Obama Is Pathetically WRONG: Paterson Should Run!

While some liberals are complaining about the obvious racism among conservatives who oppose President Obama, another, more interesting, race issue has emerged. President Obama has asked Governor David Paterson of New York -- one of two sitting black governors and only the fourth in United States history -- not to run in the 2010 election. Paterson has rejected Obama's request -- good!

Paterson replaced Eliot Spitzer, who resigned following a prostitution scandal. Paterson was seemingly a shoe-in for the Democratic nomination until he made a major misstep. Earlier this year, he declined overtures from many people -- including Obama -- to choose Caroline Kennedy to fill Hillary Clinton's vacated senate seat. Caroline Kennedy and her deceased uncle Ted Kennedy were key endorsers of Obama during the Democratic primaries.

Obama openly supported Kennedy, but he suddenly stopped speaking about the subject after the "pay-to-play" scandal involving his own senate seat erupted. Remarkably, many people in the media openly suggested that Paterson should choose Kennedy because she and Obama could do wonders for his fundraising efforts. Yet, these were the same type of issues that shaped the Blagojevich scandal.

Also, polls showed that a substantial number of New York voters did not even want Kennedy to take the seat. Her numbers worsened after an unimpressive speaking tour. But many Kennedy backers complained about Paterson's "handling" of Kennedy's "candidacy." Apparently, he treated her like any other potential appointee and asked tough questions. Ultimately, he chose Kirsten Gillibrand, an upstate moderate, for the position. This choice caused Paterson's approval numbers to skid.

Today, Paterson's approval ratings remain low. Paterson attributes some of the anger to race. This reason sounds more plausible than the fact that he decided not to appoint someone whom many New Yorkers did not want to hold the office.

If New Yorkers want people from political dynasties to lead them, they can choose Andrew Cuomo, who once warned Democratic primary voters that Obama would be unable to "shuck and jive" through a press conference. The New York Times predicts (or maybe hopes) that Obama's request that Paterson step aside should "neutralize any criticism [Cuomo] may face among the governor’s prominent black allies" for running against a black incumbent. If Paterson's "prominent black allies" are beholden to the White House, rather than their own principles, then the New York Times is correct.

The Bottom Line: Obama is absolutely, indisputably and shamefully wrong for doing this. While many liberals are attacking the racism of Obama's opponents (just as they did with Hillary Clinton -- but with far less damning material), Obama is "paying back" a black governor who refused to engage in nepotism and appoint the wealthy, white, privileged Carolyn Kennedy who campaigned for Obama, to the Senate. I see no reason why Obama deserves antiracist advocacy -- which he says is not even warranted -- while he is trying to push out a black candidate who has lost popularity seemingly for the mere fact that he stood up to Obama and the Kennedys.

New York Proves It Is One of the Flakiest States in the Country

A new Quinnipiac poll confirms that New York remains one of the flakiest states in the country. The poll shows that New York voters harbor deep feelings of animosity for Governor Paterson. 60-28 percent of voters disapprove of Paterson's performance. Also, according to the survey, Paterson would lose to former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani -- by double digits.

Paterson's skid started after he declined to appoint Caroline Kennedy to fill the empty Senate seat created when Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State. Although politicians from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to President Barack Obama supported Kennedy, Paterson chose Representative Kirsten Gillibrand instead.

Gillibrand, who, as a member of the House of Representatives, won the support of conservative and moderate voters in her upstate district, could help provide campaign support for Paterson in this important region of the state. Nevertheless, his selection of Gillibrand and rejection of Kennedy set off a round of criticism.

Ironically, New York voters have punished Paterson for not selecting Kennedy, but polling data prior to his selection of Gillibrand revealed that most voters did not support Kennedy -- even though she polled higher than Gillibrand. Her numbers plunged considerably after she began a self-promotion tour, explicitly declaring her interest in the position. Despite their disapproval of Kennedy, New York voters immediately punished Paterson for bypassing her, and they continue to do so. Get outta here!

Patrick Buchanan Shows Greater Commitment to Liberal Values Than Senate Democrats, Defends Roland Burris

The Senate Democrats' position on Roland Burris is so anti-liberal, that it falls to the right Patrick Buchanan's perspective on the subject. Buchanan, a popular conservative commentator, recently entered the fray surrounding Governor Rod Blagojevich's selection of Burris to fill President-elect Obama's vacant Senate seat.

