So I just finished reading Harold Ford Jr.'s op-ed in the New York Post in which he panders like it's nobody's business goes down the checklist of what he thinks liberal New York Democrats want in a Senator and name-drops Schumer and Moynihan as role models. After vomiting a little in my mouth, I agree with Alan van Capelle- Ford is a snake oil salesman.
You know what the whole thing reminds me of? What my mom, a Clinton fan, wrote to me when McCain picked Sarah Palin as VP:
I take it as a slap to women everywhere, it's saying you want a woman on the tix, here's one. They're all interchangeable. Never mind her measly BA degree and her 1.5 years, she's female and that'll sell the tix, especially to Hillary fans. Bull, isn't it, it's warped white conservative male thinking I swear.
Harold Ford, Jr. thinks New York Democrats are stupid. Like, you want a Democrat who says he's liberal? Here's one on paper! That they'll just read a checklist of progressive issues in his stupid op-ed, read that he is suddenly in favor of marriage equality after flip-flopping on the Federal Marriage Amendment, voting twice for it, and then not announcing his newfound position in 2007, 2008, 2009 or early this year, and fall in love.
You know what I bet happens next? That he goes on a "listening tour" of upstate New York, just like Caroline Kennedy, where he spends 30 minutes each with a couple of mayors and leaves Buffalo with a cute little Buffalo pin on his jacket and pretends he knows anything at all about the state of New York. Oh, and just like her, hesitates on whether to take questions, worried he might be asked about something on which he has no clue.
Senators Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) have set a timetable for healthcare reform by this fall--a major step on the road to passing legislation this year. The Senators' plan, set out in a letter to President Obama, calls for a bill by June, committee markups over the summer, and a final vote in the fall. (Just in time for delayed-action budget reconciliation, should the Republicans prove recalcitrant.)
Officials say the daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy will be the governor's choice to fill the New York Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Two people close to Gov. David Paterson tell The Associated Press they believe Caroline Kennedy will be his choice, but the governor cautions he's still looking.
This report appears solid, now that State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is now willing to back Kennedy. The deal appears to made, which is disappointing. Not only will she have received the position because of the celebrity provided by her family name and a bullying, Wall Street faction in New York politics, but the general negativity surrounding her poorly run "campaign" for the seat over the last month makes her potentially vulnerable in 2010. She has appeared foolish and unqualified, giving Republicans a shot at winning a seat in one of the bluest states in the nation.
While I am glad that Ken Salazar's Blue Dog younger brother did not receive the appointment, Bennet doesn't seem to be an exciting pick. Also, it is a little disappointing that, with Barack Obama becoming President and Ken Salazar becoming Secretary of Interior, the Senate appears to have gone from six minority members to only four. The Senate really is one of the most retrograde institutions in the entire country.
I'm with Kos. Nadler would be an excellent choice for Senator from New York City.
REP. JERROLD NADLER: Well, I think all the candidates think they're the most qualified. I think my record in Congress is a very progressive and forward-looking record. I think I've shown very good judgment. I was one of the few downstate people who voted against the war, against the PATRIOT Act. I've taken a leadership role on civil liberties, on economic development. And I led the battle against the--I led the battle for eight years against the Bankruptcy, so-called, Reform Act of 2005, which we now recognize as probably responsible for maybe a third of the foreclosures that are going on in this country.
Nadler is a an aggressive and noisy progressive who nonetheless has good relations within the Democratic caucus, just the kind of guy who can represent a state like New York in the Senate.
This is the result of a two week long backroom political fight.
Resistance is emerging among Democratic officials against Caroline Kennedy as she pursues Hillary Rodham Clinton's seat in the United States Senate, with Gov. David A. Paterson bristling over suggestions that her selection is inevitable, according to his advisers, and other leading Democrats concerned that she is too beholden to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.
She did not provide answers about other issues that may prove more controversial. Ms. Kennedy did not say whether she supports a cap on local property taxes in New York, something that has sharply divided Democrats and Republicans in Albany. And she did not say whether she supports raising state or federal income taxes for the rich to help balance the budget and pay for government programs.
In her responses, Ms. Kennedy expressed strong support for Israel and said an undivided Jerusalem must be the country's national capital.
