1. Comically, while Ford has described himself as an "independent Democrat", attacked "bullying party bosses" for trying to keep him out and hired former campaign operatives for Joe Lieberman, he cites "for the good of the party" as his reason not to run in his NYTimes op-ed.
I've examined this race in every possible way, and I keep returning to the same fundamental conclusion: If I run, the likely result would be a brutal and highly negative Democratic primary - a primary where the winner emerges weakened and the Republican strengthened.
Whatever, Harold.
2. I have thought from the beginning that whatever Ford choose to do, it's a win for him personally. Key graph:
The possibility of a run by the telegenic Mr. Ford, who has been working as a vice chairman of Merrill Lynch and a political commentator on NBC and MSNBC since moving to New York in 2006, had riveted New York's political world, and touched off a furious behind-the-scenes effort to keep him out of the race over the last six weeks.
Ford will go back to his private helicopter tours of NYC, his breakfasts at the Regency Hotel with the Giants and Jets owners, his pedicures and multi-million dollar bonuses- all times ten. One thing the moneyed political set loves is a media star and for his personal life, perhaps Ford as "the-guy-who-threatened-to-run-but-chose-not-to-for-the-sake-of-the-party" is the path he's wanted all along.
3. There are probably a few folks out there who are disappointed that he's not running under the argument that primaries are always good. As I have argued here and here, this one would not have been a good investment for progressives- and there was always the chance that Ford could have ended up as the Democratic nominee from the State of New York. Stranger things have happened in the history of American elections. In this case, it's good that there won't be a chance at that.
4. A pat on the back to folks who magnified how horrible Ford is and would be for New Yorkers, along with blowing up all of his amazing missteps (even if this exploratory phase only lasted about 1.5 months, I feel I could write a best-of post on that front). I recall in one of my posts, a commenter said he'd never seen the netroots so united on anything (and that goes for offline TN and NYS LGBT community pushback, too). I think that united front as a threat really helped.
Update:Adama's take at The Albany Project re a win for pro-reform politics against a system of moneyed interests is dead-on.
Harold Ford continues his bold march to becoming Joe Lieberman's new best friend.
Harold Ford Jr. has hired Tammy Sun, a veteran spokeswoman who once worked for former President Clinton, to handle press on an interim basis for his yet-unannounced US Senate campaign.
[...]
In 2005, Sun was named press secretary for the Democratic Leadership Council and Progressive Policy Institute. Sun said it was through her work with the DLC that she met Ford, who now chairs the organization.
Before joining the DLC staff, Sun was the spokeswoman for Sen. Joe Lieberman's 2006 general election campaign.
Why yes, that is the same Tammy Sun who told bigdavefromqueens from My Left Nutmeg to "bite me" and "get a life". The special part is that according to his current spokesperson, if a campaign team is assembled, he fully expects Tammy to play a part. This should be fun.
First, evidently Harold Ford, Jr. is so unfamiliar with New York State he thinks NYU is in Syracuse.
Harold Ford Jr. -- who began teaching a course at New York University this semester -- might want to brush up on the school's rules for professors.
The Tennessee transplant - who is eyeing a run for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's seat - sent out an email to supporters yesterday about his trip to Syracuse that contained the address of his NYU office in SoHo.
The school had no idea he was using their address on his email until a Post reporter called.
"It's regrettable that this email, which was not affiliated with New York University, went out containing an NYU street address," a spokesman with NYU's Wagner School of Public Service said in a statement.
Third, while Ford is taking New York State 101, he may want to learn which schools are actually in New York State. From Ford's blog post:
When Senator Gillibrand travels to Syracuse again, here's what she will learn. First, the city has a young and dynamic mayor focused on expanding education opportunities and creating jobs. Mayor Stephanie Miner won running as an outsider, enjoying the support of Senator Schumer. We met and she educated me about the Syracuse's Say Yes! education program, a comprehensive approach that guarantees college tuition for Syracuse high school graduates to Syracuse and Carnegie Mellon Universities as well as all SUNY and CUNY institutions provided the student is admitted. Syracuse voters made the right choice in mayor. I look forward to working with her and her team for years to come.
