New Supporters Two new supporters of filibuster reform have emerged since I last posted a filibuster reform whip count update on Monday: Kirsten Gillibrand and Alexi Giannoulias. Additionally, there is a good chance more will be revealed before noon today.
Gillibrand, who is up for election this year but is a virtual lock to win, is supportive of some sort of unspecified reform. Todd Beeton, who works for Senator Gillibrand, writes "yes, Sen. Gillibrand supports filibuster reform." Todd adds "there are several proposals in Congress as to how exactly to reform it that she's considering."
Let me be crystal clear: should I be so fortunate as to be elected, on day one in the Senate, I will join the fight to amend the Senate rules and fix our broken filibuster system. I will vote in favor of Senator Udall's proposed motion to consider the rules of the Senate, I will vote in favor of common-sense and fair filibuster reform, and I will work day and night to bring as many of my colleagues on board as possible.
Emphasis in original. Lots and lots of emphasis in the original.
More supporters might come appear today. The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration is holding another hearing on filibuster reform, starting at 10 a.m. It will stream live on their website. Five returning, or potentially returning, Democrats on the panel have not yet made their support or opposition to reform known: Inouye (HI), Feinstein (CA), Nelson (NE), Murray (WA), and Pryor (AR). The hearing is worth a watch just to see if any of those five make an announcement. The returning Democrats on the panel who are supportive of reform--Schumer, Durbin, Udall and Warner--might also flesh out their views a bit more.
Answering your questions Before I turn to the nitty-gritty of the whip count (in the extended entry), I want to address questions from the comments in the last whip count post. First, from Gaucho:
Would it make sense to add a negative whip count: Dems who've stated they'd be against rules reform? it could complement the other counts above.
As far as I know, no returning, or potential, Senators in 2011 have stated their opposition to any reform. Some may have stated they are opposed to a 51-vote Senate, but then again 18-months ago every Democratic Senator was opposed to that. The situation is fluid, and opinions are changing.
I'm concerned that some of the people who are considering intermediate options aren't really serious. Remember the incredible shrinking public option.
I understand this concern. However, the public option campaign is also a good example of how staking out a clear position can cause problems, too. The original public option proposal progressives were backing was tied to Medicare rates, and would have been available to the whole country two years after the exchanges were set-up. However, at every stage of the game, when the votes were not there, this resulted in offering a weaker and weaker version of the public option. Among other factors, the repeated backpedalling progressives had to engage in lessened their leverage and worsen the cycle.
Further, at this point, there are several different proposals for reform floating around, and none of them have anything approaching 51 votes. In addition to those pushing for a 51-vote Senate, some people want to lower the threshold to 55 votes. Some people want to make the filibuster an old-fashioned talk-a-thon. Others are more focused on issues like unanimous consent, holds, and the length of the cloture process. There is also lack of consensus within the grassroots on the most desirable path to reform.
I want a 51-vote Senate, and the end of any need for unanimous consent. However, given the variety of proposals currently being discussed, and given that there are a few Senators who would likely oppose a proposal just because the progressive grassroots favor it, right now specifics should remain in the background. If we actually want to reform the rules, rather than just stake out a position, the best move is to get as many returning and incoming Senators as possible in favor of rules reform of some unspecified type. Then, the day after the election, we see where we stand.
It would be a good idea to get organizations such as the NAACP and SEIU on the record as saying that filibuster reform is a priority, if they haven't already.
Absolutely agree. I gotta get working on that.
Whip count Keep your questions coming, along with your sightings of new supporters of reform. Check out the Rules Committee hearing today, too (starts at 10 am, eastern, streaming here). The whip count is in the extended entry.
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.
Okay, I know I'm going against years of political normalcy here, but let me give a free piece of advice to New York State elected officials: using the term "upstate New York" to refer to one region as a political whole is a little imprecise and very dismissive.
The latest example, from Gov. Paterson last night, while introducing Sen. Gillibrand:
Senator Gillibrand represents a region of this state that contains 40 percent of its population, but often is ignored.
Nothing against Gillibrand, but no, not quite. Sen. Gillibrand is from the Hudson Valley. What's that got to do with people in Elmira, Rochester, Niagara Falls, or Chautauqua County? Would Gov. Paterson walk up to any residents of those places and tell them "Guess what? I appointed Sen. Gillibrand to the Senate! She's one of you, since you're all from outside New York City!"? I sure hope not. So why do folks insist on referring to a region that big as one blanket term- "upstate"- and pretending people from "upstate" are all the same? I'm always happy to have elected officials from outside NYC, and she's Senator for the entire state, but Gillibrand grew up in, and represented a House district that is five hours from where I grew up. So what?