Although Illinois law authorizes the governor alone to fill Senate vacancies, Democrats vow to block (using armed force, if necessary) Burris or any other candidate that Blagojevich chooses because a federal prosecutor alleges that he unlawfully tried to sell the seat.

In a series of posts (see links following this essay), I have criticized the Democrats' position for lacking a sufficient constitutional basis, abandoning liberal concepts, and wasting political and intellectual resources needed to address more pressing concerns. But in order to advance their goal of disempowering Blagojevich, Democrats have discarded important liberal values to such a large extent that Buchanan has become a greater champion for fairness than top leaders within the party of "change."

Taint versus Presumption of Innocence
The willingness of Democrats to find Blagjevich and Burris "guilty" (or "tainted") has been one of the disturbing aspects of this controversy. The prosecutor's "complaint" is merely a collection of allegations, not facts, and the released recordings, though salacious, are selectively extracted from the larger set of materials and taken out of their orignal context. Moreover, these items do not present any defense or conflicting evidence from Blagojevich.

Consequently, the Democrats cannot know, based on the proceedings thus far, whether Blagojevich has committed a crime or even engaged in misconduct. And even if Blagojevich were in fact culpable or tainted, no rational basis exists for imputing guilt to Burris and excluding him from office.

Although Democrats fail to admit that their position prematurely treats Blagojevich and, more importantly, Burris as criminals, Buchanan's sharp analysis gets to the heart of the matter:

There is not the slightest hint Burris did anything unethical or illegal to win this appointment. Nor is there any doubt as to Gov. Blagojevich's right to make the appointment. He is still governor of Illinois. He has not been convicted of anything. And he not only has the right but an obligation to carry out his duties, one of which is to appoint candidates to fill empty seats in the U.S. Senate. . . .

[H]ere in America, even a governor is innocent until proven guilty. And what exactly do those tapes [offered as evidence of a conspiracy] show, other than that Blago and his chief of staff engaged in crude and corrupt talk about getting rewarded with campaign contributions or high office for Blago in return for giving someone the Senate appointment?

Using vile language and ruminating on selling a Senate seat may be sins, but they are not necessarily crimes.

Two Seats for Sale? Kennedy versus Burris
Currently, an increasing number of sources report that New York Governor David Paterson will choose Caroline Kennedy to take over Hillary Clinton's vacated seat. Unlike Blagojevich, Paterson will benefit greatly if he appoints Kennedy.

Before Blagojevich faced criminal charges, news articles reported that Obama called Paterson in order to support the appointment of Kennedy. I suspect that Obama did more than simply encourage the governor to take a look at Kennedy's resume and cover letter. Instead, it is highly likely that Obama, Kennedy and many of her supporters promised to help raise money for and campaign on behalf of Paterson, who faces an election battle of his own in two years.

Whether or not Kennedy and Obama made such overtures, Paterson undoubtedly considered how their massive financial and political networks could facilitate his own career aspirations. The famed Kennedy family's endorsement of Obama did more for his campaign than any other. Together, the famed Kennedy and Obama families' endorsement of Paterson and their fundraising strengths will prove highly "profitable" for him.

Although politicians routinely consider how they will gain (or lose) from their decisions -- including appointing individuals to office -- most people do not view this type of bargaining as criminal. But if the Kennedy appointment comes to fruition, choosing her and fulfilling the wishes of Obama will bring tremendous personal gain to Paterson, perhaps even more than a political appointment or money (for a campaign or otherwise) would have given Blagojevich.

After the scandal first began, a few media outlets and bloggers explored the fine line between illegal and legal political bargaining. But soon, commentators and politicians alike settled on a competely rigid and unnuanced position regarding Blagojevich. Once all of the evidence emerges, however, Blagojevich may be guilty of telephonic bravado, rather than a criminal conspiracy.

The fact that all of the individuals with whom Blagojevich allegedly wanted to bargain deny wrongdoing -- and remain untainted -- bodes well for his defense. If Blagojevich illegally attempted to sell the seat, the prosecutor should identify the buyer. If no buyer exists, then Blagojevich will have an easier time defending the case, assuming he is eventually indicted.

