December 17, 2008

12/17: Caroline And The Netroots

Prominent liberal bloggers remain strongly opposed to the prospect of NY Gov. David Patterson appointing Caroline Kennedy to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. Most lefty bloggers oppose Kennedy's Senate bid on the grounds that a person who's never run for office does not deserve an appointment simply because of her celebrity status. Liberal bloggers also argue that Kennedy's lack of legislative experience is problematic and that her candidacy will hurt the political prospects of other NY Dems.

However, it appears that many of the readers of these liberal blogs are more sympathetic to Kennedy's Senate ambitions than the blogs' proprietors. In a post that drew over 1,000 comments, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas observes this phenomenon:

"It's clear that a significant contingent on this site believes that Caroline Kennedy should be senator because her last name is 'Kennedy', and because they 'like her'. It is unseemly that she's being considered for the seat simply because of her family lineage and her ability to pick up the phone and ring the governor, but pointing that out is 'bashing Caroline'. It's all ridiculous, and yes, depressing."

Jane Hamsher makes a similar argument, writing: "People think they 'know' celebrities just because they see them all the time in the media. They don't."

This apparent disconnect between liberal bloggers and their readers reminds us of a similar disconnect that occurred during the Dem primary, when the netroots rank-and-file were far more enthuastic about Barack Obama and John Edwards than the bloggers themselves, most of whom stayed neutral. Perhaps blog readers are more susceptible to the charms of personality and celebrity (and therefore more reflective of the public at large?) than the movement progressives who tend to start blogs.

KENNEDY: The Backlash Grows

Liberal bloggers who oppose Kennedy's Senate bid are accusing her fans of supporting her for superficial reasons:

• Markos Moulitsas: "It's clear that a significant contingent on this site believes that Caroline Kennedy should be senator because her last name is 'Kennedy', and because they 'like her'. It is unseemly that she's being considered for the seat simply because of her family lineage and her ability to pick up the phone and ring the governor, but pointing that out is 'bashing Caroline'. It's all ridiculous, and yes, depressing. Because as much as people on this site and others fight for a more small 'd' democratic political system, one that isn't so tilted in favor of the rich, famous, and connected, there will always be a significant majority that is desperate for an American monarchy and will discard notions of meritocracy to reward their favorite political dynasty."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Many seem to think that [Kennedy's] support for Obama is all we need to know about her politics. Others, like Ruth Marcus, just feel like they 'know' her -- and that the place she holds in the fairy tales of their imaginations is sufficient reason to dispense with the small 'd' democratic process of public elections. Not that the personal parallel holds, I'm certain Caroline Kennedy is an otherwise fine person who probably shares more of my own political beliefs than anyone else who is likely to get the job. But people felt like they 'knew' OJ [Simpson], too. The point is, people think they 'know' celebrities just because they see them all the time in the media. They don't."

Ezra Klein is concerned about Kennedy's lack of legislative experience: "[This is] another example of our unwillingness to believe that 'legislator' is an actual job with a particular skill set that requires expertise and understanding and experience to be effective. Caroline Kennedy is famous. She is even involved in politics. But she has never been a legislator. She knows nothing of parliamentary procedure, congressional negotiations, or constituent service. It would likely take her some time to get her sea legs and learn how to be effective. Meanwhile, there are plenty of long-serving legislators in New York politics, and in the New York delegation to Congress, that would love this seat and could step in on day one."

Firedoglake's looseheadprop argues that appointing Kennedy to Clinton's Senate seat would "wreak havoc on Dem officeholders and candidates all over the state, undo a decade of rebuilding, and insult [the Clintons]": "Does [Kennedy] not realize that she is putting David Paterson's ass in a sling? After going all public like this, if he doesn't pick her, he looks ungentlemanly. This is pretty bare knuckled on her part. [...] Don't forget how bitter Hillary must be about Caroline going for Obama during the primary. Where do you think Paterson's re-election fund-raising is going to come from? He needs Big Dawg to go out there to help raise money for him. Bill [Clinton] and Hillary have raised a lot of money for down ticket candidates all over NYS and were doing so BEFORE Hillary ran for Senate. In fact, it was this willingness to work for the good of the party that lead to Hillary being asked to run. Caroline? Eh, not so much. If Paterson/ NYS Party Chair June O'Neill disses the Clintons, and the Clintons turn their back on NYS, the already declared dead NYS GOP will be Baaa-aack in a NY minute. She is willing to fuck up some fragile current gains [...], and the promise of future gains, because she has no skin in the game, having contributed not one ounce of energy to electing those down ticket candidates."

