Pay-to-Play Scheme in NY Senate Seat Pick?

BLAGO AIN’T GOT NUTHIN’ ON THIS

Ever since Caroline Kennedy mysteriously withdrew her name from consideration for Hillary Clinton’s former U.S. Senate seat last Wednesday night, and Governor David Paterson’s surprise pick of Kirsten Gilibrand on Friday, many have wondered aloud: who the heck is Kirsten Gillibrand, and why did a Democratic governor choose a relatively unknown upstate Blue Dog whose voting record is more Republican than Democrat?

Well, that’s a very good question to ask. Why did Paterson pick Gillibrand, when it seemed Kennedy was the obvious choice? And why did the Governor turn so nasty towards Caroline after she withdrew from the race? Why would he authorize one of his PR flacks (who, it turns out, is a former Bush White House staffer!) to “anonymously” kneecap Kennedy, spreading damaging stories to the press about Caroline’s supposed tax issues, nanny issues, and marital issues (stories Paterson now admits were totally false)?

The answer may not be in anything that Caroline did to piss off the Governor. It was what she didn’t do.

Here’s the REAL crux of the Paterson/Kennedy/Gillibrand senate seat story that the mainstream media won’t touch with a 10-foot pole…apparently becaue they’re all too busy flapping their lips about Blago and his really great hair:

Senate appointee Kirsten Gillibrand’ s former law firm is Boies, Schiller & Flexner.

David Boies, the senior partner at the firm, contributed $25,000 to Gov. Paterson’s campaign committee on December 23, 2008, while the governor was considering Gillibrand’s candidacy.

Boies’ son Chris, also a partner in the firm, contributed another $25,000 on the same day.

Source: The Village Voice (Jan. 22, 2009)

OK, go back and read that again. That’s just the $50k we know of that went into the Governor’s re-election fund. There may be more we don’t know about yet from other sources close to Gillibrand.

The timing of these campaign contributions reeks. Dec. 23, in the heat of the Senate seat competition?

Not TOO obvious, eh?


BLEEPIN’ GOLDEN

That being the case, wouldn’t this make Paterson guilty of doing the exact same thing that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is currently being accused of? And more blatantly than Blago would have ever dared? (Which is really sayin’ something, as Blago is anything but subtle!)

I can hear that phone call now:

PATERSON: “I’ve got this thing and it’s bleepin’ GOLDEN! I’m not just gonna give that bleepin’ senate seat away for nuthin’!”

At a press conference last month, noting that Blagojevich has been under investigation for years for pay-to-play corruption charges, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald expressed his amazement that the activity would continue. “You might have thought in that environment, pay-to-play would have slowed down. The opposite happened. It sped up,” he said.

Apparently, no one warned Paterson to be careful since the heat was on. Or perhaps Paterson was warned and chose to arrogantly assume that he was ten feet tall and bulletproof. So far, Paterson seems to be. No one has even dared to raise a pay-to-play question regarding his senate pick…until now. So we’ll go ahead and rasie the question:

Is it conceivable that Gov. Paterson got miffed at Caroline Kennedy because she was not willing to give him “anything but appreciation” if chosen for that Senate seat?

Could it be that Kennedy was too smart (and principled) to grease the Governor’s eager palms and potentially get herself embroiled in an explosive political corruption case? And did the Governor get pissed off because Caroline wisely stood her ground, held on to her integrity, and turned the other cheek?



CAROLINE WOULDN’T PLAY BALL

From our initial investigation, we can find no evidence of any campaign contributions given to Paterson by Kennedy or anyone connected with her.

Caroline is well-known for her avoidance of making financial contributions to New York Dems in local races, and this New York Daily News article from December 25, 2008 (curiously published just two days after friends of Gillibrand gave the Guv $50,000) flat-out states that Kennedy’s unwillingness to “play the game” may cost her the senate seat:

Caroline Kennedy’s supporters say she could raise tons of money as a senator, but when it comes to writing checks to New York Democrats, she’s been largely AWOL.

This decade, other than a $1,000 donation to City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, the Camelot heiress has not financially supported any Democrat seeking city or state office in New York, records reveal.

Some say Kennedy, who is worth at least $100 million, missed an opportunity to curry favor among Democratic pols to establish herself as a serious political player as she lobbies Gov. Paterson for Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat.


NONE DARE CALL IT CORRUPTION

Starting to see what’s really going on here? Gillibrand was willing to pay-to-play, Kennedy was not.
Therefore, Gillibrand gets the gig. It ain’t rocket science. Just politics as usual.

Only difference this time is that the Governor of Illinois is being impeached for even suggesting (although not completing) such a transaction, while Paterson (who apparently did complete the transaction) is skating away like Tonya Harding. The local New York and national media plugs their ears and hums a tune, refusing to investigate any suggestion of Blago-type graft and corruption happening here. They hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

Thanks to the Kansas City Star for pointing out an issue that both the New York Post and New York Times heartily agree on — that NY governor David Paterson is now officially Worse than Blagojevich after the media circus that surrounded his naming a replacement for the Senate seat left vacant by Hillary Clinton. But still, that’s as far as the media is prepared to go. None dare call it corruption.

Hmmm…wonder if anyone has been tapping Paterson’s phone during this senate contest? They were certainly listening to Gov. Spitzer’s calls in an effort to catch him in a liason with a high-priced hooker. Seems to me the authorities might have wanted to keep an eye/ear on Gov. Paterson during this selection process, especially in light of the Blago scandal. Under those circumstances, a case could easily be made for probable cause.

So WHERE ARE THE PATERSON TAPES? And where’s the investigation? Where’s the outrage?



---(END EXCERPT)---

Full story, photos, reader comments at:
http://thekennedys.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/pay-to-play-scheme-in-ny-senate-seat-pick/

Righteous outrage is certainly encouraged.

Now PLEASE go spread the word!

Email CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC News, the NY Times...any and every editor you can think of. Ask them why they're not investigatin'.

Thank you!!!!!!

So we can find out if truth and transparency in government really matters to people anymore.

Whether or not you supported Caroline Kennedy is not the issue here, people. The issue is whether or not you approve of graft and corruption in NYS but frown upon it in Illinois.

All Things Considered, January 28, 2009 · Should governors be allowed to name people to fill open U.S. Senate seats? One view says it's not what the U.S. Constitution intends.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99974981

Keep up the good work RFKJrNews

:kick: 'n R

is anything remarkable about what Blago was contemplating. (I haven't seen evidence about whether he actually got any money or anything else of value from anyone. I seriously doubt it. The real pros are more subtle about these things. Note that the Paterson payments were made by a law firm --- I wonder where the money came from. That is, I wonder who paid the lawyers and for what.)

That's the point, and exactly why we should be asking tough questions of Paterson.

In Illinois, Blago *suggested* such a transaction, but did not complete it. (While even suggesting such a thing is reprehensible, it is not illegal. COMPLETING the transaction is illegal.)

In NYS, Paterson (or someone) obviously suggested a transaction, money was given to Paterson's campaign fund, and Paterson accepted the funds. He then turned around and appointed Gillibrand, thus COMPLETING the transaction.

This is ILLEGAL as HELL!

Again, I repeat....ILLEGAL as HELL!

So WTF, already?

You're right that this sort of thing (especially in Illinois) has always been politics as usual. Selling or favor-trading a senate seat is nothing new under the sun.

Think anybody would have given a damn if the senate seat in question wasn't President Obama's vacant seat?

Well, if we suddenly give a big damn about such things, how about the former first lady and current secretary of state's seat?

if they didn't pony up with a big enough campaign contribution. If you think Blago is normal you seriously need to read up on the case and stop listening to the BS he's shoveling on TV.

But I am attacking Paterson for doing the same thing and asking why the NY Governor is not being properly investigated.

Again:
Blago - transaction suggested; not completed
Paterson: transaction suggested, accepted, completed.

Something stinks to high heaven here.

Blago did far, far more than just ask for a campaign contributions in exchange for the Senate seat. And you don't even know if Patterson did that or not. You need to read up on what else Blago did because it goes further than what you're suggesting. Did Patterson ask for a lucrative board position for his wife? Did he ask to be made a high paid President of a union organization after his term as Governor? Did he explicitly ask for campaign cash in exchange for signing a bill that sent millions of dollars to the horse racing industry?

After all, it's pretty hard to miss since the media gives us all-Blago, all-the-time.

It doesn't matter whether or not Paterson ASKED for any money or favors. They could have just been "offered" - but it's still illegal if he accepts them and sells a senate seat. Based on the information we have so far, it looks like that is exactly what may have happened here.