Even though the situation seems to warrant a nuanced approach, Democrats have taken a hard line against Blagojevich and anyone affiliated with him. But flexibility and patience for facts are central to a liberal system of justice. Unlike the Democrats, rightwinger Buchanan gets it:

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. says he talked to the governor for 90 minutes about the Senate seat but was never solicited. Nor did he offer anything. Obama aides Rahm Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett both talked to Blagojevich about the seat, and Rahm talked to his chief of staff.

Neither claims to have been solicited for any kind of bribe.

Yet, if Blago were going to sell the seat, the obvious party to sell it to is the man with the power to appoint ambassadors and Cabinet officers, or to convince thers to hire Blago: President-elect Obama.

Yet, from all we know, nether Barack nor anyone on his staff ever offered anything illicit to the governor, nor were they asked for anything. Where is the body of the crime?

Race Politics
Although I believe that Democrats would have rejected any appointment that Blagojevich made, some progressives have discussed the unseemly image of Reid calling upon armed officers to exclude the only prospective black Senator. Democrats disclaim any type of racial prejudice in their position and even say that their objection does not even relate to Burris. But the impact of their actions implicate race and warrant greater scrutiny.

Liberals, over the vehement objection of conservatives, embrace civil rights doctrines that examine the effect of policies on groups and not simply the intent or bias of the decision maker. Under liberal standards, Reid's motivation and the validation of his decision by America's most popular and powerful black person is irrelevant. Nevertheless, liberals have strongly rejected any discuss the racial implications of Reid's decision, even though they eagerly invoke racial narratives (e.g., "diversity" or "historic election") when it suits them. Even on the subject of race, Buchanan's arguments tops Democrats in their adherence to liberal ideology:

Here we have an African-American elder statesman of the Democratic Party, an honorable and distinguished man, appointed by the governor according to law and the Constitution, to fill a Senate seat. There has been no hint of illegal consideration asked or given by either the governor or Burris.

Yet Harry Reid, who presides over a Democratic caucus of some 60 senators, with not a single black member, is going to refuse this black man a seat to which the law entitles him? [Editor's Note: There are no black Republicans in the Senate either.]

One hopes Burris will stay firm and march up to that Senate, and, if nothing else, expose the hypocrisy. [Editor's Note: I disagree with Buchanan's irrelevant anti-affirmative action rant the follows this quoted text.]

Parting Words
After the events of last year, especially Obama's decision to pick Clinton as Secretary of State, very little can surprise me in politics. But that does not mean that political positions cannot disturb or upset me, which the Democrats' stance towards Blagojevich and Burris has in fact done. Perhaps Democrats will soon embrace liberal values once again and soften their inflexible stance towards Burris.

Note: Other conservatives have recently defended Burris as well (see here and here).

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

So When Exactly Does "Change" Arrive? Senate Battle Over Burris and Blagojevich Offers "More of the Same"!

Some Media Outlets Begin "Palinizing" Roland Burris

Defiant Blagojevich Names Obama's Successor: Decision Raises Political and Constitutional Questions

Like It or Not, Democracy Prevails: Illinois Supreme Court Refuses to Declare Blagojevich Unfit to Serve

Blago Impeachment: What Would Lincoln Do?

Playing or Paying Politics: Blagojevich, Political DealMaking, and the Difficulty of Drawing Lines

Pick Me! Caroline Kennedy Officially on the Job Market

Do Nepotism, Wealth and Dynastic Power "Taint" Kennedy's Likely Senate Appointment? Taking Reid's Arguments Where He Wouldn't Want Them to Go

Do Nepotism, Wealth and Dynastic Power "Taint" Kennedy's Likely Senate Appointment? Taking Reid's Arguments Where He Wouldn't Want Them to Go

Just Call Me "Prophet"
Back on December 17, 2008, I made the following observation in response to Caroline Kennedy's freshly launched (and somewhat shameless) "campaign" to fill Hillary Clinton's Senate seat:

I think she will likely get it. Why would she go public unless she expected the job? Besides, Obama personally called Paterson and supported her candidacy -- pre-Blagojevich. If you are deeply cynical, you might even believe that she has made her desire public in order to appear "transparent" and avoid having her inevitable selection look like a backroom deal. But what do I know about deep cynicism?

