or whether it's an astroturfing thing, on the part of Dem party leaders, or some other groups, intended to assert control over netroot opinion via such stealth methods. I'm guessing that it's both. With people like Mark Penn still playing a role in party politics, I'd find it hard to believe that at least some of this wasn't manufactured. I'm just wondering to what extent this might be coming from the Obama camp.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
I sincerely believe it is astroturfing (0.00 / 0)
These people always have new userids.
[ Parent ]
And they always have the same (0.00 / 0)
lockstep stock talking points and discursive tone regarding the specific issue. Very defensive and combative, employing breezy and dismissive ridicule and engaging in demagogic attempts to rally others to their cause. It's quite obvious and sad, but it's an inevitable evolution of the progressive blogosphere, as much a validation of its reach and power as an obvious attempt to invalidate it as what it was meant to be. Dishonest and self-interested parasites always accompany political movements. I'm not sure what the solution is, or if there is one. As with RW trolls, it gets tiring to debate and refute them. And it's kind of hard to do when you're dealing with someone who probably does it for a living and is trained to do it well.

Ultimately, I think that only individual blog owners can do anything about it on a blog by blog basis, but that just raises the issue of censorship, and the possibility of banning people who aren't doing it but just seem like they are. Perhaps the best strategy is to just ignore them, but my fear is that this will just make it easier for them to win over low-information undecideds, or create the impression of consensus support for their issues, which they can they play up in the media and elsewhere. So it's hard to ignore them.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
I think that (0.00 / 0)
the blog owners should start checking their ips for pr agencies, think tanks, and law firms.
[ Parent ]
Upstate, city suburbs (0.00 / 0)
The problem is of course, that Upstate is both very different and in a distinct minority from either New York City or its suburbs.

New York City itself includes 42.5% of the state's population (the Quick Facts from the Census) and 53% of registered Democrats.  Many Democratic candidates and officials like Schumer or Mario Cuomo are from NYC.

The three major suburban counties near NY City (Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester) contain over 950,000 registered Democrats.  All of upstate in its 58 counties IIRC has only about 1.7 million registered Democrats.  Upstate candidates don't tend to win the Democrative leadership slots in the legislature or to win nomination for statewide office.

About 20 years ago I read a book called The 12 Nations of North America IIRC.  The book divided the continent by cultural and economic zones rather than by political boundaries.  Interestingly enough, it excluded Manhattan or at least the part below Harlem, put the rest of the city and most of the state in one zone, and put western NY in with the industrial midwest.  Well Buffalo does have the feel and so do its people (not so sure of Rochester which in a brief business trip 15 years ago reminded me in some ways of Toronto).

The numbers, etc. tend to push the conclusions meaning that someone from up the Hudson a bit like a John Hall or Kirsten Gillibrand is as upstate as things get in NY politics.

The OTHER (0.00 / 0)
Carolyn sounds like a great pick to me.
NY-Sen: Louise Slaughter for Senate! | 48 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox