December 16, 2008

12/16: Caroline Ain't So Sweet To The Netroots

The political blogosphere is abuzz over the news that Caroline Kennedy told NY Gov. David Patterson that she is interested in being appointed to the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton. Although a few liberal bloggers want to see Kennedy tapped for the seat, most of them are uncomfortable with the idea, and several prominent bloggers (Markos Moulitsas and Jane Hamsher) strongly oppose the idea. First of all, these bloggers don't think Kennedy deserves the Senate appointment, since she has never run for office and "basically her only qualification would be her family name". Second, they aren't impressed with Kennedy's political skills and aren't convinced that she can defeat a strong GOP challenger (such as Rudy Giuliani) in 2010. Third, they aren't willing to give Kennedy the benefit of the doubt with regard to her progressivism, especially now that she's hired Dem consultant Josh Isay, who previously worked for NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg and CT Sen. Joe Lieberman. Hamsher complains:

"It's telling that Caroline Kennedy has never wanted to run for office, and never thought to put her case before the public when she decided she wanted this job. Her first move was to pick up the phone and start working the elites, then hire a political fixer whose specialty is deceiving voters."

KENNEDY: This Is Supposed To Be A Democracy, Not A Monarchy

Several prominent liberal bloggers reacted very negatively to the news that Kennedy is interested in Clinton's Senate seat:

• Firedoglake's Hamsher: "It seems Caroline Kennedy has decided she'd rather have a US Senate seat than a pony for Christmas. [...] It appears Ms. Kennedy thinks that US Senate seats are something to lobbied for amongst political elites when one decides one wants them, and that the public should be happy to simply fall in line. The fact that one has a family political machine currently in the process of steamrolling David Paterson and a famous last name should be enough for the little people. I thought at least she'd get out before the cameras and start making her case to the public before she announced her intentions, because simply lobbying your well-connected buddies just oozes an outrageous sense of entitlement and insufferable pomposity."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Frankly, I consider [Kennedy] 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."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Rich and famous people already have a huge leg up when it comes to winning political office, but at least they still have to run and win. Appointing them instead so they can avoid the whole messy business of engaging in a campaign is just a little too Habsburgian for my taste. Needless to say, I've got nothing against Kennedy. But appointing her to the Senate just isn't the right thing to do."
• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "When you're rich and come from a political family, and are heir to American royalty, you can apparently dispense with dealing with pesky voters by simply ringing up the governor. [...] Kennedy might very well be a favorite of Democratic primary voters in a contested race (and current polls suggest that), but that would require her to run, and elections can expose candidate weaknesses not readily apparent before the harsh glare of the spotlight is trained on them. In 2002, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend lost her bid for the governorship of heavily Democratic Maryland despite entering the race with a 27-point lead in the polls. In 2004, Sen. Jean Carnahan lost the special election to the seat she was appointed to in 2002 after her husband was tragically killed in an airplane accident. But running for office is an icky process. It's hard work. Much harder, of course, than merely picking up the phone and calling the governor."

Moulitsas continues: "In a celebrity-obsessed world, her name might be enough. And there's no doubt that we, as a nation, have a bizarre yearning for our own royalty. But ultimately, that shouldn't be enough to snag a Senate seat, no more so than buying off [IL Gov. Rod] Blagojevich should be enough to score a Senate seat. Both are offensive to the notion of democracy. [...] Patterson should appoint a caretaker senator for the next two years, and let the voters make their decision in 2010. If Kennedy wants to enter the scrum at that time, all the power to her. But to deliver what might be a lifetime appointment to a Senate seat based on a phone call is offensive on too many different levels."

KENNEDY II: She Hired Isay?

Hamsher and Moulitsas are particularly critical of the fact that Kennedy has hired Isay, "who has deep connections to New York powerhouses Sen. Charles Schumer, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the Rev. Al Sharpton":

• Hamsher: "Isay did the honors for Joe Lieberman during his general election race against Ned Lamont, after Lieberman withdrew from the Democratic party and ran as a member of the 'Connecticut for Lieberman' party. [...] It's telling that Caroline Kennedy has never wanted to run for office, and never thought to put her case before the public when she decided she wanted this job. Her first move was to pick up the phone and start working the elites, then hire a political fixer whose specialty is deceiving voters."
• Moulitsas: "You know who else Isay is currently working with? [Ex-Israeli PM Benjamin] Netanyahu. Yup. A real gallery of rogues. Lest I be accused of guilt by association, here's the point I'm making -- we have little insight into what a Senator Caroline Kennedy might look like, beyond her excellent work in education. Political campaigns allow candidates to present their vision for the office they seek, and sitting elected officials have a record to evaluate. With Kennedy, we have neither. So all we have to go with is who she is hiring, and on that front, the early verdict is not encouraging."