If that's the case, he should be impeached or resign. Period. Corruption is corruption.

connected to someone else who you appointed to something is not the same as calling a person up and demanding the contribution, or a job or other personal gain. It's not even close to being the same. And keep in mind that there are additional tapes and charges not yet released to the public. You're obviously eager to slime Patterson but that doesn't justify minimizing what Blago did.

And why would you want to prop up inane MSM talking points. You have no idea what Paterson asked for or who laundered that cash through Bois's law firm.

It's pure speculation that some kind of deal was made based on no evidence other than the fact that a major contributor who gives to many Democrats also gave to the Governor of his own state. Wow. How Shocking. :eyes:
And what is it you're suggesting that I don't know?

Bash Paterson all you want but comparing it to the many crimes of Blago makes you look foolish.

professional or otherwise. Sorry.

What does that even mean? You're not even defending your bullshit statements. If you're going to make a statement then back it up with something.
I asked you what you meant when you wrote that I didn't know something and you couldn't even answer a simple question. In fact you sound about as crazy and random as the Blagojevich interviews. Is that you Rod?

And Patsy took the money. Would it help if I put it in all caps for you?

than who serves in the Senate millionaires club? You're being fanatical.

It's ridiculous.

an impeachable offense. See Illinois. Where that leaves his pay-to-play pal is also an interesting question.

That is just horse doody.

calling him a "fool" and "irrelevant" and the irrational arguments used to slime him with little evidence are clues. It's pretty obvious.

at diverting attention.

No, I made a valid point. The person I responded to obviously hates Paterson and minimizing what Blago did in some attempt to attack Paterson is ridiculous. Suggesting it's all the same is ignorant.

this is where the investigation started. with a ryan buddy who was on the board allocating health care resources. he was shaking down edwards hospital out in naperville. iirc, that guy copped a plea.

guy has been tried and convicted in the public media. And Fitzgerald is responsible for that fact. In our system of justice, guilty/innocent is not the only important value. The foremost consideration must be due process. Blagojevich will never get an untainted jury.

In my personal opinion, Blagojevich has a serious mental health problem. He is just not normal. Could he be dangerous to our society? I don't know.

I hope that if Blagojevich tried to shake down a hospital, the hospital reported their experience to the authorities and that justice will be served. But, I strongly object to the fact that so many people are just swallowing a prosecutor's accusations as being true without knowing the whole story. The story we have heard may prove to be "true," but at this point, there has been no fair trial.

Removing a Governor from office is a political act, not a criminal trial. It absolutely SHOULD be a public process where the people know what's being done and why. I don't see anything you're complaining about as being a problem. This guy needed to be removed from office so I thank Fitzgerald for what he did. Whether Rod is convicted criminally is secondary to the fact that he won't be able to screw up the state of Illinois as Governor for another two years.

Rod has every opportunity to defend himself to the state legislature and is choosing not to do so. They're taking a long time to remove him from office in order to give him due process and he's passing that up. Don't buy the bullshit he's shoveling on TV shows. He's getting due process.

it really isn't even the meat of fitzy's case.

The law firm Gilibrand worked for that you mention was founded by David Boies. He is the lawyer who represented Gore in 2000. I would not find it odd that he would donate to Paterson. The timing does seem odd though.

The law firm does tout Gilibrand on their website:

http://www.bsfllp.com/news/in_the_news/000089

Who knows...

Boies recently gave to Franken, Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and the Democratic Senatorial Committee.

...and nobody wants to touch him.

Still, I say corruption is corruption. And the timing of the $50,000 contributions from David and his son Chris ON THE SAME DAY is just a bit too convenient to be a coincidence.

It is also interesting to note that Caroline K. gave the Governor NOTHING. Not one red cent.

And who gets picked?

Go figure!

your slavish devotion to all things Kennedy is hard to miss. cognitive dissonance, much?

I also happen to love open and honest government.

And I really, really don't like graft or corruption.

Sorry if that's a problem for you.

get picked, either.

She can't, ummm, like, ya know, SPEAK for shit, but she can fundraise like a champ. She's good for MILLIONS, which is why everyone in the party hierarchy was enthused about her--they saw her as a cash cow.

Now, the only issue here, really, is "Who gets the money?" With Caroline, it would have gone to the DNC. And there would have been MORE of it.

I'll have to see more proof before I buy off on a quid pro quo. Boies has been around for awhile. He's been a player for some time. And KG has been GONE from his firm for a couple of years.

I'm guessing you can play Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon with pretty much any appointee, if you want to.

I'm not saying it's not curious, I'm just not ready for torches and pitchforks.

And I don't think Caroline was kneecapped, I think she was a shitty, like, um, you know, choice.

I'm sure you can find people with close ties to nearly every Democrat in the New York Congressional delegation who also gives major contributions to the Governor. Most major political donors give to many candidates. More evidence is needed before the accusations in the post can be taken seriously. I'd also like to know whether Patterson was having a fundraiser that day or if the donations just happened to float in.

But first, that requires a real investigation of his actions. And that's what I'm calling for. You should be too.

Where's a U.S. attorney and a wiretap when ya need one?

Yeah, $50,000 in campaign contributions that "just happen" to float into Paterson's campaign coffers from Gillibrand's VERY close friends/business associates during an extremely heated senate seat battle is just a coincidence, I'm sure...

so don't expect the whore media to lift a finger. And I doubt if Cuomo will get himself involved although he might. But I doubt it. So who's left?

The people of NYS, of course!

The people can't expect the media to fight all of their battles for them. If New Yorkers are concerned that some dirty dealings went on, they need to contact their elected representatives and demand a full investigation and/or impeachment.

A lot of New Yorkers already want Paterson gone for reasons unrelated to the senate seat debacle. This is just the straw that broke the camel's back for many, and if they can catch him red-handed pulling a Blago, provides a prime opportunity to finally be rid of him at last.

have to do is host a fundraiser for him and he'd have millions.

The Quid Pro Quo doesn't make sense.

Why sell for a dime, when you can sell for a thousand bucks?

There's lots more digging to do -- who knows what else will be found?

The $50k on Dec. 23 is all that we know of at this time, and I agree, it ain't much. There may be more we don't know of...yet!

A commenter on one of our blogs posted this interesting tidbit today, however, and it merits further investigation:

"Check out Wayne Barret piece in the Village Voice — Gillibrand sure is “Well connected” — she is boufht and paid for by the D’Amato group - $500K — to Paterson at one Christms party. I guess Caroline didnt know she had to also do fundraisers! Thier ALL Crooks!

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/01/the_pudgy_papa.php

$500k? That's a little more like it!

That's why the accusation doesn't really make any sense. And as for Alphonse, D'Amato is a lobbyist now. Of course he's a suckup--that's what lobbyists are.

If anything, perhaps Boies and his son saw Paterson's pick, and said, "Say, I never cared about this substitute governor guy too much one way or another, but by his choice of someone we think is swell, he's just shown himself to be a man of good judgment and sound temperment! He deserves a second look and little MORE friendly support, just because he picked our pal! Let's show him some love!"

It's a chicken-egg thing--which came first?

In any event, if Paterson wanted MONEY, BIG MONEY, and lots of it, he would have picked CKS. She can pull it in, hand over fist, and she can pull it in from NY sources, too. And not "half million" amounts--millions. With phone calls. With a nice mail-out on expensive letterhead. With a few luncheons or dinner parties, or an "entertainment salon" for the hoity toity.

Of COURSE Caroline knew she had to do fundraisers if she got that Senate seat--it's why her name came up, it is why that publisher at the NYT and others within the party started filling her head with the idea that someone with no charisma or public speaking skills would make a good Senator. The DNC wanted her BECAUSE she has lists, names, contacts--rich people, all of them, with deep, deep pockets. They wanted her connections, and her drawing power.

One thing Caroline does well is FUND RAISE. She's brought in MILLIONS. She not only has her own little lists, she also has the ones she inherited from her Mom--she probably has her dead brother's rolodex, too. She's a "commodity." Rich people like to say they had dinner with her. She can get them to write checks, when she's one-on-one or in a small group (or at least, she could, back when she was a "rare treat" who limited her exposure--now, she's starting to become "common," and that does depress interest). It's really her main claim to fame, if you put the "who's yer daddy" aspect on the back burner, the amount of money she raked in for education in NYC (she never sent her own kids to those schools, though--guess they have a ways to go). http://schools.nyc.gov/FundForPublicSchools/News/AARP+-+Caroline+Kennedy.htm

I still don't think there's any there there, in fact, D'Amato (Candace Bushnell's old "water sports" boyfriend, some say?) is doing a good job as a lobbyist crossing aisles and sucking up across the board. He's a Northeastern Republican, closer to Snow and Collins, and former Sen. Ed Brooke, not one of those Bible thumping assholes--though he is an asshole in other ways (but that is a topic for another day).

