A second opinion on Caroline Kennedy.

because (4.00 / 1)

Good points... and you've provided specifics about issues she might help with... but, there are also specifics to be asked where it comes to the "knowledge of the state's problems" and "Upstate sensitivity" part of it.

As an example, I'll repeat the same question I asked down in the Steve Israel topic:  what is her position on NIETC's?  (the federally designated National Interest Energy Transmission Corridors?)  A huge chunk of upstate NY, as well as other places around the country -- usually weaker and economically struggling places, such as West Virginia -- were recently declared potential NIETCs... including Rochester and Syracuse, not just the places where they're currently fighting about NYRI.  

Does Caroline Kennedy have any inkling of what this issue is about?  Or why many upstate New Yorkers have been concerned about it for over two years?  It really is more than just a hyperlocal "NIMBY" issue.  It's a federal issue, a national energy policy issue, and this state is going to be relying on its senators to sort it out.

So, that's a concrete example of why I am uneasy about her.  How do I really know she's going to fight for New York State interests on a heart level?  I could wonder this of any of the downstate-centric candidates, but her even more so.

---

by: NYCO @ Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 13:52:07 PM UTC

I don't know too many progressives... (0.00 / 0)

That support the Bush tax cuts, even temporarily. Caroline Kennedy does.

After hearing about Caroline, she is a lot like her father. Progressive on plenty of issues, but also moderate on other issues that matter. Is she more progressive than someone like Kirsten Gillibrand, Brian Higgins and Steve Israel? I would say so, but that's based on limited information.

If Caroline Kennedy were to be appointed, I wouldn't be disappointed. I don't find it such a bad thing. But I do think there are other people out there who are more deserving.

---

by: robert.harding @ Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 14:00:46 PM UTC

why two elections in the next four years? (4.00 / 1)

You write

who's got the clout to raise enough money to make it through two elections in the next four years

Why does she have to go through two elections in the next four years?  Doesn't she have to go through one election in two years (if she's appointed) and then another in eight years (if she wins the won in two years).

I'm confused.  

---

by: Exile on Ericsson St. @ Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 14:48:34 PM UTC

Nope - two in four is right (4.00 / 1)

Because of the insanity of New York's rules, she would have to run in 2010 and then again in 2012. She would have to run in 2010 to finish out the rest of Hillary's term and then she would have to run in 2012 (just as Hillary would have) for a new six-year term.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 14:58:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

thanks! (0.00 / 0)

Do other states have similar rules?

---

by: Exile on Ericsson St. @ Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 15:20:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not "Insane" (0.00 / 0)

I don't think NY's "rules" are the cause here. The US Constitution requires a special election in case of a Senate vacancy, and it also requires division of Senate seats into three "classes" of 6-year terms staggered by two years. So my understanding is that while the governor can make a temporary appointment, there eventually has to be a special election because of the vacancy, and then the seat has to come up again in 2012 because that's what class it's in.

---

by: dsimon @ Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 15:41:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I do... (0.00 / 0)

Each state has its own guidelines regarding vacant U.S. Senate seats. In New York, the governor is entitled to make an appointment in the event of a vacancy. Some states go straight to a special election, which is supposed to be held in the next congressional election year.

The reason why I said NY's rules are insane is because we should go straight to a special election. Don't allow the governor to make an appointment that, based on history, will probably lose in 2010. Let the people decide who they want to elect and go from there.

And I also said NY's rules are insane because this is the same state that has no constitutional guidelines for replacing a lieutenant governor who ascends to governor. That needs to be fixed.

---

by: robert.harding @ Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 16:21:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I See, But.... (0.00 / 0)

I understand your point. I was responding to the original post which asked about going through two elections in four years. Regardless of whether NY went straight to a special election or not, anyone interested in the seat would have to go through two elections in four years, so that aspect has nothing to do with NY's rules.

