A Piddling Little Question

By Brad Porter | Related entries in Biden, Blagojevich, Caroline Kennedy, Colorado, Congress, Delaware, Illinois, New York

Four Senate seats this month have to be filled by governors because the seat-holders are vacating for prominent jobs in the new administration.

In Delaware, Joseph Biden is ascending to the Vice Presidency, and in an example of horse-trading so transparent that it apparently doesn’t even warrant comment, twisted the arm of the governor to appoint his senior aide to the seat with the more-or-less express intent of keeping it warm for his son in 2010. The appointee, Ted Kaufman, has never received a single vote and has never held elected or even public office and, as far as I’m aware, doesn’t even have any noteworthy experience in the private sector. He was appointed over other potential candidates like the sitting Lieutenant Governor, the sitting Secretary of State, a sitting state supreme court justice, and, presumably, every other previous or sitting elected official in the state of Delaware.

In New York, of course, it seemed very likely, at least until she botched her entrance into the field, that Governor Patterson, at least in part on direction from the Obama campaign, would appoint Caroline Kennedy. Kennedy has done some good work in her life, but again has eschewed public accountability, and I think precisely nobody denies that the #1 qualification which puts her into such strong contention is her recent role as being one of the President elect’s top surrogates and fundraisers. Again, it’s not that Governor Patterson has no options, but rather no imagination. The other two names being widely floated for the seat are Andrew Cuomo and, yes, Bill Clinton. Which would be mind-blowing considering he would be holding the seat of the lady who was only put into the seat for being married to him (though at least she got elected and thus deserved it). In any case, who says the American aristocracy is dead? I’m still holding out hope that Patterson does the right thing and nominates somebody not on the basis of horsetrading and favor-rewarding, but rather looks to an actual prominent public servant in New York who deserves the ascension (unlike, say, in Delaware, where that was apparently not even a consideration). In any case, the decision right now is who needs to be pleased, the Obama camp, the Clinton camp, or Patterson’s 2010 reelection camp. The people of New York are so far running a distant fourth.

In Colorado, Senator Ken Salazar is vacating to be Obama’s Secretary of the Interior. Yesterday, Governor Bill Ritter announced that his appointment to fill the seat to term will be…Denver Public Schools Superintendent Michael Bennet.

And a collective “who?” echoes throughout the rocky mountains.

However, the liberal netroots know what’s going on. As David Sirota writes here, there is only one area in which Ritter excels: he is the most well connected candidate to the big money donors in Colorado and beyond:

Considering his lack of legislative record, lack of experience in any elected or statewide office, and considerable ties to the biggest of big money, it’s logical to be concerned about how a Senator Bennet will vote on issues. Off the top of my head, I’m wondering, for instance, whether someone with this kind of resume is going to be in favor of tougher financial industry regulations?*
[...]
Colorado has no dearth of very, very qualified people to be U.S. Senator. More specifically, we have a lot of people who have worked very hard passing good public policy and building the grassroots of the Democratic Party for years here. Looking at this bench, and then selecting a person with almost none of those qualities confirms that what gets rewarded in politics today is not legislative accomplishments nor even political ones – what counts is money, inside connections, Ivy League pedigree and a Beltway-padded resume.

And then you have Illinois.

There, the controversial but innocent-until-proven-guilty governor apparantly rethought his standards and decided to go after a candidate who was the least offensive and most obviously squeaky clean and qualified candidate for the office possible. The Illinois legislature punted on holding a special election, despite their protestations that they wanted a fair process (when what they really mean is one in which they get to have their thumbs on the scales), so rather than leave Illinois with only one Senate vote for the foreseeable future, the governor went with a known public servant, a man who has made a career out of seeking public approval, a man with some pretty germane qualifications considering the context (a former Attorney General (i.e. anti-corruption crusader) and former Comptroller (i.e. bank regulator)), a man who would be the sole African-American in the Senate, and a man who, despite the most intense public scrutiny spotlight in America right now, precisely nobody can level a real accusation against. In other words, the man, given the circumstances, most qualified for the job.

So, four Senate vacancies. In one, literally a staffer is appointed to keep the seat warm for the Senator’s son. In another, it’s an ongoing battle of which high-profile election surrogate to reward for their loyalty. In the third, the trumping consideration was apparently in favor of the guy most connected to big money, at the expense of qualifications or experience. And in the fourth, the guy nominated was an unimpeachable public servant undeniably qualified for the job.

Now, the question:

Guess which one doesn’t get seated?

Cross-posted at The Crossed Pond


This entry was posted on Sunday, January 4th, 2009 and is filed under Biden, Blagojevich, Caroline Kennedy, Colorado, Congress, Delaware, Illinois, New York. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

4 Responses to “A Piddling Little Question”

  1. David Says:

    Weren’t the Democrats supposed to improve the ethical standards in Washington?

  2. Jeremy from Oregon Says:

    “Weren’t the Democrats supposed to improve the ethical standards in Washington?” – David

    That’s funny, weren’t the Republicans to do the same? We gave them 8 full years to prove themselves and they proved themselves to be nothing but hypocrites (think K street) Obama hasn’t even made it to office yet. I will concede on one point though. The Democrats have had a majority in both houses for months now, albeit not a working-majority. I am disgusted by Democrats pandering of the Bush administration and that administrations blatant attacks on civil rights. So in that respect I agree, Democrats dropped the ball and continue to do so.

  3. Jeremy from New Jersey Says:

    I agree that the Democrats can’t be looked to for ethical standards. I hope they can be trusted to uphold the Constitution a little better than the Republicans.

    I’d also like to respectfully disagree about Hillary. She’s a pretty savvy, smart and competent politician. Saying she owes her Senate seat to Bill isn’t true or fair.

  4. Brad Porter Says:

    There are probably millions of pretty smart, savvy, and competent people in America.

    Being the one married to the last two-term Democratic president probably doesn’t hurt your chances of standing out.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: