This Is Not News

I find it a little disconcerting that I’ve picked a preferred 2008 presidential candidate before a preferred 2007 mayoral candidate. There is something about everyone in the running that rubs me the wrong way. That may say something about my mood right now. It might even say something good about the crop of candidates, in that I don’t hate any one of them enough that I’m willing to overlook negative traits of other candidates in order to defeat them. (I think I’m stretching there, but I figured I should acknowledge the possibility.) But I also think there’s a problem that no one is doing anything to jump up and grab me., and most of the things candidates do for attention just bugs me.

Lately I had been leaning toward Chaka Fattah, because I like the fact that he’s making opportunity for the poor one of his major ideas. But this week he reminded me of one of the things that bugged me about him in the first place, and did so in a way that compounds the problem. Fattah is married to a local news anchor, Renee Chenault-Fattah. Chenault-Fattah has not taken a leave of absence from her anchoring duties, and last I checked she had made no statement about what she would do if Chaka Fattah were elected. I think that just about the only person who can not see this as a major conflict of interest is Aaron Sorkin. (Don’t get me started on The American President. Seriously.) I was starting to not hold that against Chaka Fattah’s candidacy – although I won’t watch Channel 10’s news as long as this conflict of interest persists.

But then this week the Fattah campaign announced that it would not release Fattah’s tax returns. This is a voluntary disclosure, but just about every candidate for citywide or statewide office makes it. Fattah’s campaign claimed that they couldn’t release the data because it would violate a confidentiality clause in Chenault-Fattah’s contract with Channel 10. Only it turns out that there is no such contractual obligation. If I were a diehard Fattah supporter, I’d probably shrug this off as an unfortunate dumb decision. I figure every campaign’s going to make some of those. But when I’m on the fence, it won’t take much to throw me off.

Update: Thursday’s Inquirer reports that there is, in fact, a confidentiality agreement that allows the station to terminate Chenault-Fattah’s contract if there is a breach of confidentiality. The Inquirer says that Chenault-Fattah provided a copy of the contract; on Wednesday the Daily News had reported that NBC10 refused to confirm the existence of such a clause. At the moment I can’t spot anything wrong with the Daily News’s reporting, and I’m a little uncomfortable at how a news outlet like NBC10 winds up having such influence over a story. But that’s the pitfall that comes with this situation.

There was a court hearing today on the challenge to Bob Brady’s spot on the mayoral ballot. The Inquirer’s mayoral election blog was there with live updates, and I was struck with this particular passage:

There’s a lot of testiness in the air, as Brady time and again makes reference to the fact that by sitting on the witness stand he is not doing the job he was elected to do in Congress.

You know, granted, I’m taking the reporters’ word for it that this describes Brady’s attitude. But, y’know, he’s the guy that decided he wanted to run for a term as mayor that starts in 2008 when his term as a congressman doesn’t end until 2009. If Brady had not a) decided to run for a different office and then b) screwed up his paperwork, he could have been down in Washington having a fine old congressional time. So the concern about doing his job seems a little too late.

I have a hunch that by the time this is over, even if Brady’s still on the ballot, I’ll prefer the idea of voting for a dead fish.

I’ve been sitting here at my desk watching a swirl of bad news affecting other people – stuff in the news, stuff that friends are going through – and it made me think a little more about how damned lucky I am. I have a freaking amazing life and I really gotta remember to be grateful for it every second of the day. And I gotta do what I can to spread a little bit of the joy around.

So I just wanted to take a moment here to note that the International Rescue Committee‘s website has a list of its various efforts to help refugees and other victims of violence and disaster. I’d encourage you to go check it out and see if it’s work you’d be willing to support with a small contribution.

While I’m at it, let me take another moment and mention that the Christopher Reeve Foundation has changed its name to the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation. I’ll say upfront that I support the Foundation in part because of my admiration for Christopher Reeve, and if that makes me a little bit shallow or blinded by celebrity, so be it. But I think the way that Reeve faced his life after his accident is a truly inspriational story – and it’s a story that probably wouldn’t have happened as it did without the support and efforts of Dana Reeve. So I think this is a worthy tribute.

