great point, Eli.
The people should decide anyway.

What are you, some kind of crazy democracy advocate?

Is there any other kind?

All I can say is term limits will solve a lot of this nonsense. You get to give your time to gov for say 8 years and that’s it. No more nada. Let someone else serve the people. There are enough good people around. No one should appoint replacements. All should be elections. END OF STORY.

I think term limits solve an entirely different sort of nonsense.

It turns out that a spectacularly corrupt Illinois governor facing impeachment is smarter and/or more powerful than the Senate majority leader. Now we know. Time for Harry to go fishing with Al Neri at Lake Tahoe.

Let the Supreme Court decide and appoint. I am sure they are fair.

Do you think Ted Kennedy should have been forced out of the Senate after two terms? Term limits are undemocratic. Voters should have the right to elect any candidate for as many successive terms as they like. Level the playing field that currently favors incumbents by requiring public financing of campaigns.

We have the power to limit terms right here in our voting finger.

I thought I heard that Alaska now requires a special election also. (Something to do with a Governor appointing his daughter).

Getting Salazar and Clinton out of the Senate was a smart play: Salazar would have been unreliable, and Clinton a potential focus of opposition. As to the replacements, we’ll just have to wait and see. The big Dem majority gave him several degrees of freedom.

I kept flipping mine at Bush but it didn’t do much good.

I agree, Eli.

Concerning the Gillibrand appointment, Democracy Now! today did a segment on it. Seems Gov Paterson is no longer the progressive he was in the state Senate. He’s become increasingly conservative since becoming governor. Short but interesting little piece. It’s the last headline and discussion follows. Starts at about 12:30 in.

Oops, you’re probably right – I was looking at a document from 2003.

Nice post, Eli.

Digg in firedogs… no dirty paws, I guarantee it.

His budget-balancing plan was pretty asshattish. All cutting services and no raising upper-bracket taxes.

Yes I do. He did some good things, but there are others from MA who could do welol – How about Noam Chomsky?

What about the fact that Kennedy walked away and let Mary Jo drown. That was despicable and he was probably drunk as a skunk and was never cited even for DUI. TK is no saint.

Paterson turned the process into a complete clusterfuck. He made Blagojevich look competent by comparison. I hope Paterson ends up facing a primary challenge.

A Republican legislator in Colorado just introduced a bill that would mandate a special election for any future US Senate opening. When the guy was asked if he would have been introducing the bill if Gov Ritter, a Democrat, had been defeated in the last election by the Republican candidate (Beauprez) and a new Republican Senator had just been appointed, he replied, “Well, that wasn’t the case.” Sort of casts doubt on the purity of his motives.

IF IF IF you could have a completely level “playing field” and public finance and no lobbyists influencing critters and an enforced no revolving door and and and and fine.

But with term limits you solve a lot of problems. AND STILL the people get to elect. Why do we need the power of incumbency and all that goes with it – NANCY and HARRY, Strom Thurmond and so forth. YUK

I prefer term limits and I’ll be glad to vote every election for the best candidate.

There is absolutely nothing UNdemocratic about term limits.

I Dugg It and I didn’t get Any Dirt on my Paws. So there is no excuse for not Digging IT!

why is this lady a blue dog, other than loving guns? her voting record seemed (i.e. i dunno)pretty ok. somebody had a link this a.m.

Sounds like a conservative to me. Had a Rethug clown on local news talk teebee show just now saying Obama has made the country even more divided because of his views on, wait for it, abortion, homosexuality and spending tax dollars on the people. Got smacked down pretty good by others on the panel.

I like Noam but (a) he has never expressed any desire (as far as I am aware) of holding elected office and (b) even if he did he is probably unelectable. Brilliant but not charismatic and certainly unwilling to perform the requisite obeisance to groups like AIPAC.

As for Chappaquiddick, it was up to the voters of Massachusetts to decide if it rendered Ted unfit for office. They made their choice. THAT is what democracy is all about.

Sorry, but being an effective representative of the people requires a special skill set that a lot of folks just don’t have. I seriously doubt that there are enough people out there, especially in small and sparsely-populated states, to fill that position effectively.
Yeah, as far as the main point of this piece goes, special elections are the way to go.

I have mixed feelings about term limits. On the one hand, I really do believe that the voters should get to decide. On the other hand, most politicians do get a lot more corrupt and a lot less effective at anything other than pork-barrelling the longer they stay in office.

At the very least, I would like to abolish the custom of awarding committee chairs based on seniority…

Because she literally is one.

And you want a pony, right?

Tell me this: How can you both eliminate lobbying and allow for public comment? One person’s lobbyist is another person’s spokesperson.

Salazar and Clinton were nominated less than a month ago. How long would it take to set up a primary and an election so that the public would have an opportunity to vett the candidates. Be lucky to have a winner by late spring or early summer (unless it is Minnesota)

So in your opinion, experience is irrelevant? Afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. Term limits ARE undemocratic IF imposed on the electorate. If the people in a given state have the opportunity to vote for or against term limits I’ll accept that it is their right to do so, although I think it would be stupid of them to restrict their future choices. Hard enough to get good people in government without shrinking the talent pool.

Would that be a tragedy? I’m okay with governors appointing interim replacements until those special elections are held, I just have a problem with unelected senators holding office for two years or more.

See my 13 above. Looseheadprop’s post this morning had a lot of stuff on her. She touts being the most conservative Dem in the state. Sorry but you’ll have to sift through the comments for links.

Not to mention all the swell Democratic Senators (from states that, oddly, have GOP governors) who were therefore excluded from consideration because of the appointment provision: Whitehouse, Dodd, Leahy, Sanders, Feinstein, Boxer, Bayh. And think how easily Obama could rid the Senate of Lieberman by providing him with a nice embassy sinecure (ideas where?) if only the voters of Connecticut instead of GOP governor Jodi Rell could pick his replacement.

To say nothing of the fact that he just turned 80.

Paterson kept quiet and respected the privacy of the candidates he considered. The blame for the clusterfuck is Caroline’s, and her advisers’.

If I were Obama, I *still* would have tried to sweet-talk Joe out of the Senate. Better two years of an “out” Republican than four years of a closeted one.

Then, after Ned Lamont is elected in 2010, I’d fire his ass.

2003???!!! You were lookin at a documemt from 2003? Ancient history, man. Of course Alaska has special elections now. Since 2003 they’ got themselves a mav’rick governor who took on the party bosses and was a swell change agent. Doncha know?

I was mainly looking at it to try to understand where this system resides; i.e., is it federal or state. Looks like the 17th amendment makes appointment by governor the default, but gives the states leeway to choose alternatives.

My experience has been that term limits at the state and local level are fairly effective. On the federal level I don’t think they cut it.

I still wonder if Barack put his fist through a wall when RGJoe leaked his veto threat after the first Democratic Senate caucus meeting he attended.

Happy now, Barry?

I know. But she doesn’t seem like a scary Blue Dog. Not like a “Beware: Blue Dog” type. I mean, there’s blue dogs and there’s blue dogs, no? I dunno, I’m just still in that mood where I’ll give people a chance. And besides, who are the 2 clusterfucks? Not her, right? She’s the darkhorse, yes?

Term limits in California have turned our government, such as it is, over to corporate lobbyists.

What about a stipulation saying an interim office holder cannot run in the following election?

Only serve out the interim period. But they could run at a later date if they so choose.

Frankly I am not a fan of term limits. Public campaign finance only would solve (equalize/nullify) many more problems, imo.

Same result in Arkansas.

Some website today (forget where) refers to Gillibrand as a caretaker. They favor Carolyn McCarthy’s primary challenge, iirc.

She may turn out to be okay. I get the impression that she takes on the positions of her constituency, which in this case would be a good thing. What makes it a clusterfuck is that Paterson just gave a House seat away.