KENNEDY II: We Beg To Differ...

A small minority of liberal bloggers is expressing mild support for Kennedy's Senate bid:

• BooMan: "I don't really disagree with anything that Markos [Moulitsas] or Duncan [Black] have to say about Caroline Kennedy's campaign for Hillary's seat. But I still don't come to the same conclusion. First of all, I do have to quibble a little bit with the idea that the only reason people support Caroline is because of her name. I like Caroline because she has been an active and effective advocate for liberal causes her entire adult life. But I grant there are many other people not named Kennedy that have done the same and are not jumping to the head of the line for a senate seat. The main reason I support Caroline's bid is because I expect her be a much better vote than [NY AG] Andrew Cuomo or [NY Rep.] Kirsten Gillibrand or any of the other names I've seen mentioned. But I also think the Senate is big enough to have room for a Kennedy. Yes, they're a dynasty, but they're a dynasty that has given everything for their country. With Teddy [Kennedy] nearing the end of his career, I don't have a problem with Caroline taking his place."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "As someone who does not think experience matters much in politics, I have no real objection to Caroline Kennedy as Senator. I do think she should speak publically about her positions on the issues. [...] I do not agree with the 'dynasty' objections [to her candidacy] -- life and politics has never been fair -- but the public knowing her positions on the issues seems a reasonable request."

KENNEDY III: Down With Nepotism!

Several liberal critics of Kennedy's Senate bid are calling for a Constitutional Amendment requiring that all Senate seats be filled via popular elections rather than appointments:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "There is an endemic problem of dynasties and elitism in our political process. The power of Governor's to appoint vacant Senate seats is one of the more egregious examples of this. The four examples we are looking at right now are not isolated incidents, either. Six years ago, former Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski appointed his daughter to fill his vacant Senate seat. Two years before that, when [ex-MO Gov.] Mel Carnahan died in a plane crash, his wife, Jean Carnahan, served two years in the Senate to replace him. The previous year, [ex-RI Sen.] Lincoln Chafee was appointed to serve when his father died unexpectedly. [...] There needs to be a constitutional amendment requiring that all Senate seats always be filled via popular elections, rather than appointments. While it seems that the corruption surrounding the Illinois Senate appointment would make for a perfect catalyst for such a campaign, the continuing nepotism in the other Senate appointments, along with the decision by the Illinois state legislature to delay a special election, it is clear that such a campaign would face a steep uphill battle."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "[W]hile I find it disheartening that the younger Biden will likely take his father's old seat in two years, at least they're doing it right in Delaware by appointing a caretaker Senator. He'll have every advantage in the world, but at least Beau will be elected to the seat. [...] The problem here isn't that candidates trade off their name for electoral advantage, it's when they trade off that name for a political appointment, bypassing the trappings of democracy in order to be handed something by fiat. And as Chris [Bowers] notes, this problem isn't just one in New York. It's led to corruption in Illinois, nepotism in Alaska, Missouri, and Rhode Island. Ultimately, the rich, powerful, and famous already have every advantage in life, so much so that the least they can do is make their case to the voters and be elected by popular acclaim. The notion that these elite should get something as important as a Senate seat because they have the governor on speed dial is deeply offensive."

Conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin agrees: "The appointment by a governor of a senator creates a relationship in which the latter is entirely beholden to the former, even more so than a normal senator would be to a governor of the same party. There need not be an explicit quid pro quo to realize that there's virtually nothing that appointee won't do for the governor -- be it judges, policies, waivers of federal requirements, bailouts and the like. [...] Then there are the candidates themselves. With an appointment, there is no winnowing in primaries or vetting in elections. Whatever we don't know about them we won't find out until they are in office. Whatever faults they have will be sprung upon the voters only after they are sworn in. This is especially fraught with peril when the appointee is someone who never held elective office. [...] So what to do? All the open seats should be filled by special election. And if the money is tight in states, that's one bailout of federal money I'd favor. Spending money on democratic elections seems about the best use of the taxpayers money one can imagine. As we see, the alternative is an embarrassment."

KENNEDY IV: Disgusting Dynasticism

Like their liberal counterparts, conservative bloggers are sharply criticizing Kennedy's qualifications for the Senate:

• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "Calling all Democrats: Who is more qualified to run for national office: Sarah Palin or Caroline Kennedy?"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "David Paterson has a responsibility as Governor of New York to find the most capable and qualified person to appoint to Hillary Clinton's seat. No one can argue that Kennedy is that; what on her resumé would make her more qualified than Andrew Cuomo, for instance, himself a dynastic choice in New York? At least Cuomo has served in office -- currently as Attorney General -- and has a record of serving constituents in New York. Until Obama's election, Caroline Kennedy was a political wallflower, which is no shame, but it hardly recommends her for high public office either."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "The idea that Caroline Kennedy would be considered a plausible appointment for the U.S. Senate is absolutely sickening. She has absolutely nothing to qualify her for the job, other than this Kennedy thing that's been going on for a half-century. Dynastic politics in America is troubling as a general rule, but this brings it to a whole other level. At least when [George W.] Bush used his father's name, he had to defeat a sitting Texas governor in 1994, and win a tough presidential election in 2000. Even Hillary Clinton, when she came to New York, at least had to put in some leg work when she ran for Senate to overcome charges she was a carpetbagger. She campaigned tirelessly upstate, dealt with media scrutiny, and debated a paper-waving Rick Lazio. It's one thing if Caroline Kennedy wants to jump through all the hoops needed to run for Senate, and allow New Yorkers to decided whether or not they want to send somebody who is completely unqualified to represent them in Washington -- if people in the state are that pathetically starstruck, then that's their choice. But for a Kennedy to get appointed to the Senate without doing anything at all to work for it other than raising her hand, is truly an abomination."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "Kennedy is not as dumb, crass or as uneducated as Sarah Palin. But she is less qualified to be a Senator than Palin. I am so sick of this nepotism. What are we, some kind of neo-monarchy? Clinton got her seat because of nepotism and now Kennedy gets it be the same methods."

VILSACK: Get Ready For More Ethanol!

Liberal bloggers are not fond of ex-IA Gov. Tom Vilsack, whom Obama has chosen to be his Ag Sec. However, lefty bloggers weren't surprised by the selection:

• Bowers: "As I noted before, there was never much hope for a progressive agriculture pick. I am wary of Vilsack, who was one-time chair of the DLC. However, he doesn't appear to be in the egregiously bad category that I was afraid of for this post. A bit of a disappointment but, considering my expectations for this post, not much of one."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "Vilsack's an ethanol lover, which is bad but only to be expected since Obama thinks Ethanol is wonderful too (something about Iowa caucuses, I think.) On the other hand, he does love wind energy too, although as Ag Secretary that's a bit out of his bailiwick. Still, farms are good places to put Wind Turbines and a strong Secretary grabs the ground he wants anyway."
• MyDD's Natasha Chart: "I'm not a fan of corn ethanol, not even a little. Fact remains that it's one of the most politically popular greenwashing projects I know of, probably because of Iowa's electoral significance. That said, Vilsack doesn't come across as a careless enthusiast and seems to respect that there are serious resource use concerns about the industry. I'm willing to suspend judgement on this one for now, with the caveat that my expectations for sanity on ethanol are low."
• The Reality-Based Community's Jonathan Zasloff: "Obama seems to have tapped former Iowa Gov. Tim Vilsack, a big ag subsidy advocate, for Agriculture. If you are in the developing world, this is not good news, because it signals that the administration will not spend any political capital to reducing our horribly destructive agricultural subsidies, which not only waste money, but impoverish literally millions of third world farmers."