How does the hypothetical race shape up by region? In Gillibrand's backyard - upstate New York - she garners 50% compared with 23% for Ford.
Her "backyard"? If you take off Long Island and New York City- including water area- upstate New York is over 52,000 square miles. That's kind of a big "backyard", one that's roughly bigger than nearly half the states in the entire Union, including Alabama, Pennsylvania and Ohio. I was born and raised in suburban Buffalo, lived for four years in Rochester where I did my undergrad, my boyfriend teaches at Syracuse University, and my grandparents lived in a tiny village called Franklinville in the rural Southern Tier near the Pennsylvania border. In all of these places, some issues are the same, but lots are different. I'm pretty sure folks in those places wouldn't tell you they live in "Gillibrand County" or whatever. The culture and demographics are also different from place to place. The City of Buffalo is much more blue-collar Democratic, impoverished, and African-American than an Ithaca or a Plattsburgh or Cattaraugus County, and those places are all different from each other, so I don't know why all get lumped into ridiculous statements like "Hillary needs to score huge margins in NYC and hold upstate" as if "upstate" was all demographically the same and cared about the exact same issues.
Specifics matter. If you're talking about the Finger Lakes region, or Western New York, or the North County, or Elmira, or Westchester, or anywhere else, then say so. The sooner New York politicians- and pollsters- learn to stop speaking like 52,000 square miles' worth of people all live in one gigantic neighborhood, the better off they'll be.
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.
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.
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.
Via devtob at The Albany Project, Josh Marshall is being a little overly pessimistic about the prospects of Gillibrand retaining the Senate seat in NY next year. Here's Marshall:
Maybe she'll turn out to be a great senator. But this one surprised everyone when it was announced. And she's far from the best positioned person to hold this seat in 2010. It wasn't clear when she was appointed that it would be such a tough climate for Dems. But that's life. If Giuliani gets in to this race, this one could end up looking like a senate (seat) Gov. Paterson all but gave away to the Republicans.
Now, I'm not the world's biggest fan of Gillibrand, but she's been very good so far in the Senate, has worked extremely hard to raise her profile and win the seat. Far from the best positioned? Even though Marshall doesn't say who would have been better positioned, even leaving aside the hindsight is 20/20 argument, I am doubtful that any of the other contenders would have been better. I have trouble seeing why a Caroline Maloney or a Randi Weingarten would have been too much better positioned, all things considered. Byron Brown? I can't even count on one hand the number of good things he's done for Buffalo. Caroline Kennedy?
With respect to the optics of holding the seat, at the time she was chosen, Giuliani wasn't really looking to run for anything, and the expectation was Governor if he did. As devtob points out, there was no "lock" on the seat except Cuomo, and we all know he wanted to run for Governor. I don't know how Paterson could be charged with "giving away" the seat just because Giuliani is scared of losing the gubernatorial race. Besides, I'm not even sure he gets in. Being 100th in seniority for an impatient egomanic like Giuliani, with no executive power whatsoever, doesn't come across to me like it's up his alley. If he does get in, I remember he couldn't even be well-informed on a bunch of major issues in the presidential race, making numerous gaffes on basic policy. He's lazy as hell. He's no lock to win the seat.
What is also interesting to me is how many people have made noises, or are still making noises, about running. First Carolyn McCarthy threatens to run the very day Gillibrand was appointed over gun issues. Then she bows out. Then Carolyn Maloney reportedly gets in, then gets out. At some point Tasini, a labor and anti-war activist who also ran in a primary against Clinton in 2006, got in, and Jon Cooper, an openly gay Suffolk County legislator who has been deciding for months, just said he will wait another several weeks to announce if he's running. Now, via Gray in Quick Hits, Bill Thompson might run because, it seems, he just wants to run for something. Giuliani is the same way. The amount of hand-wringing in this race is certainly entertaining, if nothing else.
The Hill and Danny Hakim at the NYTimes, who usually has a good ear on what's going on in state politics, are reporting that former AG and Gov. Eliot Spitzer is "considering a comeback", possibly for Comptroller, his former post as Attorney General, or to primary Kristen Gillibrand for U.S. Senate.