Also, moving "straight" to a special election isn't as easy as it sounds. Parties may want to have primaries to select their candidates. Ballots and polling places have to be organized. The process can take months. In the meantime, the state would lack representation in the absence of an appointment during a crucial time. So I think the part that makes sense is to have the governor appoint; but as a recent NY Times op-ed piece pointed out, the part that doesn't make sense is waiting almost two years for the "special" election. It should happen far sooner; there's no good reason to wait until 2010 to directly elect one's senator, and it would make the appointment less important since it would be far more temporary.

As for the history of appointees losing, I'm really not very concerned. I think any of the Democrats under consideration would be favorites to beat any of the Republicans whose names are mentioned as possible contenders.

---

by: dsimon @ Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 18:41:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

She'll have to run again in 2010 and then Hillary's term expires in 2012.

---

by: daniel.jones @ Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 15:00:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not ALL blue dogs (0.00 / 0)

Carolyn Maloney isn't a blue dog.
Neither is Liz Holtzman.
I'm not sure about Byron Brown -- perhaps someone could comment.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 17:09:31 PM UTC

True, but I don't see Holtzman and Maloney as being likely choices. (0.00 / 0)

My reasoning is this. If Paterson bypasses one of the big name draws like Kennedy or Cuomo, he'd be a fool to grab somebody from the city, because it would kiss off an opportunity to spread the representation out through the state and tell that people upstate that they actually care about us.

Of the upstate options, Byron Brown and RoAnn Destito are too much minor names which would prompt people to say "Huh?" They may be well known in their areas, but statewide they're an astrisk. Hell, I live 30 miles from Buffalo and I barely know anything about Byron Brown's policies.

That leaves basically Higgins and Gillibrand as notables who've got both a reputation and an electoral history.

(If it were between the two, I'd expect it to be Gillibrand. She's extremely popular in her district, is supposed to be quite personable and charismatic, raised a ton of money, and converted a thin margin in 2006 into a landslide in 2008. I don't doubt Higgins is a good guy, but there's a lot of upsides to Gillibrand when you're talking about somebody who can make it through those two elections.)

---

by: Adama @ Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 17:41:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The only problem with Gillibrand... (0.00 / 0)

Is that if she is appointed, conventional wisdom suggests her congressional seat goes back to a Republican. Her district has nearly 71,000 more Republicans than Democrats in it. So if Gillibrand goes to the U.S. Senate, we would lose a Democrat where we would want to keep a Democrat.

Also, if her reported spat with Speaker Nancy Pelosi is any indication, it seems Gillibrand wants to have an impact wherever she is. Right now, she is in the House and she's trying to get as much as she can get with only a few years spent in the lower house of Congress. If she were to be appointed to the U.S. Senate, she would go back to being very low on the totem pole. In fact, she would be the most junior member in the body and would have very little power because of that.

---

by: robert.harding @ Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 18:21:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, that's probably the case. (0.00 / 0)

While I sympathize with wanting to purge all our our congressional Republicans, I also tend to think that with those two elections coming up, we should want the best available candidates for the Senate seat. Yes, it's a blue state, but assuming that things are in the bag is exactly how you end up with unpleasant surprises.  

---

by: Adama @ Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 18:37:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Byron Brown... (0.00 / 0)

Brown tends to be a moderate voice. There are some things he does that are progressive, but if I had to label him, I'd say he's very much a moderate. I wouldn't call him a full-blown Blue Dog. I don't think he's that conservative either.

I have to disagree with my friend Adama's assessment of Byron Brown that he is a "minor" candidate for the post. While Brown isn't among my favorites for the seat, he is the mayor of New York's second-largest city. He also has ties to downstate (he is originally from Queens) and he has ties to the most important person in this process: Governor David Paterson.

Brown and Paterson served in the New York State Senate together and at a pre-election event, Brown and Paterson shared the stage and acknowledged their friendship.