Atrios: "I find the whole unfolding Caroline Kennedy saga to be rather depressing. Not just that she's being considered (in the press if not elsewhere), but that she's running a public campaign which involves reaching out to elites. The whole thing is just weird and feeds into the politics as personality soap opera that the press loves to focus on."

KENNEDY III: Can She Beat Rudy?

Other liberal bloggers are less critical of Kennedy's conduct, but they're still uncomfortable with the notion of Patterson appointing a political neophyte to the seat:

• Crooks and Liars' David Neiwert: "We're still unsure whether a new Senator Kennedy is a good idea, mostly because we know so little about her. [...] The main criterion, I think, is that we need someone who can defeat Rudy Giuliani in the election to follow. Could Caroline do it? Perhaps. But we'd want to see more, thanks very much, before handing her the incumbency."
• digby: "I think Clinton only survived in New York because of the hard political and campaign work she put in and recent hard scrabble political experience in Washington. Kennedy has not given any indication that she's the type of person who has those skills and that makes her a weak candidate for 2010. If Patterson names her, I won't be surprised. But I also won't expect that New York will necessarily have two Democratic senators after 2010 and that's a shame. Helping the Republicans rebuild their party in the northeast shouldn't be one of the first acts of the new Democratic era."
• Daily Kos' brownsox: "I like Caroline Kennedy, and she has been the most popular potential selection among New Yorkers according to polling. That said, there are a lot of strong candidates in this pool, including many solid progressives who have worked in public service for decades. Granted, many political legacies seek political office themselves...but most of those actually run for office, as [Sen.] Ted Kennedy and [Rep.] Patrick Kennedy did, and as Hillary Clinton did. I'd be a bit more enthused about Caroline Kennedy if she were actually running for the seat and campaigning for votes, rather than seeking an appointment."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "As I wrote ten days ago, from Gov. David Patterson's perspective there are some distinct advantages to appointing Ms. Kennedy to the seat: she's a woman, she's a candidate with 100% name recognition, she's tight with the President-elect and, really, if you're a Republican, how do you run against Caroline Kennedy? On the other hand, she's a pretty bad campaigner from what I saw of her on the trail for Barack and I'm not a big fan of the precedent this would set -- have a famous name, the Senate seat is yours! But I suspect if she is appointed, she will work extremely hard to prove she is deserving of it in her own right."

KENNEDY IV: Hey, We Like Caroline!

A few liberal bloggers like the idea of Patterson appointing Kennedy:

• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "Caroline Kennedy is a Columbia Law graduate and co-author of two books: In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights in Action and The Right to Privacy. [...] I think she's more than qualified to be a U.S. Senator and I hope she gets the position. We need more Senators who are cognizant and respectful of our constitutional rights. She'll be great for education and funding for the arts. She's outside the Washington power grid but knows how it works. Her celebrity will bring increased attention to the progressive bills she introduces, co-sponsors and supports. I think she's exactly the kind of change we need to bring to Washington."
• Al Giordano: "The louder some yell about her never having run for office or served in a legislature, the more it convinces me she'll be the right move for Paterson and my homeland of New York. True, she doesn't talk like a politician, she doesn't walk like a politician, and as a part of the vast majority of us that are part of 'anti-political culture' but forced to deal with the blowhards of political culture because of the pain and suffering they inflict on this world, maybe we can slip one of our very own into that hornets' nest called the US Senate. I mean, what is so friggin' special or meritorious about having spent one's career in elective office? That Caroline Kennedy could have had almost any political job for the asking in recent decades but chose other paths instead makes her, in my view, more qualified, not less."

KENNEDY V: Since When Do Celebrities Deserve Senate Seats?