It looks like the list of colleges and universities with which Say Yes to Education Syracuse partners is limited to those almost entirely in New York State, and Carnegie Mellon is, um, not there.
And that, my friends, is a nice dose of new media #FAIL.
In the last few days, two early polls on the potentially competitive 2010 NY-Sen primary have come out.
On Friday, Marist had Gillibrand up 43-24% with 33% undecided. Her approval rating was only at 31% statewide, which is troublesome. I'm certainly no polling expert, but the two things that stand out to me about this are (a) The sample was of registered voters, and only 370 voters. The margin of error was +/- 5%. A few folks with lots of experience told me in a state with 5.7 million registered Democrats it's hard to trust that, while others say it doesn't matter that much, you just get decreased precision. (b) It's startling to me that 52% of those polled have no opinion of Ford, and he's had a brutal roll-out week, but still manages to get 24% support. Again, no polling expert here, but it says to me that people aren't comfortable with Gillibrand.
Today, Siena has Gillibrand up 41-17%, with Tasini taking 5% and 37% don't know/no opinion. Gillibrand's favorability is about the same- 30%. Her re-elect/someone else numbers are 29%-45%. In this poll, Ford is unknown by almost 2/3 of voters.
Again, these are early polls, and not necessarily a big sign that Ford could win in a Democratic primary, but the Ford camp will spin it that Gillibrand is vulnerable, and I suspect it will help his candidacy rather than hurt it. With over 50% in both polls saying they have no favorability opinion on Ford, there is an opportunity to define him and keep hammering away at why this flip-flopping, carpetbagging Merrill Lynch corporate executive is wrong for New York State.
The interview - granted under the condition that the questions be limited to his rationale for running, and not issues - comes at the end of a rocky first week of buzz surrounding his potential candidacy.
And then actually says:
"This race isn't about feet, it's about issues," he said of ribbing he has taken on the web and elsewhere of his regular pedicures.
Taegan Goddard posits whether Harold Ford, Jr.'s game plan is to run as an independent, like Joe Lieberman. It's an interesting notion. The theory, to me, goes:
Ballot lines. New York State has a "fusion ballot" system where one candidate can run on multiple lines. For example, I can vote for Rep. Slaughter on either the Democratic or Working Families Party line. Some candidates even secure three lines. Ford's gamble would be to secure the Independence Party line and run there in the general election, ideally on a second line, although I don't see him getting the Working Families Party line or the Conservative Party line, either. He would also have to secure some kind of Republican support.
Ford's appeal. Given Ford's past positions and his attempts of late to establish himself as an Liebermanesque "independent Democrat", conventional wisdom would say that he appeals to Republicans and Independents as well as, if not more so than, Democrats. Given his carpetbagger issues, unfamiliarity with the state and lower name ID, it would also be better if the election were in November, not the September Democratic primary.
Republicans have no viable candidate. Republican Bruce Blakeman, the former Presiding Supervisor of the Nassau County Legislature, and not a serious candidate, is set to announce on Sunday that he is running. Given that Giuliani, Peter King, Molinari are all out, and chances are very slim if any that Pataki will run, Blakeman would be the New York State version of Alan Schlesinger, the Connecticut Republican who took 9.6% of the vote in 2006.
In 2006, Lieberman took 54% of the Independent vote and 70% of the Republican vote. While Lieberman had much more of a record of "independence" that was familiar to Connecticut voters, the theory is that Ford could make the same kind of appeal and get the same results if Blakeman is the Republican. I am really, really doubtful of this though, as looking at history, the only example of a major candidate to run statewide on just the Independence line was Tom Golisano, who even in his best showing took just 14% of the vote in the 2002 gubernatorial general election. On the other hand he was running against Pataki, the incumbent governor who was on both the Republican and Conservative lines. There really is no example of the kind of race Ford may be setting up, where Republicans field a weak candidate and two Democrats run at each other on separate ballot lines.
It also depends on how much Republicans actually support their candidate. If it's a virtual alliance between Ford and the Republicans, that could be trouble, but if the Republicans work for Blakeman, or even just sit on their hands, Ford can't win on just the Independence line alone. And it's also hard to see how Ford has a virtual alliance with the Republicans after all the tacking to the left he's done.