I wasn’t referring to Caroline specifically and I agree that she created her own problems. Paterson was indecisive and based on accounts of the process I’ve heard today, Gillibrand was more or less a last minute choice. I realize Paterson had a lot of factors to consider. That’s true of most decisions a New York governor is likely to make and he demonstrated a marked lack of competence on this one.

I still don’t like it. Plus that’s kind of undemocratic in itself – what if the interim appointment turns out to be really good?

With the money involved to get elected out there and the opportunities after leaving office I can understand that. Not as bad here in FL but the developers and their lobbyists are the biggest problem although the housing crash has cooled their jets.

Now I’m from NJ where they don’t even have a lieutenant governor ’s office and I live in FL now where arguably we don’t even know how to do elections. So I have questions. Re: special elections. How long does it take to hold one and get somebody seated? Is this a problem?

He said from the very beginning that he wouldn’t announce his choice until the position was actually vacant; a good idea, as it turned out, for a number of reasons. Other candidates who’ve spoken about their interviews say they were respectful and candid. The media made it a circus because Caroline was involved, and her Lieberman/Netanyahu advisers stoked that.

I’m not sure Paterson should be blamed for anything that went wrong; he claims he knew when Obama was inaugurated whom he would choose.

Term limits in CA have handed the power in Sacramento over to the lobbyists.

New folks come to town, and the friendly corporate lobbyist is there to explain how things work, who you need to talk to, who you need to steer clear of . . . By the time the newbie has his or her feet on the ground, they’re term limited out, and there’s a new crop of folks for the corporate lobbyists to help out.

right . I’m with you there. Not so worried about her. i don’t know upstate but i think it’s farm country and some pretty well off peoples, isn’t it? Saratoga? Not blue territory.

I don’t have a problem with an interim appointment in place for a few months while they get the election set up and run an abbreviated campaign, but I think most states probably worry about the cost. Even so, it’s not like this is something they have to worry about every year.

Clearly this system isn’t doing what it’s supposed to, but nor are special elections a panacea. As we know very well in CA, special elections are often far easier for rethugs to manipulate, on account of typically low turnout, and parochial interests often distort the process for the same reason. My usual answer for these problems is to make voting mandatory, but that’s unlikely to happen (I also support the idea of mandatory national service ;-) ). Perhaps special selection commissions (like juries, empaneled by the public at general election time as a contingency that they may be asked to select and appointment replacements for a range of different state and federal public offices….

Oh has it ever! Also the stupid requirement for 2/3 approval for a budget! That has/is destroying so much in the state like the schools from K right through the UC’s, State Colleges and all the junior Colleges putting all young students in jeopardy of not getting their college degrees! Which has the direct effect on the bottom line of the state budget as these kids won’t get the high paying jobs and won’t pay the higher taxes on that higher income.

Paterson can be blamed, however, for the media circus that took place today. He had that whole platform packed with less-than-happy NY democratic politicians at 11:55, and left them standing there before live cameras until about 12:15 or so — then gave a rambling introduction of his chosen candidate, who proceeded to ramble herself for quite a while.

NY prides itself on being the home of Broadway. Pick any assistant stage manager there, and you could have had a much better production today.

And it’s not his fault that it took so long for Hillary to be confirmed so she could resign her seat.

I think she’s a blue dog as a Rahm Emmanuel protege, too.
But maybe for the sake of the NYC vote, she’ll be modifying some of her positions.

Bob in HI

Well, the appointment process is kind of undemocratic.

As well as the inherent power of the incumbency an appointee garners by default.

If a person went in, knowing they could not run for the next few months (only for their appointed seat), but could run for another.. or that seat at another time, that doesn’t seem unreasonable, nor do they have to accept the position if they would prefer to run right away.

… whom he would choose.

You’re certainly not the only one here who does it, but i appreciate the proper use of the objective pronoun. i don’t do it. but i appreciate it. probably the catholic school background. which I’m still rebelling against.

