Cuomo Aide Is Said to Try to Slow Kennedy Bid

Even as Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo insisted he was staying out of the competition for New York's soon-to-be-vacant Senate seat, a top Cuomo aide urged labor leaders and upstate officials to refrain from embracing Caroline Kennedy for the job, according to several people with direct knowledge of the conversations.

Two of the people, including a prominent upstate Democratic operative, said the Cuomo aide, Joseph Percoco, had suggested the upstate officials give Ms. Kennedy a cold reception and had questioned her credentials.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[Doofus]

Y'know, NY is a very complicated state, politically. It is not surprising,
but still a shame, that both Cuomo & Kennedy draw so much negative
reaction, or at least, generate so much vituperation. Because, maybe
unfortunately, one will probably be the next NY Senator. Historically, NY
tends to elect celebrities, so it's a sure-fire way to get elected. Of course,
that leaves out many well qualified & experienced 'local' politicos who
could serve NYers well. Anybody remember Jacob Javits, Ken Keating
& Charles Goodell? Can anybody figure out a way to keep the 'big name'
people out of the race?

[meko]

I think if people want to encourage an appointment based on achievements and experience, it helps to talk about the alternatives specifically (Maloney, Israel, Gillibrand, Nadler and Suozzi). Part of the reason for the celebrity culture is that the press is just lazy about presenting the options. So it's up to voters to educate themselves and talk about the issues. Here's a start:

Maloney: http://maloney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_issues&Itemid=35

Israel: http://israel.house.gov/

Gillibrand: http://www.gillibrand.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=140&Itemid=39

Nadler: http://www.house.gov/nadler/legislation.shtml

Suozzi: http://www.nassaucountyny.gov/agencies/CountyExecutive/Biography.html

If we really care about governance, we should focus on the potential appointees for this position, and not on irrelevant strawmen like Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, George Bush or Ted Stevens. They aren't up for the job. Nor are "typical politicians" up for the job. These 7 specific people (those mentioned above, plus Kennedy and Cuomo) are. It's their relative experience that matters. Voters should speak for who they think is best. Bloggers should write for who they think is best. It's all we can do.

[Chopin]

Thanks for your weblink reference listing of most of the candidates. That's a step in the right direction.

But you know, experience isn't everything, or even the most important thing. If it is, then 600 legislators in congress would have solved the overriding national problems years or decades ago, like for instance the need for a national healthcare system. -- Most advanced industrialized nations have it. Instead, congress as a whole is part of the problem, or has been coopted by the money and privilege system, and contributed to the problems.

No, something else is more important, --- something other than what a person takes in from the outside, like information, knowledge, money, family name, experience, etc., .... something that originates from a person from deep inside --- like character, personality, temperament, tenacity, wisdom, empathy, soul, .... etc. They are much more important in understanding big picture issues, deciding big questions of policies, and having a reliable inner compass to discriminate between right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust, what commonsense works and what bureaucratic nonsense doesn't work. Those capacities have been so clearly absent from so much of public service for so long. A long series of congressional votes is after all a reflection of the presence or absence of those important characteristics and capacities.

[meko]

Without proof to the contrary, I assume all candidates are equally good parents, spouses, sons or daughters, friends and such. I figure they're all good at heart and love puppies. That stuff is so easy to fake. Our impressions are based on such carefully crafted personae that I don't trust the persona business very far. I don't see why I should assume that one of these people is any nicer than any of the others without personal experience.

We only have records to go on.