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Kennedy for seeking appointment to the Senate:

• The Atlantic's Ross Douthat: "America's Princess has decided to claim her inheritance. [...] You would think that in the aftermath of l'affaire Blago, a public figure would be wary of having the terms 'pursue' and 'United States Senate seat' in a sentence that doesn't also include the word 'election.' But then again, maybe I'm just not thinking like a Kennedy."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "How does being on various non-profit boards, helping choose the new director of the Harvard University Institute of Politics, writing letters of recommendation for kids trying to get into a particular school, lending star power to raise money for public schools and being a Barack Obama insider qualify one for the United States Senate? Is the rule just that if one's last name is 'Kennedy,' all other matters are overlooked?"
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "It is one thing for a Kennedy, or a Bush, or a Gore, or a Dodd to carry on their family traditions of public office by competing for public support with other candidates on at least a nominally level playing field. [...] But for somebody to trade on family name alone, without obvious qualifications, is to take dynasticism too far. New York Gov. David Paterson should strenuously resist the pressure to appoint Kennedy to the job, and instead choose somebody with an actual, extensive record in public life."

Hot Air's Allahpundit: "We really should consider setting aside a permanent seat for the Kennedys, and I say that as someone who wants to see less of them in public life, not more. Give them their own spot, fully inheritable, to be filled by whomever the family designates, and you might just placate them enough to discourage other members of the brood from running. As it is, we're looking at Caroline in New York, Teddy's wife replacing him in Massachusetts, and just maybe Chris Kennedy as a dark horse in Illinois. This dynastic nonsense is already an American disgrace; let's go the whole nine yards, grant them nobility, and limit them to one spot out of 100."

SALAZAR: Good, He's Leaving The Senate

Liberal bloggers are mostly pleased that Obama is reportedly tapping CO Sen. Ken Salazar to be his Interior Sec., as they're hoping to fill Salazar's Senate seat with someone who's more progressive:

• Atrios: "I have no opinion on whether [Salazar]'s a good choice for that job, but don't mind the idea that he's leaving the Senate hopefully to be replaced by a better Democrat."
• Beeton: "...Obama, by picking Salazar, would, in the short term, anyway, ensure his seat would go to a Democrat and in the process remove one of the Republicans' favorite Senate Democrats and elevate the importance of newly elected Sen. Mark Udall, who is far more progressive than Salazar. [...] And Lieberman's allies dwindle further..."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "With Colorado having turned bluer, Salazar's moderation is no longer such a prize to the Dems, especially given that his approval ratings are no better than average. Basically, the Democrats ought to be able to wind up with either (i) someone just as electable as Salazar, but more liberal, or (ii) someone no more liberal than Salazar, but electorally untouchable."

Daily Kos' mcjoan is comfortable, albeit not thrilled, with the choice: "On environmental issues, I think we could have done worse. California Rep. Michael Thompson, for instance, would have been much worse with his strong ties to timber and seemingly best qualification being the fishing and hunting groups like him. Much better, IMO, to have an interior westerner at interior than a coastal one. We probably could have done better, too. Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, unabashedly progressive, had been very much on top of keeping track of [Interior Sec.] Dirk Kempthorne's diry deeds in the current administration. However, having one less Blue Doggish Senator in the Dem caucus isn't bad news, particularly remember Salazar's membership in the Gang of 14 that helped land us with [Justice John] Roberts and [Justice Samuel] Alito."

Bowers: "It is a real disappointment that Raul Grijalva wasn't the choice. [...Still,] this could potentially be a positive, as Salazar was a fairly annoying Democratic Senator. He was a member of the 'Gang of 14', and was below average within the Democratic caucus on Progressive Punch. He wasn't the worst, and [IN Sen.] Evan Bayh didn't even appear to be targeting him for the new Senate Blue Dog caucus, but he wasn't exactly a particularly useful Senator for progressives, either. Hopefully, Salazar's replacement in the Senate will not be his brother, who is a Blue Dog. That, plus the various corruption issues surrounding our Senate picks these days, would make him a poor choice."

BAYH: Promoting Disunity?