I’m just disappointed that the best candidate (the one on the left) got shafted (again).

Haven’t heard or seen RGJoe’s mouth since, tho, except for the inaugural background crowd. So maybe someone’s reminded him he is expendable?

Her district is pretty red, but I believe it went for Obama. But what I hear is that the Dems don’t have anyone who has much of a chance there.

there was no excuse for that bomb

What I got from the discussion this morning is that her district is red and will probably go to a Rethug but there’s a chance that the district will disappear after the next census. IIRC it was a gerrymandered district for starters. She was described as Catholic, anti-choice, anti-gay marriage, and in the pocket of the NRA.

I am operating under the assumption that a few months of incumbency is probably not enough to give an interim appointee much of an unfair advantage.

Teddy – I don’t know how Gillibrand can be anything except for a caretaker. The election is in 2010. She’s already got someone who has announced that they are going to go up against her in a primary. She doesn’t have enough time to actually accomplish anything before she has to get a campaign committe together, raise a truckload of money and run again. AND, NY will probably lose a district when the Census gets done and Paterson can just rearrange things to make her district ‘disappear’ and get picked up by Arcuri, Hinchey and a couple of other folks north and south of Albany. I hope she has plans for after 2010 because I can’t see her in the Senate. She’s being sacrificed, I think.

we’ll see. but eli’s concern is corrcet. the district has probably been pissed away to the R’s.

All I get is text.

Gillibrand’s really red part are going to be the dairy districts west and south of Albany and the strip that goes up I87 to Canada north of Saratoga. Saratoga will be her only blue area.

But now she’s saying positive things about gay marriage and talking about working with Carolyn McCarthy on McCarthy’s background check bill for gun purchases. Hence the chameleon theory.

I can’t say I really admire her for it, but the practical outcome might not be so bad.

Try this.

Was she saying this before or after McCarthy said she was going to primary her? *g*

There are several examples in the Canadian Parliament where long-term MPs have been extremely effective as repositories of institutional knowledge re: parliamentary procedure and have been well (deservedly) respected until their retirements.

People can become increasingly corrupt, yes, but there is a lot to be said for experience as well, and knowing how to get things done.

How long does it take to get a special election done, including the primary campaign?

How come I don’t see that mag at my check-out counter? That’s Mad magazine for adults. Almost said grown-ups.

She said it at the press conference where Paterson announced the appointment.

World Weekly News has nixed their print addition, now web-only.

Oh, I’m not advocating term limits at the federal level. No way. I’m a fence leaner on this issue.

Ah, get it in the privacy of your own home. No more sneaking it to the cashier hoping nobody sees ya buyin’ it. Off to watch Moyers. Later.

Namaste

Enjoy.

Now we know, he was a beautiful lady.

Not having much luck finding anything on that. My guess would have been a minimum of three months, which is about how long the CA-GOV recall took, but that was a free-for-all with no primary.

Sorry – replied to the wrong comment!

Point taken. I was operating in a general idea of how we might approach any and all vacancies (congressional or senate).

That said, Gillibrand’s incumbency obviously delivers an immediate advantage (in terms of fundraising and more) with the Governors approval, Shumers smile and Obama on the phone during her first press appearance.

The Weekly World News is awesome. I have Why-I-Love-The-Weekly-World-News Blogging every Wednesday at my place.

This week it was a peek inside Cheney’s man-sized safe, and Ed Anger’s tearful farewell to Dubya.

Thanks, I’ll take a look.

Congressional openings are all special elections. Which I think strengthens the argument: Why is it that representatives have to earn their way into Congress, but more-powerful senators don’t?

Plus, there’s the unseemly musical chairs played by officeholders, that shows voters a candidate isn’t really interested in being Comptroller or Insurance Commissioner, just wants to continue in a statewide sinecure. And the agonizing up-and-out required leads to intraparty battles between equally well-qualified candidates, sometimes two good progressives, simply because one of them can’t stay in his job anymore (e.g., Leno v Migden).