Getting on the Independence line. My understanding is that the executive committee of the Independence Party essentially chooses who will and will not be on the ballot under that line. That's why Mike Bloomberg contributed $250,000 to the Party in 2005 and $400,000 last year to get on the line. Goddard points to Bradley Tusk, Bloomberg's campaign manager, currently advising Ford as one indicator that Ford will do this. Allying himself with Bloomberg, who hasn't been a huge fan of Gillibrand, would go a long way. Ford would also have to get what is called a Wilson-Pakula signed by the Independence Party chair, which is where Bloomberg, who is known to be close to Independence Party chair Frank MacKay, would help.
If he succeeds, Gillibrand could collect signatures from Independence Party members to force a September primary, which would be on the same date as the Democratic primary. She must, I believe, also obtain a Wilson-Pakula, as she is not an enrolled Independence Party member. The winner would be on that ballot line in the general.
2010 turnout. As Mike noted last week, when voters are in this foul a mood, anti-incumbent and anti-establishment candidates have advantages (the notion that Ford is anti-establishment is a joke, but he's certainly trying to paint himself as such). This would be targeted at Gillibrand. On top of this, if 2010 is like 2009 in New Jersey, where Democratic base turnout was way down while Republicans were fired up, turnout at the polls could be better for someone like Ford if the Republicans work to back him, or so the theory goes.
Ford pulling a Lieberman. If you are wondering whether Ford could pull a Lieberman and run as the Independence Party nominee if he loses the Democratic party nomination, the answer varies. If he secures the Independence line uncontested, he's on the ballot in November no matter what. If it's contested, then the primary occurs in September on the same date as the Democratic primary, so it would depend on if he wins or loses.
The question for me is that if he is doing this, he would have very little reason to do things like switch positions on marriage equality and try and proclaim his progressive bona fides on issues like choice, immigration and labor. So, it could either be part of a 32-dimensional chess plot, or another part of a bad roll-out. When asked about it on Morning Joe this morning, he said:
Scarborough: We've got to ask this first. I'm sorry to interrupt, but Chuck Todd just said Harold may run as an independent, that there's a rumor out there that you're considering running as an independent. True or False?
Ford: Well, the thinking hasn't progressed that far. But if I run, I'll run as a Democrat. I'm a proud Democrat, been one for 39 or so years, and I think I'm going to remain that.
Scarborough: You know, I switch parties like I switch T-shirts. I've been a Republican for pretty long.
Ford: As we've said throughout this the last 11 or 12 days, I think the Democrats are looking for an independent, standup Democrat to represent the state. So in that sense I would run as an independent.
He didn't exactly slam the door shut, so we'll see.
I spent some time last night dissecting the transcript of Ford's NYTimes interview. One thing that has really come across to me is his obsession with vote ratings and trying to use them as proof that he really is a liberal Democrat.
Q. Let's talk about gay marriage. You know your record very well, but to quickly remind you, you voted to ban same sex marriage, with the Federal Marriage Amendment, twice.
A. I can say up until 2003, most organizations and national organization that had an office in Washington dedicated to fighting for equality for Americans, I enjoyed broad support and big support from them. The marriage votes drove my ratings down considerably, and arguably rightly so.
On choice:
No. 2, the National Right to Life Committee - I may be off by one or two points, I don't think I ever received higher than a 25 percent voting record. No. 3, they never gave me a penny. No. 4, my voting record in the 10 years in the Congress, was three or four years, was 100 percent.
I know somebody somewhat cynically suggested that perhaps there were not votes on abortion those years. But if that were true, the entire Congress would have gotten 100 percent.
On guns:
A: I never got an A rating, like my opponent - would-be opponent - has enjoyed. I don't own them. I do shoot them, and I shoot them at things that can't shoot back. And will continue to do that. And by that, I want to be clear, I don't mean children. I have done a little bird hunting in my day.
[...]
One of the reasons I never scored above a B with the N.R.A. - my intent was never to - it speaks to my independent-minded approach - I am a member of the N.R.A.
On immigration:
Before 2003-2004, my votes in the Congress, at least the grading by anti-immigrant advocacy groups, they gave me - one of them, the group FAIR - gave me a zero percent rating. In 2003-2004, Americans for Better Immigration, which is a great name for a group that wants to restrict immigration, rated me at 8 percent.