And per that Village Voice cite, some of these supposedly 'quid pro quo' donations were made to Paterson both before AND after this selection was even on the table, which kind of ruins the whole "conspiracy theory" aspect of it all...


I mean, hey--anyone can weigh in and tell Paterson what to do. Pelosi did, even though she denies lobbying AGAINST Gillibrand:
http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/10981/pelosi-denies-lobbying-against-gillibrand

I think, if people have a candidate that they wanted, and the Governor did not choose the candidate they wanted, then it's real easy to find a string or ten to pull and claim nefarious goings-on that put the disliked candidate in the seat. However, the same accusations that are being made about Gillibrand can be made to the Tenth Power about Kennedy. And that's just fact. Finally, state politics is always an incestuous process. You're going to find the same people intermingling and sucking up, trying to gain access to power. It's just the nature of the beast.

I don't think so. But apparently Al could:

D'Amato hosted a $1,000-a-plate dinner for Paterson at the Coyote Grill in Island Park on November 2, and Paterson went to the Christmas party sponsored by D'Amato's firm on December 10, and most of the $581,400 in contributions connected to D'Amato that the Voice has identified were given to Paterson's committees near those two dates.

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/01/the_pudgy_papa.php

All she'd have to do is get some in-demand "artiste" to "volunteer" his or her time, like Elton John did during the primaries and put together a hoity toity 'salon' where a few hundred couples dine on pheasant and contribute the max. She could do it in an evening.

D'Amato's J-O-B is to suck up to politicians, and you're acting like it is some big secretive and nefarious deal that he would do what lobbyists do. PSSST...the majority party in the Senate AND the House is the DEMOCRATIC Party. They're the ones the lobbyists will be currying favor with, see? Old Alphonse wouldn't be doing much good sucking up to the GOP, now, would he? That's not where the votes OR the agenda-setters are.

He's a frigging lobbyist, not a priest or a social worker. These intrepid Jimmy Olsens aren't digging up anything that isn't PUBLIC RECORD, either.

Sheesh. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes, a lousy Senate candidate who says "You know" 168 times in thirty minutes is just NOT the best person for the job.

Give it up. The Whingers For Caroline at the Village Voice just aren't going anywhere with these accusations. Lobbyists lobby. People gave Paterson recommendations. He made his decision. He picked a qualified replacement with a political background and experience on the Hill, even if you don't like her.

There's just no "there" there.

now it's called pay-to-play, and Blagojovich just got impeached for the APPEARANCE of selling Obama's senate seat. Paterson on the other hand harfed down more than a half a million of Al's greenbacks in the weeks just before he appointed the daughter of Douglas Rutnkik, a Republican lobbyist and close D'Amato associate, to the senate. That my friend is simony.

There's a massive amount of difference between the way Paterson made his choice and the way Blago did.

Caroline was a poor candidate, a rich housewife who's never held a regular, paying job in her life. She's a socialite who talks a mile a minute in a monotone, does good works, but has no clue about how real people live their lives.

Paterson's choice was an experienced politician who has withstood the rigors of the elective process and prevailed in a red district. You don't have to like her, she's only the temporary replacement and will have to stand for election if she wants to keep the job. But you can't say she doesn't know how to present herself--and you can say that about Caroline.

Your sour grapes are showing.

So your -ahem- not impartial views of Caroline and Gilly have nothing to do with this, except that Gilly will likely lose her seat if and when Paterson hops on the Blago express to Palookaville. And that will be a shame, won't it?

There, I knew we could agree on something! :)

D'Amato did nothing illegal. They aren't "his" checks. He bundled them. That's a perfectly legitimate thing to do, even if you don't happen to like him.

He's a LOBBYIST. His job is to make politicians LISTEN to him. Not just GOP politicians, and not just Democratic politicians--he's got to curry favor on both sides of the fence.

Barack Obama got a ton of money from the Crown Family of Chicago--they're the people who own GENERAL DYNAMICS. Nothing illegal there, either. They got their friends to donate as well--millions, not a crappy little half a million.

Bundling, bundlers and influence are facts of life in politics--it's important to understand that before you get all hot and bothered about what D'Amato is doing. D'Amato is just like one of George Bush's "Pioneers" -- a big money raiser. He's a lobbyist. He wants to be helpful to politicians, so they'll take his calls and listen to his pitch. And he knows them, all of them, even the NY Senior Senator who beat him out of his seat.

He makes himself useful, as lobbyists do. They can't buy pizzas for the staff, but they can be helpful when it comes to fundraising.

Bundling isn't illegal. There are bundlers on both sides of the aisle, and there are people who encourage their friends to contribute to a candidate. No laws against it. Politicians hate to fundraise, and they love it if someone else does it for them. One of the biggest fundraisers for politicians on both sides of the aisle is Rupert Murdoch--he wants NY politicians to be nice to him and his media enterprises, so he helps them out by throwing soirees, luncheons, breakfasts, etc.

The decision was Paterson's to make. I don't know if Gillibrand was the BEST candidate for the position (I would have asked Mario Cuomo to take it as an Elder Statesman Placeholder for just the remainder of the term, and let a replacement rise to the fore over the next two years, but that's just me) but what I do know is that she is a damn sight better communicator than Caroline was. Frankly, Caroline was a trainwreck. Horrible. She came off like a Valley Girl IDIOT. She seemed to have the idea that she didn't have to engage the press or answer the tough questions. We don't 'do' royalty in this country, and there are fewer and fewer people like me who actually remember her father (but even that didn't help her with me--she sucked that badly). And if we're going to make an issue about Gillibrand's father, you can't escape the fact that the only reason anyone gives two shits about Caroline "Never Had to Work For a Living" Kennedy is because of who her daddy was.

No laws were broken, except perhaps the Law of Common Sense, when Caroline actually started believing her own publicity and made a play for a job for which she was ill-suited in terms of her temperment, elocution skills and personality.

or at least, whether or not D'Amato acted illegally is a separate question. The problem is that Paterson's appointment of Gillibrand -- who is closely associated with D'Amato by way of her father and the fact that she worked for D'Amato while she was in college -- immediately after receiving a spectacularly huge "contribution" pretty clearly taints the cash as a quid pro quo. Paterson can deny it, but Blago denies it too, and look where he is. And Blago didn't collect $581,400 from Alfonse D'Amato.

And again, you can't bring up fathers without bringing up the fact that if Caroline's father was Joe the electrician, she wouldn't even have been considered for this appointment, because her only real qualification is her FUNDRAISING ABILITY that only exists as a consequence of, yes, her NAME. Her candidacy was all about HER connections--but that's somehow "OK" when KG's connections are not? Please.

You bring us the tapes of Paterson saying "I'm gonna get me some fucking money for this seat. I'm gonna shake these bastards down." You bring us the tapes of Paterson saying "Caroline, if you don't pony up -x- amount of donor dollars, you don't get the seat."

You cannot do that, because that never happened. You also have to show that D'Amato's relationship with Paterson began AFTER it became apparent that Paterson was going to be able to fill a Senate seat. You can't do that, either. Alphonse has been a lobbyist and a man about town for some time. He is a flamboyant bigmouth who knows EVERYONE, from those who used to hold sway, to those who currently do--it's his JOB to do that.

State politics IS incestuous. So are federal politics.

Did you know that Al D'Amato and Teddy Kennedy cosponsored a bill called, oh yeah, the D'Amato-Kennedy Act (AKA the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996)? It provided additional sanctions against Libya and Iran. Really: http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/1096/9610023.htm

Look hard enough, and you can find "relationships" anywhere and everywhere. You need to come up with a tape that shows Paterson decided that Caroline wasn't paying enough, and he was getting a better deal from KG. Until you do, you're just blowing angry, "my team didn't win," smoke.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes those sour grapes are hard to swallow.

to the senate seat immediately afterward. That's the problem. You can insult the Kennedys all you want, and I really wonder why you would, but Caroline's father has been dead for 45 years and to pretend that she somehow benefited from a financially corrupt and nepotistic relationship to Paterson, as Gillibrand clearly did, is totally irrational.

what constitutes a "decent interval" no matter how much you gripe about it. And apparently, Paterson took D'Amato's money BEFORE it was even known that he would have an opportunity to appoint anyone. So how do you explain that? Oh, he was just being a lobbyist BEFORE....but after, why, that's NEFARIOUS!

Please.

What if he had appointed Caroline, and then she proceeded to hold a fundraiser for his PAC? Would you be making the same noise? I rather doubt it.