Pennsylvania is going to hold hearings about moving its primary up to Feb. 5, along with, oh, roughly every other state. On the one hand, I would certainly love to have the chance to actually vote in a contested presidential primary. On the other hand, this is the sort of thing that makes people say these primary campaigns may be looking at spending $100 million each. Those fundraising issues apparently motivated Tom Vilsack to drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination today. Which, perhaps paradoxically, suggests that all of us have a vote to make this year. If a candidate can’t make the case that he or she is financially viable, that candidate might not even make it to Iowa. So small-donor contributions from the Web in 2007 might heavily shape the 2008 race.

In the intersts of disclosure, and in the interest of having something interesting to say tonight, I figured I’d mention that I just made a (very small) contribution to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. So I guess I’ve hopped off the fence.

I’m a little surprised about that, to be honest. As much as I respect and admire Obama, based in no small part upon reading his books, I always kinda figured that there were other people I’d like to get the Democratic nomination even more. I had told myself I was going to wait and see if any of those people joined the race, or if any of the other candidates were able to surprise me.

So what changed? Over the last week or so, I’ve just really liked the way Obama’s rolled out this campaign. I liked the way he dealt with the Joe Biden brouhaha. I liked the way he quickly responded to Australian Prime Minister John Howard’s comments. I like the way he’s stressed his background in community organizing. I’ve found myself responding to these developments with a “Yeah, way to go” attitude, which tells me that somethign abotu the way Obama’s working right now clicks with me. I figure I should put my money where my mouth is and encourage him to continue.

This doesn’t mean that I don’t reserve the right to change my mind. It’s a long campaign, after all. I still hope Wes Clark gets into the race – I think his diplomatic and national security experience would be well-suited to the country’s needs right now. I do have seriosu reservations about Clark’s ability as a candidate at this point, especially since he seems to be waiting so long to get his campaign going, and in large part that’s why I’m not as gung-ho on his bandwagon as I thought I would be.

And part of me does hope beyond hope that Al Gore throws his hat in, and that he can make a good run of it. If he does, I’ll reevalaute where I stand. But for now, I’m ready to get off the sidelines.

I imagine there are quicker ways to make a fool of yourself than to make comments about a fellow Democratic senator that sound racially-tinged, on the very day that you officially announce you’re pursuing the presidency. For example, you could do all of that, and then be scheduled to go on The Daily Show later that day.

In other words, you could be Joe Biden.

I really oughta go upstairs and set the DVR.

In other campaign news, the blogosphere rumor mill is buzzing that Wesley Clark will announce his run later this week. A couple of months ago, this news would have gotten me very enthused. Now, I think I’m more inclined to wait and see if he can really get his campaign moving before I jump fully on board. (And yes, I know, if everyone takes that attitude, failure is guaranteed. I’m willing to take a little risk on being a free rider for now.)

Thus far in the day I’ve been having trouble figuring out what to blog about today. I finally finished that reflection paper, but I’m not really sure how worthwhile that would be as a blog post. And I’ve kinda used up a lot of the pop culture thoughts I’ve had over the weekend. (“A Friend of Pat Robertson” is still a damned good song, and anyone who’s ever e-mailed me about Jake Johannsen routines may want to check out YouTube fast. I’m just sayin’.)

I think the biggest reason for the writer’s block on serious subjects is that the thing I’m thinking about is something I’m really not ready to start writing about – the 2008 presidential primaries. No candidate has really excited me enough to start working for him. And that last pronoun is deliberate. I really can not see myself supporting Hillary Clinton in the primary. (If she wins the nomination, obviously, it’s a whole new ball game.) But you know, there’s been a Bush or a Clinton in every presidential campaign since 1988, 1980 if you count vice-presidential nominations. And I know the Bush clan is responsible for most of those, but I don’t want to usher one political dynasty off the stage by bringing a new one in. If Senator Clinton were leaps and bounds above the other candidates, maybe I’d get over this concern. But at the moment I’m hard-pressed to think of anything she’s done or said that gets me particularly enthused. (And as always, if other people connect with her, more power to them and to her, and if there are more of them than there are of me, we’ll find out at the polling booth.)

