This is just too much. (The awesomeness begins at about 4:10)
File this under the where-you-stand-depends-on-where-you-sit category.
The video above features 20th Congressional GOP candidate Jim Tedisco calling for a special election during the appointment debacle to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate. Midway through his comments, he references Caroline Kennedy and voices his concern about his lack of knowledge on her position on the issues.
"I don't know how she stands on the stimulus package on the federal level; I don't know how she stands on foreign policy...I'd like to know the answers to those questions. I'd like to know what her plans are to help Upstate New York create jobs," Tedisco said.
One thing is very clear: Eliot Spitzer and Joe Bruno never liked each other. That was evident during the Troopergate days and even now with both men out of the political limelight.
An administration leaks damaging information about a political figure. The leak is denounced by the governor, who says that he had nothing to do with it.
This is what happened during the tenure of Gov. Eliot Spitzer, whose aides disseminated information about state-financed travel in 2007 by Joseph L. Bruno, then the Senate majority leader. This led to condemnation of Mr. Spitzer, the resignations of some of those aides, and charges that some of the aides had violated the Public Officers Law, which sets standards for state officials' conduct.
It is also the story of what happened nearly two weeks ago after Caroline Kennedy withdrew her name from consideration for Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate seat.
A review of public comments and interviews with more than a dozen people involved in the process make clear that Gov. David A. Paterson's administration released confidential information about Ms. Kennedy and misled reporters about its significance as part of an orchestrated effort to discredit her after she withdrew. But the governor is unlikely to face the legal scrutiny or numerous investigations that Mr. Spitzer did, even though he has acknowledged that the information about Ms. Kennedy should not have been released.
The article goes on to highlight the Paterson/Kennedy controversy, which included a few claims involving Kennedy's personal life from long ago.
One of the administration's central claims to reporters was that Ms. Kennedy had, in the words of a person close to the governor, "a definite tax issue" and "a nanny problem" that "she didn't want to become public."
But that story was inaccurate. The governor and his aides now acknowledge that those issues - a tax lien of a few hundred dollars in 1994, and a lapsed visa for a foreign nanny who worked for Ms. Kennedy during the late 1980s - had been resolved years earlier and were never considered disqualifying during the vetting process.
I don't think Paterson/Kennedy compares to Spitzer/Bruno. But I do think that the Paterson/Kennedy saga has been damaging to Paterson. Smearing Caroline Kennedy was the worst thing that he and his administration could do. Whether she was qualified to become a U.S. senator or not we could have debated for a long time. But smearing her like the Paterson administration did was wrong on many levels.
Of all the many ways in which Caroline Kennedy's brief and unofficial candidacy for the U.S. Senate was mishandled, one final ungraceful note is striking particularly close to home. Sources close to Senator Edward M. Kennedy tell TIME that his circle - including his immediate family - is furious that his brain cancer is being cited by some in her camp as the reason for her decision to withdraw her name from consideration for the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton in New York.
"It looks horrible," says one former aide to Ted Kennedy. "It makes him look like he is at death's door." In fact, those close to Kennedy, 76, say that while the Senator is suffering occasional seizures, like the one that sent him to a hospital on Tuesday during the celebratory Capitol lunch for the newly inaugurated President, he is generally doing well. And they add that Kennedy is fully engaged in the effort to pass universal health-care legislation - a cause for which he has fought for decades, and one in which he will play a crucial role as chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
"He is crazy about her. He encouraged her" in her bid for the Senate seat, one close associate says of Ted Kennedy's relationship with his niece. "But using him as an excuse, as though things were on the downward spiral, is not going to be O.K. with him ... This will get in the way of health reform" - by suggesting that a key legislator involved in putting the bill together may be incapacitated.
This is a person who thought she was ready to be a US Senator? From New York? Really?
Oh, and Halperin (I know, I know) adds this tidbit:
TIME's Mark Halperin reports that one knowledgeable Democratic source says there was another, unspecified "personal reason." The source says that it arose 48 hours before Kennedy fully expected to be chosen by Paterson. Without talking to her political advisers, Kennedy called Paterson and told him that she had a personal issue that made her inclined to withdraw her name. He told her to take 24 hours to reconsider. She took that time on her own, according to the source, and ultimately decided to stick with her original decision.