That dog ain't huntin'....this is POLITICS, not the priesthood. Money is part and parcel of it, like it or not. You are accusing these people of paying for something, when for all you know, they were, of their own initiative and after the fact, rewarding what they viewed as a good decision without any preconditions or expectations. When politicians do something I like, it motivates me to contribute to them. That doesn't mean it's Pay for Play.

Caroline's father isn't some minor politico that no one outside of regional politics within NY state never heard of, he was an assassinated President that the entire world still recognizes. Her name, for the reason of her dead father ALONE, is known around the world as well. That was her "draw." Without that name, she never would have been in a position to even ASK for the job. So to play this game about how one person can't benefit from familial relationships, yet it's OK for Caroline to, is, as you say, irrational. In the extreme.

And why was Blagojevich just impeached? Like it or not, pay-to-play is rarely as blatant as Paterson's, and he's a sitting duck waiting to get Blago treatment. Whether Gilly is allowed to complete her term or not, I doubt she'll bother running for senate or anything else once the noise subsides. Maybe D'Amato can give her back her old job?

Kennedy had great qualifications but I suppose more qualified and more progressive = shitty if you are a DLC friendly.

This isn't a "Ewww, the big bad triangulators are beating up on the poor beleaguered progressive" routine. She can fundraise. That made her popular across the board. National money gets spread around, and she's got access to a shitload of rich people with deep pockets, to say nothing of the oddballs who will pay to see her just because of who her daddy was.

She just can't speak very well, and she has the charisma of a doorknob. If she has original ideas, I sure didn't hear them in that NYONE interview--and that interviewer treated her with kid gloves, too. He gave her the opportunity to shine, and she showed up with her blouse unbuttoned, crappy studio makeup (looked like none) and hair, saying Ummmmmm, Ya Know. She just....SUCKED.

When she was rarely seen, and rarely heard, she got the "Emperor's New Clothes" attitude when she deigned to make an appearance. Now that she's been out there knocking around for the past year, it's become apparent that there's just not enough "there" there to be one of a hundred.

IMO.

You have yet to state policy differences that make Kennedy worse. Merely vauge nonsense before laying into her fashion choices. In terms of 'never been seen' her public profile wasn't the highest but she has actualy worked on behalf of the people in education and civil liberties. I know that those aren't popular topics of conversations at I-am-a-DLC-suck-up-Headquarters but I would expect anyone looking into her background and doing actual comparisons to do a little research.

If you want to put the money on style why not go full boar and find a prom queen because that worked so well for the Republicans last election cycle.

She'd be eaten alive.

What makes her worse isn't "policy differences."
If "policy differences" were the ONLY thing that mattered, Al Gore would have just finished his second successful term.

People vote not just for "policy differences," they vote for "personas." Caroline Kennedy comes off as a "persona" who cannot speak clearly or convincingly, when she isn't mumbling in a dull, stultifying "talk too fast" monotone, she's umm-ing and you know-ing a hundred and sixty eight times in a half hour, and she comes off as dishevelled--a woman who can't remember to button her blouse, and who is UNIMPRESSIVE.

She has only herself to blame--she did it to herself. I didn't do it to her.

And stop shooting the messenger. All I'm doing is stating the obvious.

I realize you're trying to pull Palin out to make your case, but all she was to the GOP ticket was "value subtracted" as opposed to value added. She had an annoying, grating voice and she said stupid things like "You betcha!" and SNL had a field day making fun of her. She was more pulled together than CKS, and she riled her base, but she also had a polarizing persona. She wasn't the headliner either. Ergo, your argument not only is a poor comparison, it isn't valid.

Last presidential cycle, they picked the "prom queen" they'd rather have a beer with, not the chubby, balding, dorky, genius, BETTER policy wonk who was right about global warming--so much for your example, that.

It doesn't matter how "good" your policy perspective is. If you can't communicate it, and appeal to a wide audience, you LOSE.

So please, just don't pretend that appearance is unimportant in the big scheme of things. A candidate does NOT have to be beautiful, either, to further disabuse you of any "prom queen" arguments you might want to cough up--they just have to be someone that appeals to people, makes them want to listen to their views, and communicates effectively (Barney Frank, the late, great Bella Abzug, e.g.--you can't NOT listen to that type of passionate engagement).

"Persona" may not be important TO YOU, but it is to the electorate. You don't have to LIKE it, but if you dismiss it as a key aspect of running for public office, you're just wrong.

FWIW, for your edification, it's full BORE (as in the bore of a rifle, not the wild pig--boar--that roams in the forest).

How often does that senate seat tilt republican? Frequently? I know that New York is a bastion of conservative thinking and that it usually plays fairly vulnerable by the odds-makers of such things. Add to this the natural advantage of the incumbant and I think we can dismiss your electoral argumentation.

Lets consider that for a moment. This isn't an election. We have a choice of who to put into a seat. This si a choice of vision and of policy. Possibly the best opportunity we could possibly have to actually affect policy in the most direct of possible fashions.

If you do not share her policy positions just be honest and say so. This electability wrangling is absurd and no amount of poetry or flowery language is going to dress up an illogical argument.



I would suggest that etymology lessons do not add any level of credence to your argument regardless of how correct they (or you) may be.

For your edification I would recommend looking up the term/phrase "full-tilt bore"

And then there was that James Buckley guy, who had it for one term--he was a "Conservative Party" member.

Once a person, like, say, Chuck Schumer, gets entrenched, if they take care of the GOP upstate and the Dems downstate, yes, they can sit pretty--particularly if they can both talk a good game AND deliver the goods. But when there's an opening, like there is in this situation, things CAN, and do change. D'Amato LOST to Schumer, after all, partly because D'Amato was too friendly with the Dems for the GOP's liking, and too GOP for the Dems' liking--and that wasn't all that long ago. Schumer was the senior senator to Clinton, but barely.

If you look at NY state (and other states, as well) history, you'll find that when an unprepared/vanity candidate (like CKS) gets shoved into an appointment, they LOSE reelection. Just in NY, John Foster Dulles, a Republican statesman (and LOUSY public speaker) with a massive amount of name recognition dating back to the FIRST World War, comes to mind. So does Charles Goodell, the Republican who was shoved into the seat when RFK died. They were appointed, but they couldn't cut it when it came time to actually compete for the job.

My "electablity wrangling" is NOT absurd. It's the basis of my argument, and it's valid. Electablity IS an issue. Senators have to DEBATE when they stand for reelection. Mel Carnahan's wife learned this in MO.

If Caroline is an eighth as good as her uncle, her policy positions are fine and they are NOT the issue. But that and a couple of dollars will buy you a large coffee at Dunkin donuts. She comes across like a MORON. THAT's her problem--not her "policy positions."

I don't think my plain speaking is either poetry or flowery language. I thought I was pretty straightforward. But if I wasn't, let me put it as clearly as I can manage: Caroline Kennedy was a SHITTY candidate, because she spoke rapid-fire in a disturbingly off-putting monotone and used ummmm, like, and you know as if she were auditioning for Aging Valley Girl of The Year. She appeared on a news interview program (looking a bit dishevelled) that pitched her friendly, softball questions in a gentle, kindly environment and she managed to fuck up a GOLDEN opportunity where the interviewer was struggling to give her a launching platform, and she "You Know'd" her way into oblivion.

My argument is not illogical--it was validated by one simple fact--she wasn't picked. It was also validated in the opinion polls, which went down like the Titanic the longer she stayed in the public eye as a potential candidate.

Sorry if you don't care for my analysis. I can't help that. I'm right about her, and you're in denial.

If I were wrong, she'd be the presumptive Junior Senator from NY, and she isn't.

So you arent going to talk about policy then eh?

Funny how one of your examples is an opposition push where a fairly liberal democrat was replaced with a total repug. I don't think this is a good example but it is indicative of the logic used by the 'we-can't-impeach-bush-look-what-happened-to-Clinton' crowd. An example is pulled randomly out of history and out of context and out of relation to what is going on at present.


You can't get past your non-objective 'she sucked' nonsense. Everything else is an elaboration of an opinion piece and your inability to articulate a single point about why she is an inferior legislator only amplifies the sickening stench of conservative DLC garbage wafting off the politically driven character assassination of Caroline Kennedy.


If 'electability' is going to be the aegis of the DLC then what do you want democrats to do when, once more, we get nothing done and fail to articulate and accomplish a vision of how we want for America. Triangulators and pragmatists that compromise on absolutely everything and sell the whole store do not inspire anything. We are like those guys over there only not as much *while jerking your thumb in the direction of the other side of the aisle* does Nothing to inspire a long term movement.

The fact is we have seen two election cycles of a great blue wave where the progressive caucus became and remains the largest caucus on the hill. The New Democrats/DLC/Blue dogs would love to pretend otherwise but its the simple truth of numbers. People turn out for populist democratic values and populist democratic ideas.