Well, it appears that the likely already-done deal is now almost officially done. According to an Associated Press article republished on MSNBC.Com, Governor Paterson will likely choose Kennedy for the slot and will soon announce his decision.

Taint That A Shame?
Because the Democrats have now implemented a "zero-tolerance" policy that bans "taint" in the Senate, I wonder whether any of them will argue that Kennedy possibly (remember, a mere possibility of wrongdoing can "taint") got the position based on her family's wealth, political power and fame, which she leveraged to force Paterson's hand.

I am not arguing that this happened, but Senate Democrats have forcefully claimed the power to block any vacancy appointment that could appear "tainted" -- even in the absence of a finding of any specific wrongdoing by the appointed or the appointer. Reid's taint argument could therefore justify my "hypothetical" nepotism challenge to Kennedy's selection. But I guess this is why I am a law professor rather than a politician.

Food for Thought
How long will it take before some irreverent person makes this argument:

Senator Reid, you should not accept the appointment of a relatively inexperienced, but extremely powerful and wealthy white woman who hails from a political dynasty, while blocking the appointment of an experienced black male of modest economic beginnings who, absent your shenanigans, would become the nation's only black Senator.

Well, it seems that I just made the argument. Perhaps this angle could help kill this unnecessary diversion. And maybe Blagojevich knew this was coming and made a decision that would make this argument relevant.

PS: I know I said the Senate should drop this issue, but I am not a Senator, and (more importantly) I feel compelled to point out potential contradictions and hypocrisy among our leaders. Hard work - but someone must do it.


Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

So When Exactly Does "Change" Arrive? Senate Battle Over Burris and Blagojevich Offers "More of the Same"!

Some Media Outlets Begin "Palinizing" Roland Burris

Defiant Blagojevich Names Obama's Successor: Decision Raises Political and Constitutional Questions

Like It or Not, Democracy Prevails: Illinois Supreme Court Refuses to Declare Blagojevich Unfit to Serve

Blago Impeachment: What Would Lincoln Do?

Playing or Paying Politics: Blagojevich, Political DealMaking, and the Difficulty of Drawing Lines

Pick Me! Caroline Kennedy Officially on the Job Market

French Fried! New York Times Publishes "Fake" Letter by Paris Mayor Condeming Caroline Kennedy's Senate Bid

The mainstream media have really gone downhill lately. Now, they are so desperate for web traffic that they sometimes rush stories without confirming sources or waiting for factual development. Many outlets often regurgitate the same drivel that appears on other sites. Well, at least they occasionally give us comedic relief. Today's New York Times does just that.

This morning, the paper published an op-ed purportedly written by Bertrand Delanoe, the mayor of Paris. The letter expresses an unusually harsh opinion regarding Caroline Kennedy's public bid for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat:

With all the respect and admiration I have for Ms. Kennedy’s late father, I find her bid in very poor taste, and, after reading “Kennedy, Touring Upstate, Gets Less and Less Low-Key” . . . in my opinion she has no qualification whatsoever to bid for Senator Clinton’s seat.

We French have been consistently admiring of the American Constitution, but it seems that recently both Republicans and Democrats are drifting away from a truly democratic model. The Kennedy era is long gone, and I guess that New York has plenty of more qualified candidates to fill the shoes of Hillary Clinton. Can we speak of American decline?

Ouch. Unfortunately, the letter is a fake. The paper has now printed a mea culpa (in English) and says it will review its process for verifying the authenticity of op-ed submissions:

This letter, like most Letters to the Editor these days, arrived by email. It is Times procedure to verify the authenticity of every letter. In this case, our staff sent an edited version of the letter to the sender of the email and did not hear back [Editor: Major clue that it was a fake.]. At that point, we should have contacted Mr. Delanoë's office to verify that he had, in fact, written to us. . . . [Editor: Duh.]

We did not do that. Without that verification, the letter should never have been printed.

We are reviewing our procedures for verifying letters to avoid such an incident in the future.