Hmm. Maybe I did have something to say there after all. But at any rate, I’m just not ready to really jump into 2008, which is sucking up a lot of energy even here in Philadelphia, where we’ve got a mayoral primary coming up in just four months. And I still gotta pick a candidate there. So I may stay clear of the presidential derby for a while.

That said, Keith Olbermann’s poke at Fox and their Barack-Obama-went-to-a-Muslin-school story on tonight’s Countdown was well worth watching.

So, confirming speculation that’s been buzzing for a while, Senator Joe Lieberman announced that he will begin circulating petitions to run for re-election as an independent. Lieberman is still running in the Democratic primary this August, but he’s facing a challenge from businessman Ned Lamont. So he’s decided to hedge his bets – if he loses the primary, he can still run in the general election and hope that independent, Republicans, and Democrats who didn’t turn out for the primary can put him over the top. Many of the progressive blogs that have been beating the drum against Lieberman for the last few years are unsurprisingly upset by this move, urging readers to call various Democratic politicians and campaign organizations and demand that they support the Democratic nominee.

Now, I’m not a big fan of Joe Lieberman. I think I would be happier if Lamont wins this Senate seat. But if I may indulge in a bit of navel-gazing, this line of discussion has had me thinking about the definition of a political party. What’s it mean to be a member of a party? What are the responsibilities that go with it?

Being a member of a political party as a voter carries few responsibilities and in some cases it doesn’t even bring any particular privileges. In some states, voters can vote in any primary they want, regardless of their registration. In Louisiana there is no separate primary at all. In states like Connecticut, party affiliation does matter. But Lieberman says he is going to remain a registered Democrat. So the requirements are clearly different for an elected official, and that makes sense.

As an elected official it seems to me like the clearest and most significant issue when it comes to party affiliation is how you caucus – which side will you vote for when it comes time to organize the chamber? This can’t be the be-all and end-all, because there are two members of Congress right now who are independents who caucus with Democrats. And the Democrats have endorsed one of those independents, Bernie Sanders, in his race to replace the other one, Jim Jeffords, as Senator from Vermont. But if you’re going to be a registered Democrat and caucus with Democrats, which Lieberman’s said he will do, is it right to say that you’re not a Democrat?

The key argument might be that the Democratic voters of Connecticut wanted a particular candidate, and if you’re running against that candidate you’re going againt the will of the state’s Democrats, and thus by definition you’re working against the party and can’t be a member. The scenario I’ve always considered that would work against this standard is based on the idea that primaries tend to draw fewer voters than the general election. What if Lieberman ran i nthe fall as an independent and won, getting more Democratic voters than Lamont? Couldn’t you make an argument that Lieberman, as a registered Democrat caucusing with Democrats and receiving the support of the most Democratic voters, is still a Democrat even if the letter “I” appears after his name instead of a “D”?

After a lot of mental back and forth, I would finally say no. As an elected official within a party, you have certain leadership responsibilities. One of those is helping other candidates from your party. A fall campaign where Lieberman is running against the Democratic candidate is not going to be good for other Democrats running in Connecticut, from a media attention or fundraising perspective. And refusing to accept the verdict of the primary voters is absolutely a rejection of the party and its structure. Perhaps there are a lot of Democrats in the state who like Lieberman but can’t be bothered to vote in the primary. That’s their fault for not voting and Lieberman’s for not mobilizing them.

Most significantly for me is a point I’ve seen several blog commenters make. If you’re like me and you believe that, given the structure of American politics, we’re stuck with a two-party system and that the way to promote change is to work to change the party from within rather than run against the party as an outsider, then you simply can’t turn around and say it’s OK for the establishment to run against the party as an outsider when those who want change succeed within the system. You just can’t change the rules in the middle of the game like that. And if you’re a party leader, as Lieberman is, you just can’t send that message that the party’s procedures aren’t valid and still call yourself a member of the party in good standing.