Abandon that for republican lite and you can take the slow boat back to 1994 where idiotic 'New Democrats' started spouting out nonsense like 'I'm economically conservative.' You may as well just have taken your 30 pieces of corporate finance silver and sold out the entire party for saying what is tantamount to "liberal Democrats are dumb with money and taxes are always bad."

If this sounds like a rant, well I suppose it is but at least it isn't this faux-pro nonsense I hear spouted from Rahm, Ford and company that spit out idiocy that sounds tactical and wise but ends up screwing over long term Democratic voters.

They weren't THE ISSUE, though.

The only thing "funny" here is your inability to read what I am saying. Instead, you've got to pull in impeaching Bush, "republican lite," the ever-present DEE EL CEE (they're always a handy nemesis) and accuse me of all sorts of peripheral bullshit.

The issue here is Paterson's pick. Caroline did suck. She had an opportunity to present herself as a viable candidate, and she SUCKED. Gillibrand did not, because she knows how to campaign and she knows how to present herself to the public and the press--something Caroline doesn't know how to do (and all your cheerleading won't change that fact).

My "she sucked" assertions are not nonsense. They're the majority view. And you're the rare bird who disagrees with most people, who agree with me that yes, in terms of her ability to present herself to the voting public, SHE SUCKED.

You're just misusing too many words and getting excessively florid and far afield to even make this discussion worth continuing. Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg is a rich and well-meaning housewife who has no business in the US Senate, except in the Visitor's Gallery, cheering on her uncle.

Sorry if you don't like that, but that's how it is. If it were otherwise, she would have gotten the nod. But she didn't. Because she SUCKS as a candidate.

If you love her so much, why don't you get off your ass and volunteer for her 2010 Senate run? That's a better use of your time, rather than getting angry at people like me, who can identify a self-evident truth--that CKS was NOT ready for prime time, and Paterson did the right thing in giving her the stiff arm.

:hi:

all $581,400 of it. Why Paterson played such a reckless and obvious pay-to-play game is a question, but he did, and as Richardson and Blagojevich demonstrate, it's no small failing. That's a fact that's unfortunately not going to go away.

Blago was seeking personal financial gain, not just campaign contributions. He asked for appointments and jobs for himself and his wife. There's an important legal difference. There's also a difference between asking for a contribution as a condition of the appointment and accepting donations from someone without any quid pro quo. All you really have is speculation.

And why was Caroline the obvious choice? She was obviously unvetted and inexperienced for political life. Nostalgia isn't a good enough reason to appoint someone to a Senate seat. And I would bet that people outside of NYC don't think Gilibrand is so unknown.

Blago just talked about it. I don't imagine the neocons and PNACers whose errands Patsy and friends are so happy to run will make a fuss so he's probably off the hook, but you never know. There's a new kid in town and he's not from Arkasas.

the NY Observer revealed her true colors. She’s no rube from upstate. She’s a cold, calculating political princess who will stop at nothing to get what she wants.

Check out some of the dirty tricks she’s pulled in previous election contests. Anyone surprised she’d pull a Tonya Harding and kneecap Caroline Kennedy? Or try to buy herself a Senate Seat?

http://www.observer.com/2009/kirsten-gillibrand-chuck-schumer-connections

Caroline Kennedy "kneecapped" herself, with her poor rollout, and Patterson didn't help the situation.

AFTER she had already dropped out of consideration for the seat. That makes sooooo much sense!

We already know who the leaker is, it's Judy Smith (a former BUSH White House deputy press secretary, btw), a PR flack on Paterson's payroll. The reporters she leaked this slanderous garbage to know exactly who she is and also know the Governor is lying his ass off.

Sounds like you don't like Caroline very much, and that's totally your perogative. Makes no difference to me. But the point here is not about Caroline's rollout, her private life, or whether or not she was chosen to fill Hillary Clinton's senate seat. It's not even the fact that Paterson was clearly involved in the kneecapping of Kennedy. Actually, it's not about Kennedy at all.

The point is: we've got a corrupt governor in NY who may have committed a crime even worse than what Blago did, and no one is investigating. If he sold a senate seat, it's an impeachable offense. Period.

I had no idea of her background, and her pushy tenacity. Interesting how she wrangled her way to choice committees so early. Seems like she knows where bodies are buried and not afraid to tell tales if she must to get her way. I could be wrong but that's the gist of the article.

I had wondered if she would be electable if / when she ran for the Senate, and also wondered if she made a mistake leaving the House, because I had heard her last race was a difficult one to win. I'd hate to see the Senate seat go to a Repug or a Repug-lite-DINO.

Her voting record troubles me. I'm no longer a NY resident, but what she does do in DC affects me, as it does the rest of us, so I guess I'm going to put her in my radar and watch her very closely.

Does anyone know if Andrew Cuomo plans to run for the Senate next election? I read that Peter King is considering it. He was my Rep when I lived on Long Island. That is one partisan and belligerent man I'd like to see out of any office.

Anyway, thanks for the link.

She's a well-connected elite with ambitions that know no bounds.

She can expect tough competition in 2010; possibly Maloney, Cuomo, or even one of the Kennedys. The entire family is furious over this thing, and rightly so.

From the Republican side, Peter King is considering running against her. I'm no fan of his at all, but it's worth nothing that he is also questioning the legitimacy of this appointment.

Source:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0109/King_Cloud_over_Gillibrand_pick.html

Rep. Pete King, the quote-machine Long Island Republican who is mulling a ‘10 Senate run, tells us he wants Gov. David Paterson to “come clean” about the Gillibrand selection process to dispel questions about pay-to-play and the stunning withdrawal of Caroline Kennedy.

“There is a crisis of confidence, there is a cloud over this appointment,” said King, whose opposition to stringent gun control, illegal immigration and round two of the bank bailout track closely to the new New York senator’s right-of-center views.

“I’m calling on the governor to produce a timeline on the decision—who he met—what was the basis for his decision to suddenly pull her out of nowhere…It puts a cloud over her appointment. He’s got to fully disclose everything that went into this, any influences, who spoke on her behalf.”

Asked if he was claiming the possibility of Rod Blagojevich pay-to-play scandal lurking, he replied, “I’m not saying anything illegal was done.”

A more likely scenario, he added, was that Paterson was attracted to Gillibrand’s funding network and the business connections of her father, Democratic lobbyist Douglas Rutnik.

“If don’t know if there’s any pay-to-play connotation, but if she has contacts who can raise money for that should be out there… If her access to money trumps experience, he should tell us.”

"She's a well-connected elite with ambitions that know no bounds."

Not like Caroline who's just your average New Yorker. lol

I think I've started hearing the squeaking sounds as they lube up preparing to bend over for their construction of a centrist demographic, you know, the one that lost us the 2000 and 2004 elections ? And that they're thinking that they're going to bring the little girl into line with the Party elders, you know, "flip her" on "our" issues the way some gaspassers here have flatulated. Hope she stores their rubbery prongs in an uncomfortable place ("Mallrats" reference).

Party handlers ended Kerry's candidacy the morning after he got the primary wins that gave him the nomination. They make cardboard just like the Retardlicans do. That's a winning strategy for the Retardlicans. It's a losing strategy for us. Among other things because it makes us look like bad copies of Retardlicans. "Reporting for duty". Gawd. They channeled a bunch of non-blacklisted scriptwriters from 1953 to come up with that one probably, all they needed was John Wayne and Patricia Neal smiling down from a cloud and they would have had an orgasm over what a perfect political schtick they had created. Shysters.

Thanks for posting this.

This isn't the first time Gov. Paterson's engaged in a bit of pay for play and been caught. Less than two months after taking office, he had another little "issue" with a new hire in his press office:

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2008/05/paterson-press-hire-raises-eye.html

Also, more info here on an "interesting" fundraiser Paterson held in December, while the senate seat contest was still hot:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/paterson-adds-3-million-to-war-chest/

Check the guest list carefully...

Then see the Village Voice article from Jan. 27, 2009 about the Paterson-Gillibrand-D'Amato connection, which reports that D'Amato gave Paterson a stunning $500k at a holiday party last year during the heat of the senate seat competition. That's certainly enough money to buy D'Amato prime placement in the front row of Paterson's press conference announcing Gillibrand as his senate pick...and perhaps it bought um....other things as well. (Cough)

Here's a fascinating excerpt from the Voice article which unravels some of the deep connections between Gillibrand and D'Amato:

"D'Amato wound up in the camera frame throughout the hour and a half press conference by design. Governor David Paterson's staff kept the dignitaries in a holding room and walked them onto the stage in a prearranged order, positioning D'Amato at center stage, where his presence was a not-so-subtle advertisement of his influence with both the governor and the state's new senator, a potential boon to Park Strategies, his multi-million dollar Washington and Albany lobbying business.