Silver thinks Bayh's proposal to create a Senate "Blue Dog" caucus could be helpful to Obama's agenda: "[T]he Democrats in the Blue Dog coalition would presumably tend to vote as a group rather than individuals. That is the whole point of a coalition; if a coalition's members are not voting together, it really isn't serving any purpose. Let's say that there are seven Democrats in the Blue Dog group. In theory, this means that instead of having anywhere between zero and seven votes on a particular bill (but most commonly some in-between number like two, three or four), Barack Obama would tend to get either get exactly seven votes or exactly zero. Would this behavior be helpful or harmful to his agenda? I would argue that it might be helpful, simply because of where the numbers tend to stand in the Senate right now. The Democrats will wind up with somewhere between 57 and 59 memebers in their caucus, depending on the resolution of Illinois and Minnesota. That means they will need somewhere between one and three Republican votes to break fillibusters -- and so every vote on the margin will tend to matter a great deal; he'll already need to achieve near-unanimity among Democrats. If Obama loses, say, three Democratic votes, then reaching a 60-vote threshold is already liable to be relatively difficult for him, and so losing seven Democratic votes instead might not matter very much. On the other hand, if Bayh can whip [LA Sen.] Mary Landrieu's or [NE Sen.] Ben Nelson's vote for him on a particular issue, that could potentially be pretty helpful."

Moulitsas disagrees: "Nate Silver thinks that 1) having corporatist Dems voting as a bloc could be helpful to Obama (making negotiations simpler with fewer players involved), but 2) it won't work anyway. Senators are notoriously egotistical, and there's little reason for a bunch of them to cede over their independence just to make Evan Bayh extra powerful. If it was just ego, then sure, this thing would be stillborn. But there's another factor at play, as Yglesias skillfully points out: 'With Republicans out of power, the GOP can't really block progressive change in exchange for large sums of special interest money. That creates an important market niche for Democrats willing to do the work.' Quite cynical and likely spot on. That corporate cash has to go somewhere. Meanwhile, [Senate Maj. Leader Harry] Reid is now ecstatic that he'll have Bayh to capitulate to. The prospects of 'leading' his caucus without Bush calling the shots apparently proved too distressing to him."

Ezra Klein is also critical of Bayh's proposal: "Come January, [Dems]'ll have 58 or 59 [senators], none of whom are particularly far from the party's mainstream. Those are the sort of numbers where skilled legislators and steady presidential leadership should be able to break through minority obstruction. The real danger now is Democratic disunity and fractiousness. Happily for the Republicans, Evan Bayh seems aching to throw some of that into the mix."

REID: An Ineffective Leader?

Several liberal bloggers are harshly criticizing Reid's leadership:

• Silver: "Harry Reid has been exceptionally ineffective as the Democrats' majority leader. The number of cloture votes skyrocketed in the 110th Congress following the Democratic takeover of the Senate and Reid's assumption of the majority leader position. [...] A majority of these cloture motions were in fact triggered by Republican floor action, and the vast majority of them were also procedural filibusters -- the actual filibuster, in which [Senate Min. Leader] Mitch McConnell wets his pants while reading from the phone book for 19 hours, is now exceedingly rare. There are basically two mechanisms that a majority leader can employ to limit filibusters: firstly, he can threaten to block votes on certain of the opposition party's legislation (or alternatively, present carrots to them for allowing a vote to proceed), and secondly, he can publicly shame them. Reid managed to do neither, and the Senate Republicans did fairly well for themselves considering that they were in a minority and were burdened by a President with negative political capital. [...] The bottom line, however, is that the Republicans are filibustering more and more often because they can get away with it. If Reid can't get them to pay a greater public price, then the Democrats ought to find somebody else who can."
• Moulitsas: "Reid is a crappy Senate leader. [...] If Republicans knew what was good for their continued obstructionism efforts, they'd give Reid a reelection pass. Given Reid's poor reelection numbers, Republicans might screw up and actually defeat Reid, and who knows, Democrats may end up with an effective Senate leader as a result."

OBAMA: The Rightroots Question Fitzgerald

Yesterday Obama's transition team said that a review conducted by Obama's lawyer indicated "that the President-elect's staff was not involved in inappropriate discussions" with disgraced IL Gov. Blagojevich. The Obama team said that it's willing to release the review, but that U.S. atty Patrick Fitzgerald has requested that it not do so "until the week of December 22, in order not to impede their investigation of the governor."

NRO's Jim Geraghty doesn't understand why Fitzgerald wants to delay the release of the review: "The Obama team says they have the information assembled, but Fitzgerald wants the information held until the week of December 22. I wonder why. No sarcasm in that, I just genuinely wonder why."