Begin with Kennedy herself, who despite a measure of public appeal, ran an ill-conceived campaign to try to start at the top of the political world after little prior involvement. She didn't work the political circuit until after the fact, coming to campaigning only last year. There were years she didn't vote. She wasn't ready for prime time.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Kevin Sheekey, his deputy for wheeling and dealing, climbed out on a limb. Sheekey warned that Gov. David Paterson would commit "malpractice" by choosing anyone else. Bloomberg and his schools chancellor were unconvincing in their efforts to sell her.
There were the folks at the consulting firm Knickerbocker SKD, already blamed in consultant-land for Kennedy's stumbling rollout.
There are the Kennedy fans who believe in the Camelot legacy.
I'd add the Governor. This mess didn't need to drag on anywhere near this long. Also, it was pretty obvious that in addition to not being "ready for prime time", Kennedy never really seemed to even want it all that much. Paterson should have politely taken a pass. He didn't and it has now blown up in his face. (Knickerbocker SKD should have as well, but at least they were billing.)
Bloomberg and crew come off as the star-humpers they actually are, an aristocrat and his court embracing another.
Oh, and us, the ones who actually need a senator. The folks in DC are about to carve up one of the biggest federal pies in generations and we are reduced to a single senator. It's not like we could really use some of that money or a junior senator with even the slightest seniority edge or anything.
Caroline Kennedy said she has withdrawn her name from consideration for the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton, in a statement released early Thursday morning.
"I informed Governor Paterson today that for personal reasons I am withdrawing my name from consideration for the United States Senate," the official statement read.
Confirmation of the decision followed hours of conflicting reports from several news agencies.
Can you hear that? That's the sound of the rest of the nation laughing at us, our Governor and the rest of the whole ridiculous process.
Hey, Governor, pull the trigger. This has gone on long enough. We're a punchline now.
Several newspapers reported Wednesday that Caroline Kennedy planned to withdraw from consideration for the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton, but NBC News reported that a Kennedy family source said it was not true.
The New York Times cited as its source a person told of her decision and reported that she called New York Gov. David Paterson to express concerns about the health of her uncle, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was hospitalized Tuesday after a seizure. A statement from Kennedy could come as early as Wednesday evening, the Times reported.
However, a Kennedy family source told NBC News' David Gregory that Caroline Kennedy had not withdrawn. Two sources hinted to NBC News that there may have been a miscommunication between Kennedy and Paterson's office.
Calling this a miscommunication would be an understatement. A few hours ago, she was out. Now, it seems like she is still in it. Earlier reports said that she would be issuing a statement tonight, but she has yet to do so. She might want to do that to clear up things.
I don't think this bodes well for her. Maybe in Governor David Paterson's eyes it won't be a big deal, but there is a big difference between withdrawing and miscommunication.
And word is that she took herself out. Everything that I have heard over the last 10 days or so was that it was hers if she wanted it. The Times has the scoop:
Caroline Kennedy has withdrawn from consideration for the vacant Senate seat in New York, according to a person told of her decision.
On Wednesday she called the governor, David Paterson, who is making the selection of who should succeed Senator Hillary Clinton. Her concerns about Senator Edward M. Kennedy's deteriorating health (he was hospitalized after a seizure during the inaugural lunch on Tuesday ) prompted her decision to withdraw, this person said. Coping with the health issues of her uncle, with whom she enjoys an extraordinarily close bond, was her most important priority; a situation not conducive to starting a high profile public job.
She was planning to issue a statement on Wednesday evening.
Ms. Kennedy's decision comes nearly two months after she, along with several members of Congress and leading political officials, began auditioning to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton in the coveted position.
Can't say I saw this one coming. My guess is that Paterson didn't see it coming either as she was his pick as far as I know. My guess is that this is now between Kirsten Gillibrand or Tom Suozzi. Then again, this really shakes things up.
Caroline Kennedy has withdrawn from consideration for the vacant Senate seat in New York, according to a person told of her decision.
On Wednesday she called the governor, David Paterson, who is making the selection of who should succeed Senator Hillary Clinton. Her concerns about Senator Edward M. Kennedy's deteriorating health (he was hospitalized after a seizure during the inaugural lunch on Tuesday ) prompted her decision to withdraw, this person said. Coping with the health issues of her uncle, with whom she enjoys an extraordinarily close bond, was her most important priority; a situation not conducive to starting a high profile public job.
She was planning to issue a statement on Wednesday evening.
This is a shocker. Many have considered Caroline Kennedy the front-runner for a long time. She has been favored by the national media and people in New York considered her to be the favorite to replace Hillary Clinton.
There will be much more on this story to come. Stay tuned.
There is a breaking story from the New York Post stating that Caroline Kennedy withdrew her name as a choice for Hillary Clinton's vacant Senate seat. I haven't seen any other source confirm this, nor is there any sort of independent confirmation. If this is true, this is a bombshell announcement that could explain the delay in Governor Paterson's announcement. This also completely opens up the playing field for our next Senator. The full story is below.
UPDATE: The New York Times has now confirmed this story. Apparently the reason relates to Senator Ted Kennedy's health. The full New York Times story is also below.
One of the big subtopics that was mentioned throughout the Inauguration Day coverage was who Governor David Paterson would appoint to the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton, who will be approved by the U.S. Senate to become President Barack Obama's Secretary of State.
The national media seems to think that Caroline Kennedy will get it. That is, of course, because Caroline Kennedy is a national figure. But as New Yorkers, we know that there are more options than just Kennedy and perhaps, more qualified options.
We all know that Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is also being considered, but he seems to content with staying on as Attorney General. There is a possibility (a very real possibility) that Cuomo would force a gubernatorial primary in 2010. Cuomo has statewide appeal, but whether or not that translates into him wanting to become a U.S. senator is up to him.
One person who has been mentioned but not given much of a chance is Rep. Steve Israel. While Israel isn't from upstate, he has traveled upstate in the past to assist former congressional candidate Jon Powers and he traveled upstate recently to meet with leaders, including Democratic Party leaders in Genesee, Livingston, Orleans and Wyoming counties.
I'm not going to agree with Rep. Israel on everything, but he does have a history of being concerned with upstate, especially the rural areas of New York. That is a great trait to have, especially when Caroline Kennedy only made stop in the major cities of New York and didn't take time to visit some of the rural areas that make this state great.
My preference would be to have someone who is progressive and who would represent upstate well. I would also like to see diversity with the choice, meaning that Paterson should pick either a woman, Latino or an African American.
But, what has been repeated over and over again is true: This is Paterson's pick. Whomever he selects will be our senator until 2010. Then, if we don't like his choice, we can pick our own.
By now I think we've all come to grips with the fact that Caroline Kennedy is going to be our next NY Senator.
But today's NY Post has some insight as to why Kennedy and not Cuomo, and it's not particularly surprising.
A joint session of the Assembly and Senate would make the pick for Atty Gen. should Cuomo vacate to the Senate. Sheldon Silver controls 109 of the 212 votes; a majority. Meaning Paterson couldn't pick Cuomo, because,
"Andrew just couldn't assure the governor that he could arrange for [Assembly Speaker Sheldon] Silver to provide an acceptable successor"
meaning that Paterson knew that the new AG would be such a hack that he couldn't allow for that to happen.
(I still think it's a bad idea, but this a good diary. - promoted by phillip anderson)
Perhaps I'm simply not sufficiently attuned to the wavelength that so many other people interested in NY state polics are on, but I really don't understand the outpouring of negativity about Caroline Kennedy's interest in becoming New York's next junior senator. This is particularly true as it applies to the activist blogs, from whom I might have expected the opposite reaction.
Setting aside for a second arguments based on personality or legacy, let's look at it in purely pragmatic terms. The possibility is on the table of getting a Senator who's already a strong friend of the new President, who's a steadfast progressive on issues like gay marriage and opposing the Iraq War, and who's got the clout to raise enough money to make it through two elections in the next four years. In short, somebody who'd well represent the activist base of the party while still being electorally viable.
Since the 17th Amendment established procedures for filling vacancies in 1913, only 60 of the 180 men and women appointed to the Senate - an even one-third ratio - have won the next election in their own right, according to records kept by the Senate.