Gillibrand's first job was as an intern for two summers in D'Amato's senate office, and her father, Doug Rutnik, was so close to D'Amato that, while still married to Gillibrand's mother, he covertly double-dated with the then single senator, squiring a D'Amato press aide on a two-week Caribbean tryst to celebrate the senator's re-election in 1992...

...Because Rutnik's ties to D'Amato, George Pataki, and the former GOP senate majority leader Joe Bruno are Albany legend, it was hardly a surprise that Gillibrand wanted D'Amato there. What no one could quite figure out is why Paterson did.

A Voice review, however, of two campaign finance committees--Paterson's and the New York State Democratic Committee, which Paterson controls--reveals that D'Amato may be Paterson's largest single fundraiser.

D'Amato hosted a $1,000-a-plate dinner for Paterson at the Coyote Grill in Island Park on November 2, and Paterson went to the Christmas party sponsored by D'Amato's firm on December 10, and most of the $581,400 in contributions connected to D'Amato that the Voice has identified were given to Paterson's committees near those two dates."

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/01/the_pudgy_papa.php

While our original article only pointed out the two $25,000 contributions to Paterson from Gillibrand's friends David and Chris Boies on Dec. 23rd (not a huge amount in NY politics), half a million dollars from D'Amato should be enough to get *anybody's* attention focused on his BFF Kirsten Gilibrand.

It certainly got Gov. Paterson's attention, you can rest assured of that!

that Gillibrand was on local short lists long before Kennedy thought about the seat. And that Kennedy has pretty much zilch support in this state, which is not to be confused with that other state up there somewhere that the Kennedys are rumored to own.

Latest poll says only 25% of actual New Yorkers think Gillibrand was the wrong choice, with the rest evenly split between loving her and not knowing enough about her. Pollsters can't seem to find enough Kennedy supporters to make statistical impact, but that's just here in New York-- not Texas, New Jersey, Wyoming, or anywhere else where people claim to know more about New York than New Yorkers do.

So, keep digging for dirt on our Governor until you find an unpaid parking ticket or two while we re-elect Gillibrand and Paterson next year.

(Don't you have some sleazeball hacks of your own to worry about? Most people do.)

Polls taken over the weekend show Paterson's numbers already slipping further down and Cuomo's coming up as a potential replacement.

Gillibrand is still unknown to most New Yorkers outside of her district, so it's going to take some time for the people to get to know her -- although her "rollout" hasn't gone over too well with a lot of Democrats, who tend to be against everything she is for.

Many NY Dems are mystified and even angry that Paterson would choose a Blue Dog endorsed by the NRA with a voting record that is practically Republican. Now some of `em are wishing they had Caroline Kennedy back! Even if they weren't too crazy about the way she talked, at least they knew she would always vote solid Democratic on the issues they care about. (And it certainly didn't hurt that she could easily get the President to take her calls, or chat about important legislation over lunch. Can Kirsten do that?)

Don't put too much stock in early poll numbers on Gillibrand. People don't know the backstory on her yet, the truth about her background and elite family ties. I predict opinions of her will downslide rapidly once people figure things out.

And we still await an investigation of a possible pay-for-play arrangement in her choice for the senate seat. If that winds up being proven, both she and Paterson are in fact TOAST.

keeping up with the local news around here. Didja hear that Peter King, a likely Republican challenger and the bane of western Long Island, is reconsidering running for Senate or Governor next year? Something is scaring him off-- wonder what could be.

In addition to repeating that the Kennedy name means little or nothing in New York and Caroline has just about zero support outside of her family and the dozen or so people who owe her, I'll repeat that the best thing to do now is stop bitching about a woman who got seated less than 24 hours ago and wait to see what she does in the job.

This is New York, where there are at least two Democratic parties, and the year and a half until the next campaign is in full swing is several lifetimes away.

...and they are bitterly divided over the Gillibrand thing.

That's about the only thing I agree with from your previous post.

Thanks and have a nice day!:)

Thank you RFKJrNews and Village Voice. K&R

You decide to run, but you don;t have the money...so...

you start holding "fundraisers"..

ANYONE who "gives" you money, EXPECTS something in return..

It's just that simple..

Until we have PUBLIC finacing and make loggying ILLEGAL, we will always have pay-to-play..

And, on its face, it's just human nature.

If you needed money, and a friend came through for you, wouldn't YOU be right there to help them if they needed you to help them move or to babysit/housesit, give them a ride to the airport?

You'd be less likely to do that for someone who blew you off in a crisis..

:kick:

And you know what happens with cockroaches when someone turns the lights on...

Of course, if you keep your house squeaky clean, you don't have to worry about cockroaches in the first place.

"Her former law firm, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, has been the largest single donor to her House campaigns, and David Boies, the senior partner at the firm, contributed $25,000 to Paterson's campaign committee on December 23, 2008, while the governor was considering Gillibrand's candidacy. Boies' son Chris, also a partner in the firm, contributed another $25,000 on the same day."

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/01/the_new_frontru.php

:grr: :kick:

$30,800 to Obama
2,300 to Bill Foster (D) Congress
4,600 to Kiernan Michael Lalor (R)
2,300 to Nels Acker (D)
28,500 to Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
4,600 to Powers For Congress (D)
5,000 to Reuniting our Country PAC
1,000 to Biden for President
2,000 to Gillbrand for Congress


hmmmmm - I don't see anything about a contribution to Paterson on record...

Chris Boies

$ 500 to Joe Garcia for Congress (D)
28,500 to Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
5,000 to Unite our States
2,300 to Powers for Congress
2,300 to Act Blue
and etc . . . and again nothing on the donation sites about donating to Paterson



uh - and no - Caroline Kennedy was NOT the "obvious choice". I don't think she really had any qualifications other than her "name". :shrug:

Because I knew damn well he'd have gotten everything he wanted if he'd only known how to be subtle about it.

Now, Paterson, unlike Blago, actually got the bribe.

And if he hadn't had his people trash Kennedy from the start, he might just have gotten away with it.

because of the children's hospital and the editorial board. i don't know what made fitzgerald start listening in on the conversations though... because without that it would have been just another thing... like the rest.

demanded specific amounts of campaign contributions from the horse racing industry as a condition for him signing a bill into law that would have funneled millions of public dollars to them.

If Fitz continues his investigation of Blago and this clear travesty of justice does not get investigated, me thinks the the air will be filled with the stink of "just politics and selective lopsided justice as usual" blossoms.

You're a very committed partisan on behalf of someone whose central activity in politics so far has been as a fundraiser within her own class of the super-rich.

I agree with your take about the endless Blago blather, since his proposed Senate "transaction" was the disgusting BUSINESS AS USUAL of American politics. Please note: This is notwithstanding any of the other accusations against him. Fact is, the Senate business is what's got everyone's attention, and the reason for that in my view is: He was too vulgar about it on tape! (Not that he knew it was being recorded.)

Not like Caroline, who was supposed to sail through in the most general form of pay-to-play: merely for the fact of her dynastic riches and celebrity glow and substantial past services to the party as a fundraiser, without needing to put up a specific payment to her appointer.

Why would Paterson taking a legal pay-off to his campaign fund be worse than Paterson caving in to CK's (equally legal) media-PR pressure campaign?

It boils down to this: These transactions are generally legal! People pay cash into politicians' warchests, and they get favors in exchange. That is how it is done, and it is very bad. It will not be fixed by prosecuting Blago (though he probably should be prosecuted, AFAIK), or pursuing your proposed revenge against Paterson and Gillebrand. (That would be wrong, but also a total distraction and probably bring a Republican governor to Albany in 2010, by the way.)

It will only change when we the people stop pretending, ban the money from politics, institute public campaign finance and give free media time to all candidates on a ballot. Until then, your post very much comes across as that of a player on a team who hates the other team, but isn't going to question the legitimacy of the bloody sport.

---

In response to the above on the other thread on this same theme, you wrote:

1) In 10 years, the only political contribution Kennedy has made was a $1000 check in a NYC city council race.
2) ... Clean as a whistle.
3) ... nothing irregular in her tax records ...

I'm sure that's all true, and also not relevant.

But please don't be disingenuous wrt to your point 1: What she arranges in fundraising from others dwarfs whatever small change she puts her name on, and you know it.

As for Caroline's "dynastic riches and celebrity glow," she didn't get to choose her parents or the family she was going to be born into.

Absolutely true. And yet without these factors, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and possibly neither of us would have ever heard of her, and she certainly wouldn't have been even remotely under consideration for a Senate seat, or advanced as the inevitable natural-law choice for the appointment, or promoted as such in every single organ of the media for two months in a coordinated PR campaign.

Her team chose to start that campaign, which was unprecedented for an appointment, and they overdid it, and they tried twisting Paterson's arm. He outlasted them, and maybe resorted to a few dirty tricks in doing so, and the Kennedy media campaign backfired through over-exposure, and the whole thing imploded.

As for the rest of what you say, it all makes her sympathetic, but none of it is an argument for her appointment to the Senate. And brutal as politics is, there's no call for comparing someone who entered willingly (if at a very, very ill-advised time) and met very usual obstacles with the victim of a "gang rape"! And if you think the rumors about Caroline were exaggerated and unfair, what are you doing with flat-out accusations of crime in Paterson's case? (For what? Accepting a legal campaign contribution? Please.)

Lastly, would you like to try for a senate seat in New York?

Absolutely! Give me the 10 million dollar minimum in personal disposable funds for this purpose that are necessary to start from scratch and have any chance, which CK would have also had at her disposal (absolute minimum) in 2010.

However, when we say "try," I hope you mean in the way everyone else tries: by campaigning for votes in an election, not by having the corporate media announce my inevitable choice via appointment as though it were my divine right.

Please leave aside the sour grapes now.

.

About CK's "PR" campaign: she was forced into that when someone in Paterson's office or among his contacts first leaked to NY Daily News and fed them a story ridiculing CK. It all blew up because of that and she was forced to publicly campaign, unlike any of the other candidates - across the country who were filling seats.

I'm sure she learned a great lesson in how it feels to have knives out and aimed at her, after a lifetime of public good will.

...the deal was set for Paterson to pick Kennedy as late as Inauguration Day; hence the Boies contributions apparently had no impact.

does not have a voting record that is "more Republican than Democrat".

So it's pretty clear from the start that whoever wrote this isn't much interested in fact.

2nd thing - the article accuses a Democrat office holder of a crime, without any proof.

It's all supposition and innuendo.

This article reeks of right wing agitprop...

did you write it?

:thumbsup:

stay up -

making unsubstantiated accusations of this sort has gotten people tombstoned in the past...

They just put in a new crowd of mods. Maybe they're still getting their bearings.

Perhaps they're all well left of Gillibrand? I dunno.....

I think it's pretty cheesy to accuse the guy without evidence. I know he's a bit disorganized in his administration, but he never expected to have to do this job, either, poor bastard. He's muddling through as best he can. I also don't think he's a crook--I don't think he's stupid, either-- he knows better than to pull that crap.

the only people who bitch about the Gillibrand picks are uninformed, just learned who Gillibrand is, and are outside of NY CD-20 which she represented.

She is a great pick.

This thread is nonsense.

was that he let the cat out of the bag.

This is how the game is played. It's been played this way for years. Everyone pretends it isn't. Everything is done through code words and intermediaries. Bribes are disguised as "campaign donations." Whatever.

What Blago did was talk on the phone in plain speech and make direct demands himself.

That let the cat out of the bag. We're not supposed to know how the game is played.

That's why they hate him.

n/t

Polls showed that Cuomo was preferred by New Yorkers by about 6 points and I could probably name 1/2 dozen good progressive people that would be better picks.

What makes her the obvious choice?

Willing to trade a little adulation for a little responsibility. Hey, that happened in Germany in the 1930s, didn't it ?

Yes. It's the SAME mechanism. We're lucky the recipients are different. Skill has nothing to do with it.

I have yet to read something that really convinces me that negative rumors about Caroline were started in Patterson's office, rather than by any of (lots) of people/reporters who didn't support her bid for the Senate, for what could be a whole variety of (legitimate) reasons.

I appreciate that this piece reports actual facts regarding the Gilibrand-related contributions to Patterson's campaign, but I still don't find this line of reasoning convincing. For one thing--strategically, it makes some sense for Patterson to want to balance the borough-centric (exclusive) representation with someone from upstate (which is less blue). And I'm not sure how much $ is involved in gubernatorial campaigns, and 50k is by no means insignificant--but even without Kennedy giving any money directly to his campaign--had she been chosen Senator and been supportive of him, this very fact could easily have gained him far more and possibly larger contributions to his campaign, from people who were supportive of her and, by extension, came to support his bid for election. Furthermore...money aside, the Kennedy "brand" would be an asset to him and have a PR value that would be hard to quantify or place a monetary value on--but by any estimate, it would be worth far more than 50K. , David Alexrod is quoted as having said (the night before Super Tuesday): "As for Caroline’s endorsement, someone said to me she’s the purest brand in American public life.”

I don't know enough about Patterson to have strong feelings about him one way or the other, and I'm willing to accept that he may (or may not) have been set against Kennedy toward the end, at least--but if so, I think his motivations must have been much different than what's outlined here.

On his marketing blog, John Tantillo analyzed Caroline's candidacy from a branding position just before the new year--predicting that she would not only be Senator but also the first female President.

I wonder if she's out for good or will throw her hat in the ring again later...perhaps after a lot of work with a speech coach?

http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2008/12/31/caroline-kennedy--a-brand-that-will-be-president-2.aspx:">Tantillo's full post on the Caroline Kennedy brand

...know EXACTLY who the leaker was. (Paterson's PR flack Judy Smith, an expert at sordid sex scandals)

They took her calls, printed the trash she gave them verbatim without fact-checking with at least two other reliable sources (journalism 101), and protected her as an "anonymous source very close to the Governor"...that is, until the heat came down upon them to cough up where they got this tripe in the first place. Then they started singing like birds.

Read Fred Dicker and Elizabeth Benjamin's latest damage control pieces this week, and you'll get the picture.

Trust me, we reporters *know* our sources. In NY tabloid circles, reporters are on a first name basis with Ms. Smith, and they knew full well she was on Paterson's payroll.

Come back when you have something real.

First let's start with your premise that she votes more like a republican than a democrat.

hard ball against Caroline Kennedy. so D. Paterson chose Gillibrand to bypass the established Democratic Clubhouse. I think Gov. Paterson takes his cue from the WH.

In November 2008 when Obama was elected, RFK Jr said he would be willing to serve in the Obama administration. That didn't happen. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/robert-kennedy-jr-on-obam_n_141506.html

A lot of NY'ers I know, thought for sure RFK Jr would be chosen for the Senate seat in NY and I don't know of any Democrats that would have been unhappy with that pick. RFK Jr is well know for his work here, both Upstate and Downstate.

But once Caroline phoned Paterson, saying she was interested, RFK Jr phoned Paterson and told him to take his name out of contention. He said it wouldn't allow him enough time to spend with his wife and 6 children. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/robert-f-kennedys-son-not-interested-in-senate-seat/

Something about this just never seemed right. He had time for a job in the Administration but not in the Senate?

As far as Paterson is concerned, I think his act was one of passive-aggression. He had said that when Hillary was confirmed he would then name her successor. What was all the rush? But there is it was, day in an day out. I think it ticked him off. I think it's part of his "your face" pick.

For sure Paterson won't be back. Which makes me happy, because I want Andrew Cuomo for the job. And if it shouldn't work out with Gillibrand, would RFK Jr reconsider? And if not, why not Howard Dean? He's a born and bred New Yorker.

First, regarding the NY senate seat. RFK Jr.'s possible reasons for bowing out:

1) he's a father of six (need I say more? lol)
2) he recognized the pecking order in the Kennedy family and that it was "Caroline's turn."
3) Ted makes the decisions about #2. (The man's dying of brain cancer, who wouldn't respect his wishes?)
4) He backed the wrong horse during the primary season. (Ironic, considering it is Hillary's seat we're talking about, and RFK Jr. has been a longtime supporter of hers.)Ted and Caroline were on the winning team early on.

As for a cabinet post (such as EPA or Interior), possible reasons for his non-selection could be:

1) Neither gig was actually offered in the first place. Could have been a helpful "trial balloon" leaked to the press.
2) Said "trial balloon" went down like the Hindenburg due to vocal opposition from those who opposed his stance on mercury/vaccines
3) His positions on some environmental issues may have been too controversial for the incoming administration
4) Or, perhaps the gig was in fact offered, but something in his vetting questionaire didn't pass muster?

All that being said, I'm with you. Was REALLY hoping to see RFK Jr. in the U.S. Senate this year or playing an important role in the Obama administration. But I respect his decision and his reasons, whatever they may be.

NEXT!!!!1

Ya know how those Texas Republicans just *love* the Kennedys!

But good TX Democrats like me are *still* avenging the horrors of Nov. 22, 1963. And we will NEVER stop.

So try throwing your bombs somewhere else. There are plenty of Kennedy-hating threads on DU. Might want to try one of those.