[Chopin]

Let Caroline be freshman junior Senator for NY. Here's why:--

The coming two decades would be ultimate test if USofA would remain healthy constitutional republic or bankrupt militaristic empire bent on world dominion. Fundamental structural change will be forced upon this nation, and paradyme shift will be required of its people, by combination of internal and external forces. There're two diametrically opposite directions of future development of this nation:--

1) Continue unchecked on current direction of Pentagon budget expansion, and its inescapable implications. It's currently $650Billion (65%) and going higher. This direction destines this nation to be militaristic agressive world empire. End of line will be financial bankruptcy and economic ruin of this nation. The imperial nation will decay while its social fabric unravels, because it consumes all remaining resources necessary to care for the old, young, weak, sick and disadvantaged, and maintain robust infrastructure, ... or

2) This nation rejuvenates constitutional foundation of the republic. It sheds imperial ambitions and ways to rejoin family of nations as constructive partner, instead of hegemonic predator. It undertakes societal paradyme shift from patriarchal to matriarchal focus and organization. It collaborates with all nations to solve the monumental planetary climate crisis. It beats swords into plowshares, and builds peace networks instead of war coalitions. The math logic of babyboomer aging population dictates societal needs. (1945+65=2010) This will require a woman's woman president, (not a chauvinistic male facsimile), assoonas 2016. She'll have to be groomed to be ready, --- Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg.

[melponeme k]

What in the world makes you think Schlossberg is not part of the entrenched politics? She has a family that has been part of the government during the worst corruption period in American government.

They have allowed all what is going wrong in America. Schlossberg will not change one thing.

She will keep the status quo, which is why they are pushing her on us New Yorkers.

[Chopin]

Your question is valid. My answer is partly based on intuitive reasoning. There're no guarantees anyone will be a reformer and deliver. But the fact she's stayed almost completely out of politics until this (late) point in her adult life could have one of two possible opposite meanings:--

1) She has rejected active participation in the current politics of power of the last few decades, until now. She'll have lot of explaining to do to help public understand her reasons. But seeing direction national politics has been going in the last 4 decades, not being active part of it is not intrinsically a bad thing. In fact, this might be a uniquely good time and place in history to make a fresh start in a different direction in the life of this nation. That is the fervent hope of a lot of people, I would guess a great majority. A major transformation of national politics and reorientation of societal mindset will be a great and difficult task that will stretch beyond one presidency. Prez. Ob can start the process of transformation. Whether Caroline is the right vessel to take the nation forward in a different direction is yet to be seen.

2) Or she has been, as you suggest, a passive and pliant part of the corrupt politics today; and the powers behind the scene is picking her to put a new face on old politics.

Time and events would clarify for the public which is a more likely scenario.

[Chopin]

As if to emphasize the imperative for this nation to confront sooner than later the crucial choice between a runaway costly empire and a responsible and healthy constitutional republic, here's latest news item in NYTimes today 1/7/2009:--

"China Losing Taste for Debt From the US"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/business/worldbusiness/08yuan.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
"The declining Chinese appetite for US debt, apparent in series of hints from Chinese policymakers over last two weeks, with official statistics due for release in next few days, comes at an inconvenient time." China has bought over $1Trillion US debt. It appears to have peaked in 1Q2007. As leading foreign creditor's debt appetite decreases, debt service interest rates would increase. Currently, USTreasury is borrowing short term to pay interests on long term debt. If shortterm rates climb rapidly, the debt load would baloon rapidly and uncontrollably towards default. Pile on top of that debt situation massive deficit spending on the package to rescue current depressed economy, one begins to comprehend the looming unavoidable crisis of choice over national destiny.

The national security implications of this internal threat of economic depression and financial insolvency and collapse would trump any external threats of foreign terrorists, and the circular justification for military adventurism abroad.

[meko]

To me, the most reasonable way to estimate what a person will do is to look at what he or she has done. To project that Caroline Kennedy will be a great reformer, because she hasn't participated in politics is a big speculative leap.

I don't think that assuming someone who has no working experience in finance or policy can be expected to dive in there, learn everything about both, not be influenced by those who teach her and suddenly be a leader in reforming the military/industrial complex and social security. Why wouldn't she be just as influenced by her surroundings as all who have gone before her? What previous accomplishment of hers leads us to believe that she's got it in her to resist social pressures in that way? What convinces us that she knows anything about this stuff? What leads us to believe that she's unusually adept at digesting a huge amount of information quickly and coming up with creative, unique solutions?

I doubt anyone is the incredibly exceptional person you describe. I think the safest bet is to look at the 7 candidates for the job, and hope for the one who will make the most positive, incremental change.