Aside from the fact that these are all serious distortions of his record (for more on that, you can go here, here, here and here), what is interesting to me is, again, Ford's belief that New York Democrats are stupid. I have yet to see a candidate wow primary voters with a bunch of vote ratings and use it to get past pandering, carpetbagging, misleading or lying about contributions, and so forth.
What is also interesting to me is whether vote ratings are worth anything at all. Take marriage equality, for example. While Ford trumpets good ratings for a number of years, what LGBT activists have focused on, rightly, is that he voted twice for the Federal Marriage Amendment- a serious misdeed. Take guns. He trumpets that he never got above a B from the NRA but what activists have focused on is his speech to the National Rifle Association. As a related example, some friends of mine with whom I had drinks the other night rightly mocked this study by Congressional Quarterly, finding that Obama has a 96.7% success rate in winning congressional votes on which he took a position. Why? Because Obama only took a position on battles he knew he would win, and did not fight at all on key issues like the public option. So the rating is a false depiction that he is a strong arm-twister, able to bend Congress to his will.
What all of this says to me is that all of these aggregate vote ratings are a lesser standard of judging a candidate's record than individual examples of merit. It's not just Ford who doesn't get that, it's lots of politicians, but Ford is trying to pull a fast one over on progressives and New York Democrats by throwing a bunch of numbers- many distorted- at us. No one should be fooled.
Two updates on my piece this afternoon regarding Harold Ford, Jr. giving Sen. Gillibrand a $1,000 donation and then turning around and contemplating running against her in a primary.
1. It turns out Ford gave her a total of $6,000, not $1,000, as he also made a $5,000 PAC contribution to her 2006 congressional campaign from his PAC. It sure seems Ford has a long history of admiring Kirsten Gillibrand and what she stands for.
2. As Taniel pointed out in the comments, Ford said he gave her the $1,000 contribution two days after she was appointed in January as Senator. It turns out he actually did so on June 5th, so he had about six months to judge her record. Yet here's Ford on his recollection:
Q. But a donation suggests you approve of the way she's led, no?
A. She had only been a senator for two days, when I made my contribution.
Q. That's precise.
A. One of the things you will find as we talk is that I have a decent-size memory for dates and people.
Either Ford is lying and hoping not to get caught, or it turns out he does not have a good memory. Either way, he kind of sucks at life.
I was asked by a friend to make a contribution. Kirsten was a Blue Dog member of the House. We never served together.
Oh, awesome! If being a Blue Dog is a plus in Ford's column, I guess we can tell what kind of Senators he'll campaign for and contribute to cough Joe Lieberman if elected.
On February 14, 2007, Harold Ford was hired as "Vice Chairman and Senior Policy Advisor" at Merrill Lynch. The New York Times estimates his current salary at more than $1 million a year.
On September 15, 2008, Merrill Lynch sold itself to Bank of America. Harold Ford, Jr. retained his position. In late 2008, Merrill Lynch was asked by New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to provide details on what bonus payments, if any, it planned to hand out. According to Cuomo, Merrill Lynch secretly moved up its planned date to hand out $3.6 billion in bonuses despite Merrill Lynch losing billions for the year- losses which prompted Bank of America to buy Merrill Lynch. While names of bonus recipients are not released, it is almost assured that Harold Ford, Jr. was among them, given his position and that Bank of America kept him on. According to Cuomo, 696 individuals collected bonuses of at least $1 million or more, so we can assume Ford collected a bonus at least that large and most likely, given his position, larger.
Here's why this is all interesting to me. Last Thanksgiving, Bank of America fired over three dozen union security guards represented by SEIU 32BJ. In the process, by firing their contractor, Bank of America also stripped 130 security guards of their health care coverage, not to mention their families. And during the holiday season, too. Ho ho ho, said the Bank of America executives.
Now, Reuters reported last week that Bank of America is planning on paying bonuses "close to the levels of 2007", all while these workers are still laid off and more have no health care benefits.
So, let's summarize:
1. Merrill Lynch pays millions of dollars in bonuses to failed employees who wreck the company and the economy... including Harold Ford, Jr.