Although I continue to read the New York Times daily, moments like these erode my confidence in the periodical. During the Democratic primaries, the published a story that condemned Hillary Clinton for allegedly lying about a pregnant woman whose baby died due to complications from an illness that remained untreated because she lacked health insurance. Clinton's story was actually true. Apparently, the woman visited more than one hospital, and one of them denied her treatment, which led to the tragic results. And in 2004, the paper admitted that it published many stories which took highly favorable positions on the "need" to invade Iraq without doing appropriate research concerning the factual claims made by the authors.

Source: New York Times

Playing or Paying Politics: Blagojevich, Political DealMaking, and the Difficulty of Drawing Lines

The latest post on Heidi Li's blog raises a provocative question about the role that bargaining plays in ordinary politics. The Blagojevich arrest has forced legal and political experts to distinguish acceptable from criminal political bargaining. Although Blagojevich's self-dealing has outraged the public, it is clear that politicians engage in dealmaking all the time.

For instance, happenstance probably does not explain why most of the top names in Obama's Cabinet either campaigned for or endorsed him at some point. While presidents often turn to political allies as Cabinet choices, Obama's selection of Clinton, whom he characterized as lacking judgment on a major foreign policy decision, likely resulted because she provided crucial support for his candidacy and helped keep enough PUMAs in the party for him to win.

Li's essay responds to an article in the L.A. Times, which states that if Governor Paterson selects Kennedy, he would benefit in the gubernatorial election because he would run on the same ticket with the famed daughter of the Kennedy dynasty. According to Li,

[I]t would be very tempting [for Paterson] to run on a ticket with somebody named Kennedy. Be that as it may, I think Governor Paterson would start to seem somewhat ethically similar to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. . . . The analogy is in the notion that a sitting governor would use her or his power to appoint a Senator with her or his own narrow self-interest in as the key driver in the decision. Of course, a governor who appoints a qualified person who seems likely to understand how to use a junior Senate seat to serve well her or his constituents and the rest of the country will look better than a governor who appoints somebody with little or no experience in elected politics or legislative bodies. That is, it makes a governor look good when she or he appoints somebody who one has reason to think will make a good and effective Senator, and so, broadly speaking, a governor's self-interest is in play when she or he appoints somebody to fill a vacancy.

The news media have only recently begun to explore the messy line-drawing in this area. On Monday, the New York Times published an article on the subject, which states that:

Ever since the country’s founding, prosecutors, defense lawyers and juries have been trying to define the difference between criminality and political deal-making. They have never established a clear-cut line between the offensive and the illegal, and the hours of wiretapped conversations involving Mr. Blagojevich, filled with crass, profane talk about benefiting from the Senate vacancy, may fall into a legal gray area.

The article offers the perspective of Robert Bennett, a leading Washington, DC criminal defense lawyer, who has represented defendants charged with political corruption. According to Bennett:

[Washington] is full of people who call themselves ambassadors, and all they did was pay $200,000 or $300,000 to the Republican or Democratic Party . . . .You have to wonder, How much of this guy’s problem was his language, rather than what he really did?

Time Magazine's Joe Klein is less diplomatic. Klein argues that Kennedy's public job hunting and Blagojevich's blatant deal making have made the search for new Senators a "skeevy travesty."

I think it is difficult, but not impossible, to draw lines in this area. Nevertheless, in some cases legality and criminality could both reside in a complicated grey area. Blagojevich's situation is troubling because, if the criminal complaint is true, he was effectively auctioning the Senate seat. His own financial and political gain seemed to dictate exclusively how he exercised executive authority. Furthermore, securing benefits for a family members (here, a spouse) places the behavior even farther on the side of criminality.

Pick Me! Caroline Kennedy Officially on the Job Market

After initial reports gave conflicting information, it is now official: Caroline Kennedy wants to fill Hillary Clinton's U.S. Senate seat. I have applied for a few jobs in my lifetime, but I cannot imagine "applying" for a Senate position: "Dear Governor Paterson, I am certain that you have received many applications for this important position, but my resume warrants careful consideration."

How does the Dissenting Justice crowd feel about this development? I think she will likely get it. Why would she go public unless she expected the job? Besides, Obama personally called Paterson and supported her candidacy -- pre-Blagojevich. If you are deeply cynical, you might even believe that she has made her desire public in order to appear "transparent" and avoid having her inevitable selection look like a backroom deal. But what do I know about deep cynicism?