Besides, senators have to work with their peers. If someone is the kind of firebrand that they are going to upset the system, they might be more effective as an agitator and spokesperson on the outside of the system.

[Chopin]

Excellent questioning about speculative leap of faith, and about intricacies of legislative process, and corruptibility of good people by system. Many new senators come to same conclusion about system corrupting those who enter. it's easy to understand how corrupting process works --- from day1, new senator is expected to spend everyday raising so much campaign money that there's no room for anythingelse but eventually succumb to system and follow crowd of thousands of Kstreet guccishoed lobbyists.

Idisagree with twothings you said -- incremental change, and firebrand agitating / changing from outside the system.

Incremental change in time of big revolutionary social transformation won't cut it. Just take issue of crushing debtload, and absorb following badnews about Chinese losing taste for US debt. Multiply that problem few dozen or hundred times, and a thoughtful person would come to conclusion the system of PRIORITIES ARE WRONG.

"Firebrand" agitator for change maynot be the needed prescription. Don't fight fire with fire. Try "waterbrand". If blood&guts is coming to deadend of usefulness in solving human problem, try reason&gentleness. It couldn't do anyworse. It might be the paradyme change that's needed.

[meko]

It's not just the pursuit of funds that would affect the mindset of a new senator.

I don't see why one should assume that Kennedy has these outsider views. I doubt they're the core of discussion in her social circle. Kennedys haven't been leaders in the fight against the military-industrial complex. If Ted Kennedy hasn't done it, and he's her guide and mentor, why should we assume she would?

If she doesn't really understand how finance works (and there is a bit of information and math to digest if you really hope to understand interest theory, the time value of money, the use of leverage, etc.) who will teach her? A reasonable guess might be friend Mayor Bloomberg. Is he going to reinforce the values you're talking about? Even without corruption due to the need for money, isn't she likely to take on the biases of those who are teaching her?

"Conventional wisdom" and the desire to fit in with ones peers is a far more powerful influence than a need for funds. I don't see why we should assume that Kennedy will be a leader in an area where she's demonstrated no interest. It seems a bit of wishful thinking to me.

[offred]

I'd like to see Caroline Kennedy withdraw from consideration and spend the next two years in a crash course in being a legislator. She's got access to great tutors: Edward Kennedy, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Patrick Kennedy, Joseph Kennedy Jr.

[beaupritchard]

I'd like to see Clinton withdraw from Secretary of State and Caroline be appointed in her place.

[TheBaffler]

A great idea!

[meko]

One more poll to hurt Kennedy: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NY_106.pdf

Cuomo has a 20% lead over King, Kennedy is within the margin of error on the poll.

I think this Kennedy as juggernaut myth isn't going to last for long.

[glorialovelace]

I think that if Paterson appoints Kennedy, he will be on notice that the appointment is controversial and unpopular with a large segment of the public. If he were to appoint one of the others, he wouldn't have a problem. Some of us have favorites, but most of us would be okay with just about any of the other choices.

[meko]

It's likely for things to get worse for her as New Yorkers read more about the other 5 people under consideration who aren't necessarily from their part of the state (Maloney, Israel, Gillibrand, Nadler and Suozzi).

The "name recognition trumps experience" argument will become less and less meaningful as their names become more recognized. Further attention from the press is likely to benefit them, but it seems to only hurt Kennedy. The more she becomes a person, and the less she is a symbol, the more vulnerable she will be to criticism.

There is a lot of talent in New York. If you read and compare the records of all of these people, one can't help but notice that choosing any of them is more easily defensible for Patterson than taking a risk on Kennedy.

[beaupritchard]

I think Caroline is going to be appointed within the next ten days ...

[Doofus]

As said elsewhere, if CK turns out to be an effective Senator, and
if she campaigns successfully in 2010, Paterson will be a hero.
It's a risk he's probably willing to take. NY has chosen the celebrity
too many times to not do so again.

[Hastings]

Ah, you know, like, ah, ah, my people will handle, ah, you know, like, all those, ah, you know, pesky details, like, ah, you know, issues.