2. Bank of America buys Merrill Lynch and then fires several dozen union security guards and strips 130 total of their health care benefits, on Ford's watch.
3. Bank of America plans to pay another round of bonuses this year to its executives- at 2007 levels, and also on Ford's watch.
4. Harold Ford, Jr. contemplates running for Senate.
People who work hard everyday trying to create a better life for their families deserve better, especially when the heads of oil companies are enjoying record profits and astronomical pensions.
Pretty comparable situation to today. Record profits and astronomical bonuses, some of which were collected by Ford as the people who guard him were being laid off and stripped of their health care benefits.
So here's two questions for Mr. Ford:
1. If you are the Vice Chairman and Senior Policy Advisor, what did you do, if anything, to prevent union, blue-collar workers from being fired, or kept 130 families from losing their health care in the middle of winter?
2. If you are the friend of labor you claim to be, what are you doing to ensure these employees get their benefits and jobs back?
It is incredible many of these security guards have been left out in the cold while your firm is set to pay out one of its biggest bonus pools ever. Last year Bank of America paid out $3.3 billion in bonuses for 2008 performance, and Merrill Lynch paid out $3.6 billion. Merrill Lynch executives, including you, received these bonuses even though the firm lost $3.8 billion.
[...]
As you contemplate a run for the Senate, it is time to show your commitment to improve the quality of life for all New Yorkers- not just the Wall Street elite. I hope that you will help correct this problem at Bank of America and ensure that the officers at your buildings are restored to their previous positions and have their full benefits restored.
Will Harold Ford, Jr. speak out on behalf of SEIU 32BJ members and their families, and work to correct this problem? Or will he toe the Wall Street corporate line- the same line that pays millions in bonuses to executives while thumbing noses at those who protect them?
To turn a phrase, put your mouth where your money is, Harold.
So it appears that Ford was once a very big Gillibrand fan. Liz Benjamin at the NY Daily News reports:
Apparently, he's changed his mind on Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, too.
Former Rep. Harold Ford Jr., who is now "seriously considering" a primary challenge to Gillibrand, contributed $1,000 to her campaign committee just seven months ago.
The contribution was made on June 5, 2009. Ford listed Merrill Lynch's 4 World Financial Center office as his mailing address, but gave the Democratic Leadership Council as the name of his employer.
I would sure love to know what precipitated such a drastic change of mind on the part of Ford. It's hard to believe that with all of Ford's flipping and flopping that there is any issue issue near and dear to his heart upon which Gillibrand took a position which made him go from big donor to running against her. Perhaps he was just bored. Or rather, perhaps one should focus on how much Ford was promised by his NYC Wall Street corporate backers to run. Either way, there's a great question for his next interview.
Speaking from a conference room at New York University, where he is a teacher, Mr. Ford, 39, expressed enthusiasm about his new hometown, though he described a life quite different than most New Yorkers. On many days, he is driven to an NBC television studio in a chauffeured car. He and his wife, Emily, a 29-year-old fashion executive, live a few blocks from the Lexington Avenue subway line in the Flatiron district. But Mr. Ford said he takes the subway only occasionally in the winter, to avoid the cold when he cannot hail a cab.
Asked whether he had visited all five boroughs, he mentioned taking a helicopter ride across the city with fellow executives, at the invitation of Raymond W. Kelly, New York City's police commissioner. "The only place I have not spent considerable time is Staten Island," he said, adding that "I landed there in the helicopter, so I can say yes."
Asked about his baseball loyalties, he responded: "I am a Yankees fan," and added that he had yet to visit Citi Field, the home of the Mets.
He has breakfast most mornings at the Regency Hotel on Park Avenue, and he receives regular pedicures. (He described them as treatment for a foot condition.)
It really is like an Onion article. I could see SNL making an awesome parody of this.
On the question of him running, there are a few arguments I want to get at in response to yesterday's post.
1. That I advocate breaking legs, filing lawsuits, threats, and the like to keep people from running in elections. Far from it. I approach this from an ideological point of view, and from a progressive point of view, Harold Ford, Jr. in the U.S. Senate would be very detrimental to the progressive movement. So I would rather he did not run, and I am perfectly willing to make ideological arguments against why he should not run- namely that I prefer to elect the most progressive Democrat possible, especially in a state like New York. Harold Ford is not that Democrat.