Just as we would have done better as a country to have completely rejected George Bush in a re-election battle in 2008, I’d like to see Arnold be able to seek another term as governor. He’d probably not get past his own primary and certainly would be rejected in the general election. An utter rejection sometimes counts for more than the rejection of a surrogate. We wouldn’t have all these conservatives claiming McCain “wasn’t conservative enough” if W had been able to run for a third term. The GOP would have lovingly allowed him to run again, and we’d have trounced Bush Conservatism more completely. The Zombie Lie will continue now.

I had the Abe Was A Babe WWN story before the WWN did!

Sort of.

If the election is required because a Senator has been elevated to federal office, perhaps the federal government should pay the freight for the special election?

That would have been pretty sweet if Obama could have run against Dubya for real instead of by proxy. He would have gotten 400+ EV, and downticket would have been a blue bloodbath.

Sounds fair to me.

Wow, that’s great! Too much good stuff to quote but among other things, I liked this.

We looked out onto the Rose Garden one last time, before the new guy starts using it to grow marijuana for his unicorn.

Yeah, I loved that line too. That, and “Dick’s Slow Jamz”.

It’s an artifact from 100 years ago when Senators were all appointed, no?

Which is what prompted my original suggestions *s*

Yes, exactly.

(Oops, “Congressional openings” should be “House openings”)

Yeah, I laughed at that too. I was just checking out the home page, like Obama crossing lightsabers with Darth.

Of course, if we make the argument ‘why shouldn’t Senators be treated like Congresscritter openings?’ the Village is likely to make everything appointed. So much easier to have governors fill every vacancy, right?

Oh yeah, also brilliant.

This is why it also has to be a democracy issue.

Do you suggest we try to do this at the grassroots, in each state, as Alaska recently did? Or should we try for a Constitutional Amendment?

Gillibrand’s really red part are going to be the dairy districts

Cows get to vote in New York?

Good question. I don’t think this is really a Democrat-specific issue, so a bipartisan consensus should be possible, at least in theory.

On the other hand, I don’t think politicians of either party are really all that fond of the democratic process, or leaving decisions up to the voters.

Since a constitutional amendment requires 3/4s of the states to ratify it, it might be quicker just to go to them directly.

Governors may not want to give up their appointment power, which would probably be the biggest sticking point.

Is Bowen going to go against Feinstein?

Also, if we were to go state-by-state, I wonder what the impact would be if there were some sort of gentleman’s agreement (ha!) between both parties that they would only choose running mates and cabinet secretaries from special election states.

Cows get to vote in New York?

Yeah, but it looks as if they’re feeling somewhat disenfranchised.

I think lobbyist for organizations such as teachers, nurses, steel workers, and auto workers unions and groups such as MADD, NOW, MoveOn, etc are ok to have lobbyist because they are groups of people who have come together because of some thing in common.
 
But Lobbyist of a corporation which is representing board members and upper echelon’s in that business should not be able to lobby.

I agree, I agree, I agree!

Please help me, I’m drowning in this shit from HuffPo.: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..59490.html

So, Obama rocks. Let’s see how he delivers.

It takes time to put on an election. I think those that are in the Senate, House or are a Gov and want to run for President should be required to give up their political seats before they start campaigning. It was very difficult to get Clinton, Obama and McCain back to DC to vote on important issues such as the FISA bill, if we hadn’t run the

(cont from 114, sorry I didn’t finish my sentence above.)

if we hadn’t worked the phones, signed petitions and emailed them.

I look at the Millionairs Club Senate like I do GM’s board, I think it needs to be overhauled or rebuilt, from scratch. The past 30 years got us in this mess we are in today and the past 8 years were more like a dictatorship with dems voting with reps so often. We voted Obama in for some fresh new blood and I think we should do this in the Senate. Experience so often is just status quo and elbow rubbing.