To follow up on my post re former AG and Gov. Spitzer considering a comeback, the musing and maneuvering has begun. Immediately after The Hill and Danny Hakim at the NYTimes reported he was considering it, Spitzer came out with a full denial Tuesday night, then announced yesterday he was planning on teaching a course on law and public policy at City College of New York. Of course, this doesn't preclude doing a campaign as well, but it does try to bat down the rumors. Meanwhile, Survey USA did a snap poll, finding that 62% of New Yorkers would definitely or consider voting for Spitzer if he ran again for public office. It also found that 41% of voters think Spitzer is more qualified than Paterson to be governor, with 31% going for Paterson and 35% unsure. This follows up on a May poll finding 51% would rather have Spitzer as Governor over Paterson. While Spitzer's numbers do tank against Giuliani (if he runs) in the SUSA poll, and this is all speculation until Cuomo makes up his mind on running for Governor or not, I think there is some positive sign there that he could definitely run for office again and win, perhaps for Comptroller.
I should also mention that the New York State Comptroller is a guy named Thomas DiNapoli, who was most recently a member of the Assembly until chosen by his peers to replace the previous Comptroller over a scandal. An August 24th Siena poll found a whopping 74% had no opinion of DiNapoli, despite taking office in early 2007. To be honest, he's maintained a low profile, and I think can be beaten in a primary. I see that, or running for Attorney General if Cuomo opts to run for Governor, as the most likely possibilities.
The one other thing I did want to address was opinion over respect and forgiveness. After the news came out Tuesday evening on speculation that he might run again, I chatted with my mom and my sister about it. My mom was previously a die-hard Spitzer supporter. I interned in his Buffalo office when he was AG many years ago, and the same office intervened on our behalf when a car dealership tried to screw her out of their warranty obligation when the car was broken. And, as she would say, he's a good Jewish boy.
I was shocked by the flat refusal to support him (at least, in a Dem primary), and it was because of the prostitution issue. To me, I don't care about his personal life to any extent, unless he's using state resources or severely breaking the law, or it's rape. To her, and my sister, cheating on your partner is one thing, but cheating on your partner via prostitution is another. It's supporting an illicit industry, I was told, condoning a lifestyle that shouldn't be condoned, even if it's to support a child. It's taking advantage of women, even if it's consensual. It's interesting to note my mother and my sister are both die-hard feminists and Hillary backers (their reactions to the McCain campaign's targeting of Hillary supporters by picking Palin inspired me to write this piece last year analyzing the effects of it), so perhaps that has something to do with it. Each is entitled to their own opinion, but I am concerned this may by more prevalent than expected, at least among women or a certain demographic of women. It would certainly an important concern in any Spitzer campaign.
Defying the wishes of the national Democratic Party leadership, today comes news that both Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA) will mount primary challenges to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Senator Arlen Specter, respectively. Good for both Sestak and Maloney. If the leadership can't control their own Senate caucus enough to pass progressive legislation, then they shouldn't be able to prevent progressive primary challenges, either.
Although neither Sestak nor Maloney are making their official campaign launches at this time, in the extended entry I discuss polling, voting records, and other important information that will help you make sense of these campaigns.
Here is what is happening on the campaign trail today:
Virginia Governor--Deeds surges into the lead: There has been some rapid poll movement in the Virginia Democratic gubernatorial primary. The last four non-campaign-funded polls, all conducted entirely within the last week, show Creigh Deeds moving into a slight lead.
The four-poll average is currently Deeds 28.8%, Mcauliffe 27.8%, and Moran 24.5%. With such rapid movement and so many undecideds, it would appear that any of the three can win. However, the trend from Pollster.com shows that Deeds is surging:
Deeds would have to be considered the new favorite, given that trend. The primary is on Tuesday, June 9th.
New York Senate--potential Gillibrand challengers continue to decline: Representative Carolyn McCarthy will not challenge Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in the Democratic primary:
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy will not challenge Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in a Democratic primary. McCarthy, a thorn in Gillibrand's side of late, had said she would take on the newly appointed senator in 2010 if no one else did.
But McCarthy has reversed course, citing personal issues.
Representative Carolyn Maloney is the one remaining potential candidaate who could mount a credible primary challenge to Gillibrand. Earlier this week, Maloney received a phone all from Vice-President Joe Biden, presumably encouraging her not to challenge Gillibrand. Clearly, pressure to not challenge Gillibrand is coming from the very top.
Pennsylvania Senate--Arlen Specter begs health care industry for donations: Arlen Specter made an unusually public call for donations while speaking at a conference for the American Association of Homecare today:
In an unusual move, Specter pleaded with a roomful of conference attendees Wednesday: Please write me a check. Members of Congress give talks at industry meetings all the time but they rarely - if ever - straight up ask for dough in public, especially when reporters are lurking about.
Specter was finishing up brief speech about healthcare reform to an audience of medical equipment suppliers when he closed his remarks with a fundraising pitch.
"My last [campaign] cost $23 mil. So I'd like you to consider giving me a hand with it. Campaign contributions are limited in the federal system so I have to get 50,000 contributors and the people in your industry have a reason to know my work and analysis of the situation. If you can see your way to help out, I'd be very much appreciative," Specter said.
The American Association for Homecare is a pretty run of the mill industry group, employing a few lobbyists and making a wide variety of campaign donations to members of Congress from all over the partisan and ideological spectrum. While one might think it was unseemly to ask members of a business organization for donations in public, remember this is the same Arlen Specter who said he switched parties because his chances of winning the Republican primary were "bleak." Clearly, Specter is willing to do whatever it takes to stay in office, expect maybe hide the fact that he will do whatever it takes to stay in office.
New Jersey Governor--Corzine starts out behind: Democratic incumbent Governor Jon Corzine trails newly minted Republican nominee Chris Christie by 8.6% according to Pollster.com:
The really bad news is that Corzine has been under 40% for 13 consecutive polls, dating back to mid-January. Corzine does not have the benefit of being able to wait until 2010 for the economy to recover, but he did just announce a deal to avert any government worker layoffs.
You can search this nation far and wide and still wind up with very few elected moderate Republicans. As I've discussed before, the Republican tent is shrinking: those who don't subscribe to a narrow set of backward ideas are pushed out. Some have reacted courageously, like the trio of Republican moderates who voted for the stimulus bill.
Some however, take the convenient route.
Case in point: New York congressman Peter King, who represents the moderate 3rd district, was an original co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act in 2003. This was back when President Bush was certain to veto the bill if it passed, so King hopped on board, appeased the unions in his home district, and kept everyone content.
Now that we have a President who supports the measure, King has jumped off the wagon. From his official statement:
"I do not, however, intend to support EFCA in this Congress. Our country is facing its most severe economic crisis in 75 years. It is a crisis different from previous recessions in that it includes restricted credit, massive job loss, a plunging stock market and increased foreclosures and bankruptcies.
Virtually every component of our economy is suffering. While I am confident we will recover, I believe the road ahead will be long and difficult. Under these conditions, I have concluded that the Employee Free Choice Act would be too severe a shock to our economy at this time and would be counterproductive."
He concludes the statement with a telling sentence: "I will continue, of course, to monitor the situation but that is my current thinking.”
From that statement, you might actually think that Congressman King is going to monitor the economic situation. However, what he's really going to be watching are his chances to defeat Kirsten Gillibrand in the 2010 Senate race (Gillibrand is a 21st Century Democrats endorsee and a strong Employee Free Choice supporter). As we've heard, NRSC Chairman John Cornyn is reaching back in time for his 2010 candidates, and he seems to have his sights set on former-Governor George Pataki. If Peter King wants Party money for his Senate bid, he needs to look like the "better Republican." It'll be Pataki vs. King in a beauty contest of conservatism. He can't be doing things like - gasp - protecting the rights of working people. It would be so un-Republican of him.
And while we're at it, let's talk about the idea that the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act would be a "shock" to our economy in these troubled times. Look, the economy is already shocked; working families are shocked by the $2,000 on average that disappeared from their income between 2001 and 2007. The bill does NOT get rid of the option for the NRLB secret ballot election, even though the current election system is rife with flaws. And despite popular belief, when management and labor bargain on equal terms, it helps the workers as well as the management. Just ask this group of 40 leading economists, including two Nobel laureates, who put a full page ad in the Washington Post last month supporting the bill.
Peter King isn't watching the economic situation. He's watching John Cornyn and George Pataki, and he's watching Senator Gillibrand's poll numbers to see if he has a shot at her seat. Meanwhile, Politico reports that numerous Freshman Democrats are voting for the bill despite their electoral vulnerability. There's something to be said for political courage: not everyone has it.
I am going to write something that might sound a little bit off character: I am willing to give Bush Dog, and apparently soon to be New York Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand a chance during her time in the Senate. In practice, what this means is that while I will be interested in looking at primary challenges she receives in 2010, and while I am wary of her past performance, the defeat of the working conservative majority and the newly arrived Democratic trifecta does appear to have altered the congressional playing field. It now seems likely new alliances can be formed for progressives, and no approach to passing progressive legislation, or stopping bad legislation, should be dismissed out of hand.