Paterson been in office?

Any notice of Schiller Flexner contributing? Any connections to Republicans? :o)

This is sickening.

I never believed any of the dirt against C. Kennedy.

It's unbelievable that they brought in a Public Relations person. Who was it who paid her?

Reminds me of the expensive advisor to Paula Jones who walked Jones through speech lessons, surgery, the dental office, and shopping expeditions and coached her through the remainder of the Jones press briefings and interviews - which was incessant - until Pres Clinton was impeached. Then the advisor stepped away and Paula was dumped. Work done. The advisor to Jones was paid by the Rutherford Institute. It's amazing what sticks in the memory. I remember the head guy (Rutherford?) defending their 'contribution'.

I am very happy that I read this thread.

Now, I'd like to know what that law firm does, where their business comes from.

Here is the info you requested on Judy Smith, Paterson's paid PR flack/kneecapper. It is interesting to note that she is a former Bush White House deputy press secretary with close ties to both Shrub and Poppy Bush. She has also represented the likes of Monica Lewinsky, Larry Craig, and Kwame Kilpatrick -- so she's certainly no stranger to skeezy sex scandals:

"NASTY CAROLINE K. RUMORS LEAKED BY FORMER BUSH WHITE HOUSE STAFFER"
http://rfkjrforpresident.com/2009/01/27/nasty-caroline-k-rumors-leaked-by-former-bush-white-house-staffer/

Also, here's another article which provides the backstory on just how this whole mess unfolded:

"DID NY GOV'S OFFICE LEAK LIES ABOUT CAROLINE KENNEDY?"
http://rfkjrforpresident.com/2009/01/24/op-ed-did-ny-govs-office-leak-lies-about-caroline-kennedy/

a good idea is that ALL donations MUST be anonymous.
A donation should be "because I believe in you", not a "what can you do for me if elected?"

Was Boies a DLC supporter?

her hair, voice, speech, personality. I honor people and accept differences. I try to accept them the way they are when I approve of them and they don't cheat and become a hypocrite.

To start with she is not a Society Princess. She didn't choose that route. She seemed to purposely stay out of the limelight, but quietly went her way to contribute - in addition to the mother/wife role. It has been very easy for me to make a connection to the content in her words when she has come out to speak - I sense no phoniness or false polish. When speaking of serious issue, she delivers a studied perspective.

I believe she has quietly become the equivalent of a scholar of politics evenif she hasn't occupied a seat. Her book about Privacy is a classic. You don't dismiss a law degree, her role at the Library, the research of the presentations and awards at the Center, ongoing politics in her city, state, and country and what she knows about history - how could any bright, sane person not be a student of modern history, if not more - (it had to be more to author/co-author the books she has written), let alone the pursuit of knowledge of history of her family which covers everything we talk about.

What do DUers demand in a candidate?

Can people not accept a person who does not scream for attention? Who doesn't have to boast and appear at gatherings or be featured in magazines with dazzling designer gowns.

She is more appealing for her straight arrow approach to me.

She does not reek of hypocrisy or scandal.

She is a daughter her father could have been proud of.

Did anyone who is attacking her persona watch her in interviews about the non-children books? Did she not express herself satisfactory about the content of a book on privacy, one of the DUers favorite subjects? Are people unhappy because she didn't flirt or make jokes or gossip during her interviews?

I think it's sad that people on DU have come up with the kind of person they expect her to be. Does it mean you are too used to the polish of the typical female politico who always says predictable words that have been perfectly rehearsed?

I know who I would rather listen to. I know who I would like to have representing me knowing that I agree with the idealism and honesty 100%. I would listen harder to her because I see nothing shallow there. I seel the opposite of shallow as well as well as the acid of politics.

So many already said something - she raises money and she could raise it for herself. She has no obligations to anyone. She's coming in clean and she would be there for the people.

So I ask again, what is the profile of an acceptable female to the DUers who are slamming Kennedy here on DU - from hair to dull to unprepared. Hair - how ridiculous that one is.

I hope there is someone on DU sees it the way I do.

from the looks of it, a stall while he was busy selling the Senate seat. And from the gratuitous smears his office issued AFTER Caroline withdrew -- perhaps after being threatened -- it appears he had every intention of adding insult to injury. These are extremely troubling revelations.

You name suits you.:)

Notice that you sure didn't hear any Democrats complaining about the way Caroline looked or spoke when she delivered her speech at the convention in Denver last August. They simply could not fawn enough over her performance.

Also notice no one complained when she wrote that editorial for the NY Times last January giving her endorsement to Obama (calling him "A President Like My Father," which was lauded for its' eloquence and grace), or knocked her performances/speeches at any of the many campaign rallies she did for Obama. The adulation they gave her was overwhelming.

So apparently, Caroline was beautiful and eloquent so long as she could be useful to certain people who wanted her name/prestige for fundraising or campaigning purposes.

But if she should decide she wants to be a public servant in the U.S. Senate, she suddenly turned very ugly and stupid overnight.

Ain't it funny how that works?

have received 100% of my trust. I'm not from NY, yet each day that I get to watch Senate proceedings, I know that all of them vote for me. If I'm from a state that is split and their vote cancels each other out, I know where she would be.

That's not what we're getting.

This is a very disturbing story that needs to be investigated NOW and not when it could do even more damage later.

has questionable morals?

Say it ain't so!

If it turns out to be false, I hope Paterson sues the originators into the ground for slander. This reeks of the pious new orthodoxy not letting go of their pantywaist whine about how Senator Gillibrand won't meet them for whole wheat power bars and green tea on the Woodstock Green. If that's what's going on, fuck 'em like a freight train. I'll be there applauding when it happens.

Oh and by the way, if this is going on and it's false, thanks for discrediting the Democratic Party with your bullshit and confirming stereotypes of a bunch of irrelevant douchebags and tools mostly interested in having scratch fights with each other. Fortunately you've already got enough grease under your cushy skids that people who actually are in touch with reality rather than trying to confabulate it will be free to get things done while you accelerate off the cliff edge. Buh-bye.

Her friends at her old law firm happened to donate $50,000 in December 23.

The timing stinks. Not the DUers.

This is something everyone on DU would be be screaming about if Republicans did it.

This is damning... Just like Blago says, it's an old practice. So now we know the truth, at least some of it. I think it needs to stop nonetheless. I like the idea of voting and taking it away from the gov's all of a sudden.

Then they can throw both he and ms. whats er name in jail.

:kick:

Anyone who wants to get active in helping us expose this corruption is encouraged to email the media and pressure them to investigate.

Here are some email addys of key reporters in the NY print media:

frederic.dicker@nypost.com
whammond@nydailynews.com
mmcauliff@nydailynews.com
klovett@nydailynews.com
ebenjamin@nydailynews.com
dwyer@nytimes.com

That's just a short list, please feel free to drop a line to any other reporters or columnists you think might be interested.

As for the tv networks, nearly all of them have a "news tips" contact form on their websites (they generally do not provide direct email addresses for reporters, so we can't post them here, unfortunately). Here are a few to get you started:

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/tips/
http://cbsnews.com (click the "contact us" link at bottom of main page)
http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3068843
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10285339/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77538,00.html

And anyone else you can think of! Contact your local tv stations and talk radio live call-in shows as well. Help us spread the word!

We updated the original story to include the latest breaking news on how Gillibrand's "Sugar Daddy" Al D'Amato's poured more than a million dollars into Gov. Patterson's campaign coffers over the last 2.5 months.

Ya MIGHT wanna read this...turns out that initially-reported $50,000 was just a drop in the bucket, as we suspected all along. Now we're talkin' a figure that's in the frickin' ballpark (like Yankee Stadium, baby!):

UPDATED STORY LINK HERE:
http://thekennedys.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/pay-to-play-scheme-in-ny-senate-seat-pick/

D'Amato hosted a $1,000-a-plate dinner for Paterson at the Coyote Grill in Island Park on November 2, and Paterson went to the Christmas party sponsored by D'Amato's firm on December 10, and most of the $581,400 in contributions connected to D'Amato that the Voice has identified were given to Paterson's committees near those two dates.

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/01/the_pudgy_papa.php

$581,400 in contributions in less than two months, and then Paterson makes the daughter of D'Amato's partner a Senator. And people are calling Blago crooked?!

:wow:

pursestrings.

Regards

I will give the newly appointed Senator a chance to prove herself before I decide about how I will vote in the next Senate election.

I wonder if Rod Blagojevich’s threat to halt the state’s dealings with Bank of America Corp. over a shut-down factory was his real "crime"?

when they scewered the former governor with their illegal "on site wiretapping" agenda and just in time too for them to stop his invetigations into the economic crisis looming just ahead.