A New Beginning

Since we haven't posted anything in nearly two weeks now... can I get an amen? That is "literally" a beautiful article, to borrow a favorite erroneous phrase from our new Vice President. Seriously. It's almost unbelievable. Just like that, so much hubris, so much deeply felt pain and embarassment, just wiped away...

On another note, the great debate is over. Not that there was ever much disagreement to begin with. My guess is it will be Cuomo. Still another dynasty pick, but at least he has the political background to justify an appointment.

The Vices of Nepotism

Even though it's now apparent Brandon and I do not disagree on the issue of nepotism, I still found this post by Glenn Greenwald interesting and relevant to our Caroline Kennedy discussion. In the radio feature, Greenwald interviews an Indiana University political science professor who has conducted extensive research on dynastic politics. Among his findings: one in four current senators have an immediate family member whose held high office; dynasticism in U.S. politics is growing; and, most surprisingly (and disenchantingly) to me, Democrats engage in this sort of nepotism much more than Republicans do.

The question of Kennedy's appointment becomes a sort of cost-benefit analysis for anti-nepotism New York Democrats: Are the political and campaigning advantages Kennedy brings worth the further entrenchment of our country-- and our party, especially-- in dynastic politics? It's a tough question, and I think both sides have legitimate points. There's little question in my mind Democrats would have a tougher time keeping the seat in 2010 and 2012 with someone other than Kennedy or Cuomo. Ultimately, though, I'm still riding the anti-Kennedy bandwagon. It may be a case of "killing yourself to live," yes. But hey, look what Dean's long-term outlook unexpectedly brought us in the short term in that situation.

RE: Caroline On My Mind

I concur with Greg's hatred of nepotism. I'm no fan either, but in defense of Caroline let me explain my rather tepid support. New York is a big state, it is not cheap to run for statewide office. Media exposure in NYC is expensive and with so much bleed into CT and NJ it's also quite wasteful, add the cost of the media tours upstate and we're talking millions of dollars. Now remember, Clinton's replacement will have to run in the next cycle, 2010, as well as 2012 when Hillary's seat was originally up for re-election. So that's two statewide elections back to back. Both of which will probably face strong Republican competitors. Peter King from Long Island is already hinting at 2010. So basically, in order to win back to back elections the dems will need massive money and for better or worse the Nepotistic characteristics of her last name will help her greatly. The only person who shares name recognition in the same ballpark is Cuomo who I would also be happy to see appointed but he's currently playing the "I don't want it" game, but deep down, everyone knows he does.

Caroline On My Mind

Seeing as I'm a politico, a New Yorker, and (as of late) a blogger, I'm thinking I'm almost obligated to post something about Caroline Kennedy likely becoming my next Senator. So here, adoring fans, is my one cent (seeing as Brandon offered up the other half of this blog's pennies on the issue a month ago, when an opinion was much timelier and appropriate).

I've gone back and forth on this quite a bit. When Kennedy first surfaced as a possible candidate, my first reaction was yes. I admire her family, from JFK all the way down to RFK Jr. In fact, before RFK Jr. dropped out of consideration, I was rather intrigued by the idea of him nabbing the seat. Then, after hitting the blogosphere and giving it a little more thought, I changed my mind. Nepotism at its finest... no thanks. But THEN I read Brandon's post and it got me thinking again. From a tactical (or is it strategic?) viewpoint, Kennedy is the only potential appointee that makes sense. Her name and fame will carry a lot of cache in Washington, especially in this administration, and we'll need some major sway from that seat with the big stimulus pie soon to be divvied up.

But, at the end of the day, I have to vote "nay" on Caroline. I totally understand the case for her, and I know naming anyone else up for consideration will likely only hurt New York in the short term. I just can't get over the nepotism thing. Bush, Hillary, Gore, Romney, Bayh, Biden's son in Delaware next year... I know it seems somewhat arbitrary to draw the line at Kennedy, but it has to be drawn somewhere. Ask yourself, Democrats: If a GOP governor floated the idea of appointing a Bush or Reagan (the bad kind) with no political experience to a Senate seat, would your reaction not be one of total disgust? Call it simplistic or naive, but I don't think it's good for democracy when surname trumps merit, no matter the personal political costs.

As for who SHOULD be appointed, you got me. I'm embarrassed to admit I don't know much about anyone else being mentioned besides Gillibrand, and even though she's far from ideal, I still prefer her over Kennedy. Any solid Democrat who's worked hard for this state in Congress would be a good start to me. I guess I need to research this further... probably should have thought of that before I posted, huh?

Just a quick recommendation

I watched American Splendor yesterday and cannot recommend it enough. If you have not seen it, go see it right now. Paul Giamatti as a lovable loser (per usual), and insults thrown at David Letterman. The blending of the real life people and the character's in the movie was great. So many times I'm watching a movie based on real people and thinking "there is no way they act like that" and for every odd personality trait portrayed in the film, you see it reflected in their real life counterpart.

Deeply moving about a cranky old curmudgeon. Go see it if you haven't!