New York Governor Patterson just proposed a cruel and regressive budget that closes a massive budget gap without raising taxes on the wealthy, a budget Kennedy endorsed. I get that Kennedy can't go against Patterson, but refusing to answer a question about Federal income taxes is a pretty clear indication that her instincts are not yet honed enough for a major political seat. And you can throw in the deeply problematic answer on Jerusalem for good measure, which I see simply as evidence that her campaign is being entirely driven by a center-right aristocratic New York consulting class.
This is why elections are useful, though to be fair, they do have those pesky voter people.
[Kennedy] didn't support a Democrat in 2005. Fernando Ferrer, the Democratic candidate and first Latino ever nominated for citywide office, says she didn't support him. And one source recalls seeing her at a Women for Bloomberg event, though Stu Loeser, the mayor's press secretary, says she was not a member of the group.
Isay runs a consulting firm that literally feasts on its ties to Bloomberg. His clients include the Partnership for New York City, the NYC Cultural Institutions Group, NYC & Co., Forest City Ratner, Primary Care Development Corporation, and the Building Trades Employers Association, all of which do business with Bloomberg City Hall. He's got a metal bat company out of California that lists itself as having lobbied the mayor against a council ban, and a taxi company that's approved by the Taxi & Limousine Commission to put driver and passenger information monitors in cabs. He did the television ads for PlaNYC 2030, the premier initiative of the Bloomberg administration, paid for by the Real Estate Board of New York and others.
The opening page of Knickerbocker's website consists solely of a Schumer blurb, and both he and the newly hired campaign manager for Bloomberg 2009, Bradley Tusk, cut their teeth with Schumer. Knickerbocker's last great senate campaign was Joe Lieberman in 2006, and Bloomberg granted unusual leaves to three of his City Hall aides to join Isay in turning that campaign around. Isay's company is a subsidiary of Squier Knapp Dunn (SKD), the major Washington-based consultant that handled Bloomberg's media in 2001 and 2005. SKD's last big winner was Blagojevich, handling his 2002 and 2006 campaigns. Coincidentally, Tusk went from a stint in Bloomberg City Hall to become Blagojevich's Deputy Governor from 2003 to 2007.
This Schumer-Bloomberg-Lieberman axis is dominant in New York and national politics, a sort of pay-to-play racket for Wall Street, lobbyists, and developers. It's sad that Kennedy has enmeshed herself with this crew. And I have to say, they could be doing a better job of PR on her behalf.
by Cody Lyon
As is often the case in the empire state, New York once again finds itself under the spotlight as drama builds over who Governor David Patterson might pick, if, as planned, current Senator Hillary Clinton resigns some time next year to assume the Secretary of State position. Truth be told, a number of worthy names have been whispered here and there, but only a couple of them have made their way to the main stages of discussion, debate and that sometimes annoying media glare from the rest of the country that has always seen New York as a national soap opera.
Among the whispers is a Cuomo, several women of which a couple happen to be Latina and another from Up-State.
Of course, there's no denying the biggest fish in the fry, a Kennedy, a name that evokes political reverence, respect and legacy. But in spite of tremendous political accomplishment, that same family, through no fault of its own, has also come to represent an American dynasty, the oft clichéd version of our royalty.' And while there's nothing wrong with Royalty per se, or Americans expressing affection for the tradition that comes with it, there is reason to question, show concern or perhaps raise flags when one's family genes potentially provide an untested individual with what could be a simple coronation into national political office where the power is more than symbolic.
History books teach us the United States is a free and open Democracy that consists of government by and for the people. So, considering that `by' essentially equals election, it might seem more fair, that in choosing New York's next Senator, the one set to succeed Hillary Clinton, the Governor might consider appointing an individual who has at least gotten votes for public office, or consider tapping a public official who has earned more tangible political wings beyond being the daughter of one of the nation's most revered presidents and a high profile member of our nation's often romanticized but powerful political dynasties.
Picking Caroline Kennedy to succeed Hillary Clinton as Senator from New York might actually send a contradictory message to Americans, the world, but perhaps more importantly, to the children of New York state. It could, inadvertently impact the spirit of the message that the election of Barack Obama reaffirmed, that hopeful seed our parents plant when they tell us while we're still young and naive, that anyone, regardless of race, income and yes, name, can be elected to high office in the United States.
Choosing Caroline Kennedy as the Senator from New York, based on nothing more than her good deeds that are boosted by familial association, dilutes that message, and at least on the surface, seems to say that like Royalty, position is indeed an attribute, even a card of entitlement in American politics.
City Board of Elections records show Kennedy has failed to vote in many elections since she registered in the city in 1988 - including votes for the Senate seat she hopes to fill and numerous Democratic faceoffs for mayor.
"It doesn't speak to a deep-felt commitment to the electoral process," Baruch College political scientist Doug Muzzio said when told of Kennedy's ballot breakdowns.
Records show Kennedy did not pull the lever for any of her fellow Democrats in city primary races for mayor in 1989, 1993 and 1997 and 2005, which Republicans went on to win three out of four times in the general election.
She was also AWOL for the primary and general elections in 1994, when Sen. Daniel Moynihan was running for reelection to the seat Kennedy hopes to hold.
The New York Daily News is kind of scummy, so I'm curious how she handles this. So far, the PR campaign of Caroline Kennedy isn't looking so hot. Well, not when she has to deal with the public, anyways.
In her first visit to Buffalo and upstate since trying to clear the field by clearing her throat on a phone call to the governor, Kennedy went on a "listening tour" by listening first to political insiders in private meetings.
You can't get any more "seasoned" than that.
No average Western New Yorkers expressing kitchen table concerns. Not much of a give-and-take with pesky reporters asking questions that working stiffs might want answers to. Instead, it's mostly private sit-downs with political pooh-bahs, just like a veteran insider.
It's that kind of seasoning that has cooked our goose as a region.
Her visit was arranged as Kennedy apparently leads the governor's shortlist to fill the seat Hillary Clinton will vacate to become secretary of state. But if the Democratic superstar wants to start at the top despite never holding office at any level of government, the least she could do is pretend to be a different kind of politician.
If she really wants to know upstate, she could adapt the model of the senator she wants to work with and the one she wants to replace. Both Chuck Schumer and Clinton made a point of visiting every county in the state. Kennedy could make a point of visiting every one of the 939 cities, counties, towns, villages, school districts and other assorted taxing entities in Erie County.
Constituents get all huffy sometimes, when you, like, ignore them.
Also (Adam): Dead on, as I'm one constituent who's feeling ignored. In the first place, she looked weak and indecisive when hesitating over whether to take questions after the Syracuse meeting, then deciding just to go to the car, yet taking questions after the Rochester and Buffalo meetings. In the second place, Byron Brown is an ineffective loser of a mayor who no one thinks has any idea how to fix anything in Buffalo. He will likely even get a primary challenge in 2009 from Hoyt, the Assemblyman from the city. If you're going to meet with anyone in Buffalo and invite the media and look good doing it, meet with Higgins (if he'll do it) or Slaughter or even Golisano. In the third place, the whole concept of meeting with mayors and pretending like you're trying to learn about the region is stupid. So she meets with Brown for 30 minutes, leaves his office with a stupid little Buffalo pin on her jacket and smiles proudly pretending like she just learned a damn thing about the area when everyone knows she's trying to gauge whether she can get Brown's support. People just roll their eyes, and Watson, who is a very respected BuffNews voice, called her on it.
I don't have anything particularly insightful to add about Caroline Kennedy. I don't like aristocracy in general, and I don't know what she believes. Two interesting notes - one, she's a cousin-in-law of Arnold Schwarzenegger through her cousin Maria Shriver. And two, she's given to Presidential candidates and Kennedy's since 1979, but the only downticket non-Kennedy donations she's made have gone to Chris Dodd in 1997, Harris Wofford in 1991, and Ned Lamont in 2006.
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:
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.
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.
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.
As chair of the rules committee, her ethical standing is beyond reproach, which is something that Democrats need in their Senate appointments right now.
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.
She represents Upstate New York--parts of both Rochester and Buffalo--which right now is pretty much entirely lacking representation at the statewide level.
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.
STATE BLOGS