Of the remaining 120, 63 did not run, 56 ran and lost, and one, South Carolina's Alva Moore Lumpkin, died two weeks after his appointment in 1941.
While a slim majority of appointed senators who sought election did win, their success rate pales in comparison to the overall incumbent-retention record in the Senate, with a low of 64 percent and a high of 96.9 percent in the 25 elections dating back to 1960.
I doubt that information will scare away possible appointees like Caroline Kennedy, Rep. Steve Israel and Rep. Carolyn Maloney. But the information is worth talking about.
Governor David Paterson wants to appoint someone who will help him politically, but also someone who will win in 2010. He has already shot down any speculation that he would appoint a caretaker for the seat. So we are looking for someone who will hold the seat and run for re-election in 2010.
But if I were Paterson, I would keep history in the back of my mind. The numbers don't look good for appointees running for election. If I were Paterson, I wouldn't completely rule out the caretaker option.
Nicholas Confessore has an interesting piece about the possible political calculations behind Paterson's selection to fill Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. I think it's interesting, though I'm not sure how much I agree with all of the opinions put forth:
Ticket balance is also a consideration. Some of Mr. Paterson's advisers envision a Republican ticket headed by Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor, for governor, with Joanne M. Mahoney, the popular Onondaga County executive, as his running mate. Rounding out the ticket might be John J. Faso, the former assemblyman, for comptroller, and Peter T. King, the Long Island Republican, for Senate.
"That's a white Catholic ticket," said one person who has ties to the governor's political team, and who requested anonymity for fear of losing those ties. "And it's white Catholics upstate they are going to lose."
I'm not sure I agree that a Park Avenue "princess" (to use Ruth Marcus's infamous formulation) really appeals to Joe Saranac (to put an upstate twist on an annoying political cliche), regardless of her religion. The article does go on to point out that Mario Cuomo (who is on the ticket) is Catholic and popular upstate. And I think the article is right to point out that the issue here is the whole ticket, not just the Senate race -- I don't think there's anyway Peter King beats anybody in that race but Rudy might have some chance against Paterson (though Paterson would clearly be the favorite).
This brings up another question: does anyone have any thoughts on who Paterson will pick for Lieutenant Governor?
I'm one of those who truly dislikes the idea of Governor Paterson appointing Caroline Kennedy to the US Senate seat about to be vacated by Senator Clinton. Although she doesn't have much of a record as an elected official to go on, and won't release her financial information to the public, we can pick up bits and tabs of info here and there-- and not much of it interests me. Bloomberg likes her a lot(two strikes...although his aide, Deputy Mayor Kevin Sheekey, is no longer "out front" in her campaign), and she did notvote for Carl McCall for Governor(many strikes-- I thought he would have been a very good, as well as historic, governor).
But, this just shows an inability to do, like, um, you know, the "public speaking" thing that, um, politicians do, ya know?
Governor Paterson: appoint somebody with appropriate skills and experience, 'kay? This is not, after all, Alaska.
Michael Calderone catches some choice excerpts from the NYT's interview with Caroline Kennedy ("NC" is Times reporter Nicolas Confessore, "DH" is Times reporter David Halbfinger, and "CK" is Caroline Kennedy):
NC: Could you, for the sake of storytelling, could you tell us a little bit about that moment, like, where you were, what you said to him about your decision, how that played out?
CK: Have you guys ever thought about writing for, like, a woman's magazine or something? (Laughter)
DH: What do you have against women's magazines?
CK: Nothing at all, but I thought you were the crack political team here. As I said, it was kind of over a period of time, you know, obviously we talked about politics, we talked about what's going on, we've been watching the team that the president-elect is putting together - Hillary Clinton is going to be a spectacular part of that team, you know, then there was a vacancy here, you know, just like everybody else, you know: who's going to fill it, isn't that interesting, there's a lot of great candidates, you know, obviously I have become much more politically involved than I have in the past, so you know, I figure, why not try, I really think I have something to offer.
NC: I guess another way of thinking about it is that Jennifer Aniston movie, where she tells her boyfriend, 'I want you to want to do the dishes,' you know? And I wonder if Senator Kennedy wanted you to want to do it.
DH: "The Break-Up."
CK: (Laughter) I hope you're going to put this in the article, not just the answer. OK?