Daily Kos' brownsox analyzes the political implications for 2010: "[Vilsack's] appointment almost certainly determines that Vilsack will not seek the U.S. Senate seat currently held by five-term Republican incumbent Chuck Grassley, who is up for reelection in 2010. It's rumored that even if Grassley doesn't retire, national Democrats will kick the tires on the Iowa race. Even if Vilsack hadn't taken the Cabinet position, there's certainly no guarantee he would have challenged Grassley. If Grassley does retire, the race will become one of the biggest in the country -- First District Rep. Bruce Braley will doubtless be the top choice for Democrats, Fourth District Rep. Tom Latham for the Republicans."

HOLDER: Preparing For War

Conservative bloggers are criticizing two GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Cmte -- IN Sen. Richard Lugar and OH Sen. George Voinovich -- for reportedly declining to sign a letter warning Cmte Chair Pat Leahy "that there would be consequences for not allowing sufficient time to vet [Obama's designated AG Eric] Holder":

• RedState's Rob Bluey: "Now is not the time to go soft. Given the narrow margin in the Senate, the loss of Lugar and Voinovich would doom any attempt by the GOP to slow down Holder's confirmation. [...] Holder's partisan political background, combined with his anti-Second Amendment views and work on Bill Clinton's questionable pardons, requires a thorough examination. Is it too much to ask of Lugar and Voinovich to sign a letter requesting that Republicans be given sufficient time to question Holder and prepare for his hearing?"
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Sens. George Voinovich and Dick Lugar conspicuously chose not to sign a letter to committee chairman Patrick Leahy declaring that Holder's record requires more time to review. Very, very disappointing if true; probing the nominees, particularly for this role as the top law-enforcement job in the country, is their job."

HOLDER II: The GOP Wants Its First Scalp

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are accusing GOP senators of engaging in bad faith in their effort to slow down Holder's nomination:

• digby: "Keep in mind that they are just doing this to generate enough heat that Obama will find it in his best interest to withdraw Holder's nomination so that these hearings don't turn the first days of his administration into a circus. They want a scalp. It proves their relevance, it is yet another shot at Clinton (which guarantees the media will eat it with a spoon) and it puts Obama on notice that they can still gin up a hissy fit at a moment's notice if they feel they need to. The press is already showing they will move right along with them without missing a beat, so it's a logical strategy. Let's hope [Obama] doesn't give it to them. Once you start meeting their lunatic demands, there is no end to it."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "This is like deja vu all over again. [...] Maybe we can arrange for Clinton to get another blowjob from an intern somewhere to distract the GOP."
• Zasloff: "Via Scott Horton, we learn that Karl Rove will coordinate GOP opposition to Eric Holder's nomination as AG. Apparently, Rove is very concerned about the politicization of the Justice Department. In other news, Jeffrey Dahmer will be coordinating the GOP's meal plans."

Daily Kos' BarbinMD criticizes Leahy for conceding to GOP demands that he postpone the Holder confirmation hearings: "A message to Senator Leahy: Do you remember when the Republicans were the majority party and set the schedule on things like confirmation hearings? It's one of the perks. You guys should take advantage of it sometime. And Senator, are you basing this trust in your GOP brethren's spirit of cooperation on past performance? Or is it wishful thinking? Instead of caving to demands, designed only to give the GOP more time to 'go after' an Obama nominee, the Democratic majority needs to step up and act like they know how to lead. For a change."

OBAMA: So, He Needs To Undermine A Federal Investigation In Order To Exonerate Himself?

As we reported yesterday, U.S. atty Patrick Fitzgerald has requested that Obama's transition team not release its review of the conversations between Obama aides and disgraced IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich "until the week of December 22, in order not to impede their investigation of the governor." Hugh Hewitt, however, is not satisfied: "The president-elect would be best served by calling on the U.S. Attorney to release any and all tapes between any of his advisor or staff and Blagojevich and his staff. Better to get all of the shop talk, however salty, out early and completely than drip by drip over the next few months."