Brown is a mayor of a large city in New York and he is formerly a New York State Senator. For those wanting someone who has paid their dues, Byron Brown would certainly live up to those requirements. I don't think he will be the appointee, but I don't think he should be considered a "minor" candidate for the post.

His close relationship to Gov. Paterson counts for something. And his resume as an elected official speaks for itself.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 18:15:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A personal connection with Paterson might actually be a disadvantage. (0.00 / 0)

Given the inevitable scrutiny in the media brought on by the situation in Illinois, can you imagine the reaction if the Governor appointed a personal friend to a vacant Senate seat?

I tend to dismiss Brown because if Paterson goes upstate, there are more notable candidates with bigger bases and greater PR upside for him.

---

by: Adama @ Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 19:23:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree (0.00 / 0)

You bring up a valid point, but there would have to be some serious evidence there to even allege any impropriety between Brown and Paterson if Brown were to be appointed. He is a long-shot for the seat, but if he were to be appointed, I doubt anyone would question (unless there was reason) whether or not his appointment was ethical.

I dismiss Brown because of Steve Pigeon. That really is my only reason. Brown might be a Democrat, but I don't think he is someone who will stick his neck out for the party. He will watch out for himself and his interests, but he's not going to do anyone any favors.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 21:39:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

controversy is bound to surround... (0.00 / 0)

...anyone named Kennedy, especially as it relates to seeking to be appointed to an open political office, isn't it? It seems to me that Caroline is putting it all on the table, so to speak. Many people remember the great hope and inspiration of people like John and Robert Kennedy. My guess is that, secretly, many people liked myself have wondered for many years whether one of John's children would help carry the torch forward. With "John-John" gone, that leaves Caroline.

It's in the interest of many people to generate skepticism about her (or anyone else, for that matter), including Republicans and any Democrat and their constituents who may also be interested in this office, so the controversy would be inevitable whether she was an announced candidate or not.

To me...Caroline would be a fine choice and, as to whether she has what it takes to effectively represent this state in the U.S. Senate on any one particular issue, or across- the-board, there's a built-in solution: she will face a special election in less than two years. If she doesn't work out, we can elect someone else, and she will have served as a reasonable "caretaker" in the meantime.

It would also be great to have someone who is a protege of Obama take the seat to help provide additional momentum as he starts trying to enact his agenda, at least for me.

Having said that, my first preference for this position would be Bea Gonzalez, president of the Syracuse Common Council (the second highest ranking elected official in the City of Syracuse). My reasons are primarily strategic for the long-term best interests of advancing a progressive agenda: She's from upstate, helping to balance the current power structure of this state. She's Latina, also helping to balance the power structure of this state. She's very well-liked and intelligent with ties to the educational community (she works at SU, if memory serves correctly, an important hub in our state's intellectual infrastructure, so to speak). And, for those reasons, she'd likely be re-elected (assuming she performs well in office, which seems likely based on her past performance). While Caroline brings a lot of assets to the state, Bea would also, but would also help bring some political balance.

If not Bea, however, Caroline would be fine with me. So would Andrew Cuomo, or Gillibrand, or Israel. There seems to be an "embarrassment of riches" for the governor to choose from, actually.

---

by: paco @ Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 20:05:10 PM UTC

Gonzalez (0.00 / 0)

I like Bea Gonzalez too, but I just don't see her having the statewide name recognition needed for a senatorial run in 2010.

That said, I don't understand why the state Democratic party has not tapped her yet for any high profile positions.  Her name always comes up as a Lt Gov candidate every four years, though.

---

by: NYCO @ Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 17:06:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

good point... (0.00 / 0)

...however, this appointment would almost instantly start giving her the name recognition needed for election in her own right as the first ever Hispanic-American woman to serve in the Senate (to the best of my knowledge, that is).  

---

by: paco @ Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 21:06:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wonder (0.00 / 0)

If not for his tragic death, would we be looking at a potential John John appointment right now?

---

by: nrafter530 @ Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 09:12:35 AM UTC