A couple of quick reactions (native New Yorker and former Spitzer intern- many generations ago- that I am, I can't resist):
There are a lot of musical chairs here. Spitzer's running for Attorney General is predicated on Cuomo vacating the seat to challenge Gov. Paterson, should Paterson choose to run again, which is also not clear, but I'm told is extremely doubtful. Meaning, I don't think Spitzer would run in a primary for AG, and I am not sure he would beat Cuomo if he did.
While Spitzer against Gillibrand would certainly be interesting, I'm not sure it is the best expenditure of resources in terms of his candidacy. I'm not the world's biggest fan of Gillibrand, particularly her movement on LGBT issues around her appointment, but I also think she's been solid in terms of voting, and admire her leadership on marriage and Don't Ask, Don't Tell since she's come in.
According to the NYS Board of Elections, he has only $268,914 in his 2010 campaign account. He would face an uphill climb there, especially if it's against Cuomo or Gillibrand.
Regarding running for any office, yeah, conventional wisdom says he's too hurt by the scandal, it's only been two years since, yada yada. I say it doesn't matter. I remember when I was younger Bill Clinton had sky-high approval ratings in New York all through the Lewinsky episode and the same time period afterwards. Hell, if he was Constitutionally permitted to run again, he would have won New York easily. We're also the state that's elected two carpetbaggers- Hillary and RFK- to Senate. Plus, Spitzer's a Democrat from Manhattan. It's his base. I don't pretend to be an expert on NYC politics, but the Democrats in Manhattan I know see this stuff all the time, and shrug their shoulders. It is Manhattan, after all. If he were a Republican and his base was Cattaraugus County (where my Grandpa lives), it would be a problem, but he's not.
Spitzer as Comptroller is not the most exciting thing in the world, but the guy gets numbers and finances. When I flip on the cable morning shows and the topic is the economic crisis/Wall Street, he's there more often than not on panels, explaining how x led to y led to z and how to fix it. He's also done a number of op-eds on financial regulation, a particularly good one here, where he attacks free market fundamentalism. All of that helps him. I still occasional bring up his name back home, and the most common reaction I get is that the guy was smart, tough, and knew what he was doing re financial stuff. Don't forget he made his name as the "Sheriff of Wall Street". Plus, it can be a stepping stone.
My one true wish is actually that Spitzer runs for Governor again in 2010, Cuomo stays where he is, and Paterson opts not to run again. I have enough problems with Paterson's electoral viability, and Cuomo's noted lack of caring about any issues except housing, along with running to the media as soon as he gets a big settlement, to see this as important. Spitzer is a bar fight primary kind of Democrat to me. The opening of his resignation statement still makes me grin.
For the past nine years, eight years as attorney general, and one as governor, I have tried to uphold a vision of progressive politics that would rebuild New York and create opportunity for all. We sought to bring real change to New York and that will continue.
Defying the wishes of the national Democratic Party leadership, today comes news that both Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA) will mount primary challenges to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Senator Arlen Specter, respectively. Good for both Sestak and Maloney. If the leadership can't control their own Senate caucus enough to pass progressive legislation, then they shouldn't be able to prevent progressive primary challenges, either.
Although neither Sestak nor Maloney are making their official campaign launches at this time, in the extended entry I discuss polling, voting records, and other important information that will help you make sense of these campaigns.
I am going to write something that might sound a little bit off character: I am willing to give Bush Dog, and apparently soon to be New York Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand a chance during her time in the Senate. In practice, what this means is that while I will be interested in looking at primary challenges she receives in 2010, and while I am wary of her past performance, the defeat of the working conservative majority and the newly arrived Democratic trifecta does appear to have altered the congressional playing field. It now seems likely new alliances can be formed for progressives, and no approach to passing progressive legislation, or stopping bad legislation, should be dismissed out of hand.
When I offered in a blog thread to go lobby on TARP oversight and reform while I was in DC, little did I know that I was going to be asked to write about it on Open Left. It's a challenge to rise to the standards set by all the wonderful writers and activists on the front page of this blog. And did I mention that I am sure they are all much better typists than I am....(.Any misspellings really is my typing, I won spelling bees as a kid.)
In the past I have employed 2 methods. The first, more official one is call ahead, get an appointment with hopefully the legislator, but often it is the Chief of Staff, Legislative aide or the Press person. This works when they are friendly, agree with you and want very much for the legislation to pass. My other is the walk in and see what happens....and that's what I did Wednesday, not because Dorgan wouldn't welcome help on this bill because there had been no time to make an appointment.
STATE BLOGS