Liberal bloggers are sharply criticizing Hewitt's argument:

• Cole: "It goes without saying that if Fitzgerald does not want the internal review released, he certainly does not want the transcripts out there until he can finish his interviews. The craziest thing about this is that if the Obama team did violate Fitzgerald's request and released everything, and it somehow hampered the investigation, who do you think would be the first person out there suggesting the Obama administration did it to defend another crooked Democratic politician? Flop sweat is so unappealing, Hugh. Just wait a couple days, and when Fitz gives the green light to the Obama team, if they do not release the report then, you can go to town. Until then, stop being so silly."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "Hewitt is suggesting that a prosecuting attorney can release evidence in a pending case for the sole purpose of alleviating a political dispute. But CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin explained in an email to me that under the federal law, Fitzgerald can only use the product of federal wiretaps under certain very limited circumstances -- in court documents or in open court, like a bail hearing or a trial. It would, in fact, be illegal for Fitzgerald to just throw out whatever part of the tapes Hugh Hewitt, radio host, thinks are relevant to his political agenda. It's not Fitzgerald's evidence. It's the state's evidence, and there are laws governing its use."
• Atrios: "As Jamo notes, Obama has two choices: 1) honor Fitzgerald's request and delay the release of his internal investigation, and 2) fail to honor Fitzgerald's request and potentially undermine parts of his corruption investigation. Obviously #2 would be the more suspicious course of action and would rightly raise the eyebrows of reporters. But fortunately our reporters know the rules of the new game, so #1 is a problem too!"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Bush Administration And Torture

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat:

"Some of the most passionate torture opponents have stated that they never, ever imagined that the Bush Administration would even consider authorizing the sort of interrogation techniques described [by Mark Bowden], to say nothing of more extreme measures like waterboarding. I was not so innocent, or perhaps I should I say I was more so: If you had listed, in the aftermath of 9/11, most of the things that have been done to prisoners by representatives of the U.S. government, I would have said that of course I expected the Bush Administration to authorize 'stress positions,' or 'slapping, shoving and shaking,' or the use of heat and cold to elicit information. After all, there was a war on! I just had no idea -- until the pictures came out of Abu Ghraib, and really until I started reading detailed accounts of how detainees were being treated -- what these methods could mean in practice, and especially as practiced on a global scale. A term like 'stress positions' sounds like one thing when it's sitting, bloodless, on a page; it sounds like something else when somebody dies from it.

Now obviously what I've said with regard to the financial crisis is also true in this arena: With great power comes the responsibility to exercise better judgment than, say, my twenty-three year old, pro-torture-lite self. But with great power comes a lot of pressures as well, starting with great fear: The fear that through inaction you'll be responsible for the deaths of thousands or even millions of the Americans whose lived you were personally charged to protect. This fear ran wild the post-9/11 Bush Administration, with often-appalling consequences, but it wasn't an irrational fear -- not then, and now. It doesn't excuse what was done by our government, and in our name, in prisons and detention cells around the world. But anyone who felt the way I felt after 9/11 has to reckon with the fact that what was done in our name was, in some sense, done for us -- not with our knowledge, exactly, but arguably with our blessing."

LEST WE FORGET: Housing Crisis Vindicates Guy Who Still Lives With Parents

From The Onion:

"OKLAHOMA CITY -- In a year that saw a record number of mortgage defaults and home foreclosures, part-time landscaper Ben Foster, 34, was publicly vindicated in his bold decision, made back in the spring of 1996, to continue living with his parents. 'It's like I've been telling my buddies for eight to 12 years now: "Why get in over your head before you're ready?"' Foster said in praise of the no-risk, meals-included housing agreement he has maintained on and off since birth. 'Sometimes it just makes more sense to be fiscally conservative, especially if you can move into the basement and set things up just how you like them.' Leading financial analysts said Foster will likely remain secure in his current situation until skyrocketing medical costs force his aging parents to sell the house."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at December 17, 2008 12:39 PM