That's what it's come to for our media: political campaigns are regularly compared to Jennifer Aniston movies that no one has ever seen. And maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that a male candidate would not be subjected to this type of People magazine silliness.
Perhaps a celebrity candidate invites celebrity journalism, but I don't think that's a valid excuse here.
Dominic Carter: Okay. If he doesn't select you, will you run, right around the corner in 2010?
Caroline Kennedy: Well, if he doesn't select me, I would support the person that he does select.
Kos writes:
With that one answer, Kennedy shows that 1) she really doesn't have an interest in the seat if she actually has to earn it from the voters without the trappings and advantages of incumbency, and 2) that New York really is a machine state, and that Democrats are expected to rally around the person sitting in that seat. So if Kennedy does get that appointment, it's ludicrous to think that she can be primaried out of it in 2010 if New York Democrats aren't happy with the selection.
He's right that NYS is a machine state, but I don't see how it's that wrong of Caroline Kennedy to say that she'll support the incumbent. Serious primary campaigns against incumbents are pretty rare in NYS, partly because of the absurdly late primary date, and she (and other potential primary challengers) would be under a lot of pressure not to challenge the incumbent to a primary.
For my home state, Governor David Paterson's budget is a window into the future. Simply put, we are witnessing what happens when New York State ceases to be the financial capital of the world. At the moment the world doesn't really have one as the global economy sorts through massive wreckage. Truthfully, the era of financial centers concentrated in western port cities such as New York or London is a relic.
This had long been been predicted because information technology makes it possible to outsource back office functions remotely and utilize cheap labor. Why pay for New York City real estate and labor when a trader can just as easily play with other people's money from a computer in Dubai? However, until the recent economic catastrophe Wall Street stubbornly hung onto its symbolic trappings as the center of the universe.
One of the biggest problems many people (including myself) have with Caroline Kennedy is that we don't know a lot about her. We know who she is. But we don't know what she stands for.
The Buffalo News decided to press for answers and luckily, they got them. Here are some of Caroline Kennedy's stances on key issues ranging from the Iraq War and marriage equality to President George W. Bush's tax cuts and the death penalty.
On gun control: She supports gun control efforts and specifically wants restored the ban on assault weapons that was lifted during the Bush administration.
On gay marriage: She supports "full equality and marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples."
On the death penalty: She opposes the death penalty.
On Iraq: Kennedy "supports President-elect Obama's plan to work with our military leaders to begin a responsible withdrawal."
On trade: The North American Free Trade Agreement has had "unintended consequences in some regions of New York and that is why she agrees with President-elect Obama that we need to take a careful look at the agreement and pay particular attention to its impact on jobs and wages in American manufacturing communities," the aide wrote.
On health care: Kennedy, like her uncle, Sen. Edward Kennedy, says expanding the availability of health insurance "is one of the nation's most urgent priorities." Without saying how she would pay for it, Kennedy believes a program must ensure lower costs for all payers and improvements in quality.
On tax cuts: Tax cuts created during the Bush White House should be rolled back for wealthy taxpayers. "However, with the economy so fragile, now is not the time," Friedman wrote.
On the upstate economy: Kennedy noted the "suffering" in upstate, and the departures of young people, whom she described as "our most precious resource." She said the first step is for Congress to pass Obama's economic stimulus plan, which she believes will create jobs by investing in infrastructure projects, such as roads and schools.
On energy: She believes a comprehensive package is needed, with a focus on alternative energies, such as wind, solar and bio-fuel.
On education: Kennedy has been touting her ties to education. For several years, she has been involved in efforts to raise money for New York City public schools. Kennedy believes the federal No Child Left Behind law must be reformed. She did not say how.
Kennedy supports charter schools and opposes private school vouchers. As for merit pay for teachers based on student performance, Kennedy believes "programs should be developed cooperatively with schools and teachers, as was done in New York City's public schools," Friedman wrote.
Kennedy answered these questions through a spokesman.
Great reporting from The Buffalo News. This was smart. We need to know where she stands. For the most part, she sounds like her uncle Ted Kennedy: A progressive Democrat who will be representing (if selected) a very blue state. She does have some positions I disagree with (her stance on the Bush tax cuts) but there is little else to oppose.