Man, spring break disappeared in a blink. Let me see if I can get back into the groove.

One news item that caught my eye in the last couple of weeks concerns Pennsylvania’s Lt. Governor race. In PA, there are separate primaries for Governor and Lt. Governor, and then the primary winners run together as a ticket in the general election. So a gubernatorial candidate doesn’t get to pick his or her running mate. This was somewhat unfortunate back in 2002, because Ed Rendell wound up with Catherine Baker Knoll as a running mate. Knoll has a lot of name recognition and a long career in elected office, but she never struck me as the strongest candidate. And she has apparently made a few gaffes in the last four years to boot. So when I heard that a few people were gearing up to challenge her in this year’s primary, I was pleased. I took particular notice when Joe Hoeffel, who ran for Senate in 2004 and whose e-mail list I subscribe to, started talking about running. His position was that he would not run if Rendell specifically asked him not to. Rendell said he wasn’t going to support Hoeffel, but he wouldn’t stop him either. So Hoeffel organized some petition gatherers, got himself the necessary signatures, filed to run, scheduled an announcement tour, and started to gear up his web site.

At which point Rendell said, “Boy, I sure wish he’d think about withdrawing.” So 24 hours after Hoeffel officially got into the race, he was out.

Now, as a voter, I’m all for primaries. I think they’re a useful way for a party and its elected officials to debate and set priorities. I’m saddened that Bob Casey isn’t facing more of a challenge in the senatorial primary, for example. But I understand why candidates don’t feel the same way. Running a campaign, and gathering the resources for it, is not an easy task, and recruiting top candidates can be harder if they have to face two tough elections and not just one. There are some people who are criticizing Rendell for interfering in a primary this way; they cite the fact that Rendell ran against the party-supported candidate in 2002’s primary and won. But I don’t think that makes Rendell a hypocrite. A candidate doesn’t have to drop out when party leaders try to clear the field. If the candidate is strong enough, and has built his or her own base of voter and financial support, he or she can run against the establishment and then become the establishment. And with this particular position, I can see how the governor would like a voice in his running mate. But the timing is pretty ridiculous. Why put Hoeffel’s supporters through the whole rigamarole and then pull the rug out so quickly?

My suspicion, and it’s really a very wild guess, is that at first, Hoeffel’s run looked like it would just be a way for Hoeffel to raise his name recognition and some issues in the primary. But then he got the endorsement of some county parties here in southwest PA, and it looked like he could actually win. At which point party leaders elsewhere in the state realized they could be looking at a ticket with two white guys from Philadelphia and its suburbs. And if you don’t know much about PA politics, lemme tell you that doesn’t play well in the rest of the state. Still, it’s a very odd story.

There are still other candidates in the Lt. Governor primary. Several PA bloggers have said good things about Valerie McDonald Roberts, Allegheny County recorder of deeds. I’ll be tracking her campaign over the next several weeks.

For the sake of my own sanity, I maintain a certain intellectual and emotional detachment from the issue of George W. Bush’s nominations for the Supreme Court. Whoever gets appointed by this president and confirmed by this Senate is not going to be someone I agree with on much past the possible exception of where to order lunch. And I have to make my peace with that, because heck, these are the folks that got elected. I can’t quite figure out where the dividing line between an objectionable level of near-total disagreement and an acceptable level of near-total disagreement lies.

On the other hand, when it comes to Samuel Alito, there’s something about this story from the Washington Post that concerns me. Some Senators have raised questions about Alito’s decision not to recuse himself from two cases involving the company that manages his mutual funds and the company that serves as his broker, despite indicating that he would do so in his Senate questionnaire during his confirmation to the apellate court. Alito explains it by saying that he was “unduly restrictive” with his questionnaire answer. It may well be that there’s a harmless explanation for this, but right now, it’s one of those things that chips away my faith in the cofirmation process. So I figured I would write a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, who also happens to be my Senator. I’m posting it up here as part of the So Now What? collection.

Read the remainder of this entry »