[Chopin]

Two weeks of intensive coaching and practice with a public speaking consultant or speech therapist would fix that. People should be more concerned about the important things, like content of character, personality and temperament. Those aspects of a person don't change so easily. They can determine judgment, courage, wisdom, dedication to public service, motivation, etc. Any of those personal traits outweighs a public speech defect. Have a sense of proportion of what's important !

[miamia]

That was a thinking defect not a speech defect.

Are her speech coaches going to do that for her too?

[meko]

I don't know how we are to determine what a person's "judgment, courage, wisdom, dedication, and motivation" are, independent of their experience. Personal traits, "on the inside" are pure speculation. It's like choosing a candidate based on how good a parent you think they are. How do you know what their private family life is like?

[Fernando]

I think that, uh, you know, she is like, you know, doing he most, like damage to her own campaign. You know.

[miamia]

That was terrible.

[Beachrunner]

Caroline S. Kennedy does too know New York! She can see ALL of Central Park from her 40th story penthouse!

[LiberalDemIda]

Class-envy? Or just classless? Then again, one doesn't necessarily exclude the other.

[melponeme k]

No one cares what kind of money the Keeennnnnedy family has or any of the other Richie Richs.

But when they use that money clout to promote themselves to faux aristocratic dynasties in the people's government then there is a problem.

[meko]

When people say that the reason NOT to choose someone who's passed progressive legislation is that they don't have the family name, wealth and connections to do the job, I think it's fair to mock said name, wealth and connections.

[ResistanceisFutile]

She has lived in New York her entire life.

[glorialovelace]

If I were an human resources person looking for somebody to hire for an important job, I wouldn't make length of residence in the state a criterion. I'd just look for the best person who meets the qualifications for the job. That's how Hillary Clinton got elected despite the fact that she was a relative newcomer to New York.

[jsomerville5]

Nope, she lived in DC for four years. Then she was away at boarding school in Massachusetts as a teen, and attended Harvard after that.

[miamia]

She lived in the white house so she will make an excellent President.

[Acleacius]

As long as the public allows politicians to fundraiser for their own campaigns, instead of forcing all candidates to get a EQUAL and SET amount with NO PRIVATE funding, all coming from public funding then their will be a need to FUND RAISE.

Don't complain becasue an Excellent Fundraiser is chosen, it's the PUBLIC'S fault for allowing Fund raising, Period. There is no such thing as Money = Free Speech. There will always be corruption if politicians are allowed to collect money. No Collecting Money - Corruption = More Work.

So go ahead piss and moan about something YOU COULD STOP if you really cared.

So Do You Feel, Lucky?

[meko]

I think fame would be even more important if everyone had to run with equal dollars.

There is a problem with the argument, though. The person with the biggest warchest doesn't always win. If money alone mattered, Mitt Romney would have been the GOP nominee for president, Steve Forbes would have been a presidential nominee, and Michael Huffington would have been a senator.

Whomever is appointed is going to have to convince New Yorkers of their prowess as a legislator and their knowledge of their concerns. Those candidates who've held statewide office, have the advantage of having already reached out to all the voters (Cuomo). Those in Congress have the advantage of having legislative records already (Maloney, Nadler, Gillbrand, Israel, etc.)

Kennedy has neither. She just has money, fame and "potential". But any incumbent is going to get money and fame. She's going to have to campaign throughout the state and meet the regular voters (something all the other candidates have experience in) and she's going to have to have some legislation to her name (something all the other candidates have experience in) to overcome her neophyte rep.

In other words, Kennedy does not have the lock on the general election that her PR people claim.

[meko]

Another example of a big-spending loser - Tom Golisano, who just endorsed Caroline Kennedy. He's a Republican now, which I guess makes Caroline Kennedy a bipartisan favorite of billionaires.

New Yorkers are likely familiar with this billionaire who spent $93 million of his own funds running for governor in 2002, 1998, and 1994 getting 12%, 8% and 4% of the vote respectively. Money doesn't always buy the general election after all.