So, the day after I break my left arm, Open Left crashes. Great. At least I'm getting all of 2009's bad luck out of the way early. Here are some items for Monday:
Beyond these articles, I don't know all that much about her, but anyone who can write this, in this unapologetic, euphemism-free and even impolitic tone, warning that the problem isn't merely John Yoo but Bush himself, repeatedly demanding "outrage," criticizing the Democratic Congress for legalizing Bush's surveillance program, arguing that we cannot merely "move on" if we are to restore our national honor, stating the OLC's "core job description" is to "say 'no' to the President," all while emphasizing that the danger is unchecked power not just for the Bush administration but "for years and administrations to come" -- and to do so in the middle of an election year when she knows she has a good chance to be appointed to a high-level position if the Democratic candidate won and yet nonetheless eschewed standard, obfuscating Beltway politesse about these matters -- is someone whose appointment to such an important post is almost certainly a positive sign. No praise is due Obama until he actually does things that merit praise, but it's hard not to consider this encouraging.
On December, Democrats extended their lead on Republicans in partisan self-identification to 8.7%, according to Rasmussen. That is our biggest lead since June, and bigger than any lead Democrats have held outside of the extended Clinton vs. Obama primary contest.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has rejected a key lawsuit from Norm Coleman, denying him his last chance to win. Franken will be declared the winner later today, but it still may take a while to get him into the Senate.
Tax cuts are being piled onto the stimulus in order to win Republican support. These cuts are now larger than Bush's, and are not just of the middle-class variety. Not good. We don't need Republican support, but Obama is seeking it anyway. My best guess is that this is a repeat of the Democratic leadership's strategy on the bailout. This way, Republicans won't be able to be able to say "I told you so" if it doesn't work, or if it becomes unpopular. Bad idea if you ask me, since we will be blamed if the country doesn't turn around, no matter what.
Or, maybe Obama considers bipartisanship good for its own sake, which would be sad.
Officials say the daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy will be the governor's choice to fill the New York Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Two people close to Gov. David Paterson tell The Associated Press they believe Caroline Kennedy will be his choice, but the governor cautions he's still looking.
This report appears solid, now that State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is now willing to back Kennedy. The deal appears to made, which is disappointing. Not only will she have received the position because of the celebrity provided by her family name and a bullying, Wall Street faction in New York politics, but the general negativity surrounding her poorly run "campaign" for the seat over the last month makes her potentially vulnerable in 2010. She has appeared foolish and unqualified, giving Republicans a shot at winning a seat in one of the bluest states in the nation.
While I am glad that Ken Salazar's Blue Dog younger brother did not receive the appointment, Bennet doesn't seem to be an exciting pick. Also, it is a little disappointing that, with Barack Obama becoming President and Ken Salazar becoming Secretary of Interior, the Senate appears to have gone from six minority members to only four. The Senate really is one of the most retrograde institutions in the entire country.
Caroline Kennedy is now officially running to be appointed to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. Frankly, I consider her 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.
While I am pooh-poohing the Kennedy candidacy, allow me to offer a better choice: Representative Louise Slaughter (NY-28). Here are several reasons why Louise would make a great pick to fill Clinton's seat:
Louise has won twelve terms in Congress. That is twelve more elections than Caroline Kennedy has won, and significantly more than almost any other current contender for the seat. She is not a dynasty appointment, in other words.
She is a woman, a group that is undeniably under-represented in the Senate. It is probably a good idea to replace Clinton with another woman, which I am sure is one of the reasons why Kennedy is being considered.
Her modest roots and lifestyle are anything but elitist and insider. She is the daughter of a Kentucky coal miner, and lives in a very normal, average housing developing in a Rochester suburb (two doors down from my Aunt Cathy and Uncle Bob, fwiw). Members of my family often say that they see her shopping at one of the local Wegman's.
As chair of the rules committee, her ethical standing is beyond reproach, which is something that Democrats need in their Senate appointments right now.
She will turn 81 in 2010, making it likely that she will not seek a full-term. So, rather than entrenching someone in the seat, effectively an caretaker is appointed and then the people get to decide.
She represents Upstate New York--parts of both Rochester and Buffalo--which right now is pretty much entirely lacking representation at the statewide level.
Her seat is safe. With a PVI of D+15, whoever wins the special election will be a Democrat.
In short, there are no downsides, and a lot of upsides, to selecting Louise Slaughter for Senate. I, for one, sincerely hope that she gets the job.