Allahpundit implies that Fitzgerald is doing Obama a favor in order to increase his job security: "If Fitz's job was in doubt before, it's in less doubt today."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt thinks the Obama team is "hiding the facts" and urges Obama to ask Fitzgerald to release the relevant materials immediately: "The statement from the president-elect's office is, well, slippery. It does not detail what contacts occurred between Governor Blagojevich and Obama advisors and staff. Most of us had understood the president-elect to have committed to full disclosure of all the details. The president-elect appears to be hiding the facts about contacts between his staff and advisors and Blagojevich, which leads to the conclusion that there is something to hide here. To end the speculation, the president-elect need only request that the United States Attorney release transcripts of all conversations taped between Blagojevich and and Obama staffer or advisor."

Meanwhile, The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini advises GOPers on "the right response to the Obama/Blago connection": "[I]t's fair to say that any residual connections Obama may have with Gov. Blagojevich as a result of being an Illinois Senator are not the strongest part of our argument. I can understand the desire to go at Obama. But with Obama at 76% approval for the transition, our hits against him have to be clean hits, or they will blow up in our face. I find myself agreeing with Phil Singer that any attacks have to conform to existing public narratives of Obama. I don't think that Obama the corruptocrat is a particularly promising meme, but I do think that Obama as lethargic and passive (which was Obama's whole strength during the economic crisis because of McCain's erratic-ness) could have potential if, say, it was found that Obama's staff knew something shady was going on, and did not immediately report it to Patrick Fitzgerald."

CARNEY: No Surprise There...

Conservative bloggers see Jay Carney's decision to leave Time magazine and become VP-elect Joe Biden's communications director as evidence that the media is full of liberals:

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "The revolving door between the mainstream media and the Democratic Party continues to revolve."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Jay Carney is an awesome reporter. He always played it middle of the road and tried to get both sides, but his biases were always to the left. The point here is this: have any major reporters gone on to work for Republicans? The left likes to use Tony Snow as their example, but of course Tony was a well known conservative and Republican, having guest hosted for Rush Limbaugh for a number of years. But who in the mainstream media ever goes to the Republicans? Linda Douglass of ABC News went with Obama. Carney is going with Biden. What about ABC's Claire Shipman, Carney's wife? Do you really think she's going to cover the political beat fairly with her husband working for Biden? I doubt it. Jay Carney is a good guy. He'll serve Biden well in what will be a position of little influence in a small corner of oblivion. He is not the first. He won't be the last. He's just another example of the mainstream media showing its bias against conservatives."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "You know the unbiased journalist, Jay Carney, right? ... Maybe this will refresh your memory: He was the guy who blamed conservative bloggers for the 'Whitey' rumor. (In fairness, he did eventually set the record straight)..."

Of course, liberal bloggers don't trust Carney, either.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Let Cao Join The CBC!

TAPPED's Adam Serwer thinks it's in the Congressional Black Caucus' interest to let GOP Rep.-elect Anh "Joseph" Cao join their ranks:

"Vietnamese-American Republican Anh 'Joseph' Cao, who defeated disgraced Rep. William Jefferson in Louisiana, is hinting that he might make an effort to join the CBC. The caucus should let him in, along with anyone else who wants to join. Like [TN Rep. Steve] Cohen, Cao will be representing a mostly black district. I don't see the CBC as any different from any other Congressional group formed around a specific set of principles, and I understand the CBC's desire to keep itself focused on the unique circumstances and desires of their constituents. But people like Cao should be let in, if only because excluding them causes more problems than it's worth. Those people interested in crafting a policy agenda that caters to the needs of constituents in America's mostly black districts will remain part of the caucus. Those who are just trying to make a point will eventually leave, and once it's clear that anyone who wants to can join, it will cease being an issue worth making a big deal about. And we won't have to listen to Republican histrionics about 'reverse racism.'"

LEST WE FORGET: Bush Frustrated By Mother's Constant Questioning Of His Plans Post-White House

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- With his departure from office only months away, President George W. Bush told reporters Monday that he is 'fed up' with the way his mother, former first lady Barbara Bush, keeps pestering him about his post-Oval Office plans.

'Every time I see her it's "have you thought about your future" this, and "do you know where you're gonna put your presidential library" that,' said Bush, who will be moving out of the White House on Jan. 20. 'It's like, I'll just get a job as a CEO or board chairman or something. My God, quit worrying about it. I'm 62 years old, for Christ's sake!'

Bush, who has prepared for the end of his second term by learning to play guitar and visiting friends across the country, said he will be 'just fine' once he gets out into the real world."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at December 16, 2008 01:01 PM