Kerry's loyalty is a great quality, but there is something weird in

being the only person in an article defending Baucus in his problem with recommending her mistress. It was at best a stupid move and given Baucus real's interest conflicts with insurance companies, it sort of bothers me.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30277.html

The theme of the article is on the fact that people with personal connections get positions - which as Kerry points out happens all the time. Kerry is not quoted saying this is ok or that it is bad. Given this is Politico, could there have been some cherry picking of Kerry's comments?

The test in an ethics committee might be if there was a quid por quo and if the person were qualified. She seems perfectly qualified and it is unlikely and extremely insulting that their relationship if it were other than boss/employee was dependent on him giving her this "gift". There is nothing wrong with good staffers being recommended for positions that they have demonstrated competence to hold in their jobs. Getting recommendations from past or present employers was the norm in large companies, where people moved between positions. A bigger problem is that long time friends, donors and supporters are routinely recommended for positions. (ie David Thorne, who is a wonderful and capable person who has been there for decades for Kerry, had never been a diplomat and he is now Ambassador to Italy. Kerry's own dad, a career diplomat, didn't have the connections to become Ambassador.)

There also is a question of whether the couple were then involved - something that would likely be very difficult to prove as it would have been normal if they were seen together. To me, the problem is not the nomination, but that he started the affair when she worked for him. That too may be common in DC, but it is wrong on many levels.



Whether Baucus broke up her marriage or not, it is clear this charge originated with her husband. As Baucus does seem to recommend his staff for positions, it may well be he is telling the truth. If they were just starting an affair, it would seem that nominating her for a different position would be less likely because of the attention it would bring and the fact that it would make them being seen together more questionable when he was back in Montana.

Like you, I would have wished Kerry had not said this - because just the fact that it is common does not make it right and although he is not quoted saying that, it could very easily be taken to mean that. But, Baucus is working with Kerry on the Finance GW piece, is it possible that Kerry having his back to some degree could win some cooperation? As Kennedy said, politics is personal.



.

Though, to be fair, he's not the only one in the article defending Baucus' situation. The way Politico framed the story, they wrote it up to make Baucus look completely unethical and then spent the rest of the article quoting people and organizations who said that it wasn't really unusual or even technically unethical to do what he did. He appears so altogether slimy, that it's hard not to recoil, but when I think it through, I'm far more concerned about his insurance company conflicts of interest and this is colored by that, for me.

Ultimately, what the article makes clear is that Washington (kind of like Hollywood) really is (and from what I know of history) has always been an insider town, with lots of kids and spouses who go into the "family business." Don't forget that John Quincy Adams was Secretary of State under James Monroe. As the article also quotes someone as saying, the fact that Hanes was Baucus' mistress (apparently he and his wife are separated) makes it all the more "tawdry" but not precisely unethical. I don't like JK being the only Senate colleague quoted directly, but it's probable that he just answered a reporter's question and had no idea that he would be the only Senate name. After reading the whole article, I think even less of Baucus than I already did, now personally as well as professionally, but I think JK was just telling the truth, when asked, about a side of Washington we don't like to think about, and his remarks were inserted into the story in such a way as to drum up indignation.

For me, this is another case of Politico trying to milk as much scandal as possible out of a basic non-story.

Edited to add, after reading Karynnj's comment, that I, too, noticed that it was Hanes' ex who brought the "story" to the attention of the press.

here is the thing. I think nearly every member of that body is "clubby", yet they will attack another member for this sort of thing to score a couple of political points. Meanwhile, they too engage in the practice as well as their Senator friends, so they are hypocrites.

Say what you will, but Kerry is not a hypocrite on this issue.

Good to bring up though.

I understand that she withdrew her name so it is possible they saw ethics issues if it went on. As for what Senator Kerry says, he reinforces the old idea that it isn't what you know, but who you know that gets you the position. Frankly, I don't think that is fair, but I understand it happens all the time. I saw no need for Senator Kerry to reinforce this idea.