And again, it depends on which is more important to you: having a competitive primary just for the sake of having a primary, or progressive public policy. I know the latter is more important to me, so there is nothing wrong with arguing, on an ideological basis, that Ford should not run, and working to keep him from doing so by using tactics that HousesofProgress described: pointing out how conservative he is for the state; demonstrating, as David did, that he's lying on his record; and so forth.
2. That it would be awesome to face Harold Ford, as advocated by Anthony de Jesus in the comments:
I just don't get the apparent fear of Ford. In my opinion, the attitude should be to "bring them on" and relish any opportunity to have a fight with people like Ford or Lieberman.
I must disagree and say that I think this is very unstrategic for two reasons. One, statewide primaries in New York cost lots of time and money. I would much rather spend my time and money on, say, immigration reform than being forced to spend it on convincing New York Democrats that Ford sucks. I am sure I am not alone in this feeling.
Two, while I haven't seen any polling yet, the conventional wisdom is that Ford doesn't stand a chance. I would caution against that. No one thought Lamont had a chance when he started. Quirky things happen in elections. Gillibrand could have a scandal. She could, God forbid, contract a serious disease and be forced to drop out like Giuliani did in the 2000 Senate race. Do you really want to be accidentally stuck with Blue Dog/Fox News contributor/DLC Chair/Merrill Lynch Vice Chairman Harold Ford Jr. as the Democratic nominee from the State of New York, all for the sake of "bring them on"? I sure don't.
The way to spend those resources better, and ensure Ford isn't the accidental nominee, is that he doesn't run.
Former Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN), who is gearing up to challenge appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in the New York Democratic primary, has announced that he now supports gay marriage.
Appearing on the Today show, Ford pointed out that he'd previously supported civil unions. "My support for fairness and equality existed long before I moved to New York," Ford said.
Hm. Really? Here's an excerpt of a Stonewall Democrats e-mail back on January 25th, 2007:
Washington, DC - Today, the National Stonewall Democrats called on the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) to affirm its past opposition to discriminatory ballot measures that require states to bar domestic partnership benefits, civil unions and the legal responsibilities of civil marriage to same-sex couples. The organization also called on Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., whom the Democratic Leadership Council officially announced this morning as its new Chair, to affirm such past positions of the organization he will now lead.
"We are asking the Democratic Leadership Council to affirm its opposition to anti-family constitutional amendments that have been championed by Harold Ford," said Jo Wyrick, NSD Executive Director. "Anti-gay populism has failed just about every Democratic candidate who has tried to exploit it, and it has failed Harold Ford. The DLC should not allow such diversions that it has labeled 'cynical and desperate' in the past to corrupt the mission of its organization. The Democratic Leadership Council and Congressman Ford need to strongly affirm the platform of the Democratic Party and the past policy of the DLC in opposing these measures."
In 2004, with his eye on his senate race, Harold Ford reversed his past opposition to an amendment to the United States Constitution that would permanently bar the legal responsibilities of domestic partnerships, civil unions and civil marriage to same-sex couples. In 2006, Ford again joined only a small minority of Democrats who voted for the amendment, which was dramatically defeated by both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate.
[...]
In his 2006 senate race, Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. swiftly exploited a ruling by the Supreme Court of New Jersey that challenged the state legislature to provide basic legal benefits for same-sex couples. "I do not support the decision today reached by the New Jersey Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. I oppose gay marriage, and have voted twice in Congress to amend the United States Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. This November there's a referendum on the Tennessee ballot to ban same-sex marriage - I am voting for it." (National Journal, The Hotline -October 25, 2006)
While it's true Gillibrand has also evolved on this issue, Ford has a history of moving around on marriage equality- from opposition to a Federal Marriage Amendment to support, and now, one would assume, back to opposition- when it's convenient. People will try and equate Gillibrand, who has done significant work to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and been fully vocal in support of other LGBT issues since her appointment- with Ford now that they hold the same position on this issue. There is no comparison. I am glad Ford is in favor, but I'm no fool.
STATE BLOGS