[Acleacius]

All good points for the most part, yet the most often people with the biggest war chest do win if they are Smart or on the opposite side Corrupt.

Mitt has cult religious status, good or bad it's accurate.

Michael Huffington did he get elected in 1992, helped by a big war chest?

There is probably a reason Forbes didn't run or couldn't win, for good or bad. Clearly 2 of the last 3 gop presidents relied on, personality money to get elected and clearly lacked any idea of complex thought.

I can't speak for New York but, I know Texas could use a good honest person, like Caroline whom core principals allow her to work for the betterment of society through charities and schools.

Personally all this savvy crap gets in the way more than it helps. Why fill up a house with giant egos, when you can have one full of compassionate, intelligent and whom sets goals with a record of achievement?

Let me ask you a question, you don't have to answer publicly, but would you rather have a mother running your house, raising you from a child to an adult, Caroline, Mitt Romey, Steve Forbes or Michael Huffington? Who would you trust? Why should it be different in our societies? Why should we trust people to lead out nation and the world, when we wouldn't trust them in our own lives?

Ok that was several questions. :P

[meko]

If I were looking for a senate candidate who was "compassionate, intelligent and whom sets goals with a record of achievement", I'd be even more likely to look to the Congressional Reps who are under consideration (Maloney, Nadler, Gillbrand, Israel). They have a record. And they've been in the public eye for a while, so I think that it's unfair to assume that they're more likely to scandalize us than someone who hasn't faced similar scrutiny.

I imagine Maloney and Gillibrand are both good mothers - I see no reason to believe otherwise. I expect Jerry Nadler is a good father. And I think there's no reason not to trust Steve Israel around the kids even if he hasn't had any.

Kennedy is up against these people, not the worst of the senate, and not the biggest big-money losers in election history. The choice shouldn't be Yes/No on her, but on who's the best.

The reason I bring up the big-money losers is that I think people are overestimating the value that her wealth brings to the table. Money alone doesn't win elections.

[AmandaBC]

"Shouldn't It Be Somebody Who Knows New York Better?"

You mean, like a Chicago native who's lived in Little Rock and Washington DC? ;)

[beaupritchard]

Caroline isn't self important enough for some ... no ... if you don't think the world revolves around you ... if you're not out there telling people how much they need you ... how priveledge they are to be in your presence ... well you can't be the junior senator from New York say some.

[melponeme k]

Snidely telling a reporter working for one of the most important newspapers in America that they are better suited for a woman's magazine is not self important.

It is the very picture of self importance.

[commonsense2]

How about NEITHER of them???

THERE ARE OTHER CANDIDATES OUT THERE PEOPLE!!! SOME FROM UPSTATE!!!

Go Kirsten Gillibrand! Go Carolyn Maloney!

[melponeme k]

Yes!

Or even Nydia Velazquez

Any of these dedicated and elected officials would be fantastic and a sound NO to dynastic politics.

[jsomerville5]

Kirsten Gillibrand, who's on the Armed Services Committee and has worked for Clinton at HUD and was actually elected to office.

[meko]

Or Jerry Nadler. The senator doesn't HAVE to be a woman, after all.

[Irish55]

Exactly. Never been a big Andrew Cuomo (liked his father tho') and while I like Caroline - not sure she has what it takes. BTW: not to inject a National Enquirer mentality into this but does anyone remember that Andrew Cuomo was, at one time, married to one of Caroline's cousin - a Kennedy?
Interesting, no?

[Irish55]

sorry, meant to say, "never been a big Andrew Cuomo fan". And make that "cousin's" not cousin. sorry for the typos

[LiberalDemIda]

And his ex-wife came on television and had the gall not to support ex-hubby, but her cousin. Ssssst, that must sting.

[glorialovelace]

For more information on that, see:

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2003/07/04/2003-07-04_meet_the_other_man_say_polo_.html

[oafishcad]

Cuomo would be a more effective and knowledgeable choice. Caroline would be a celebrity choice. Sounds like star power is going to win out. Best of luck to the citizens of New York. Who knows what will happen? My sister hated Hillary, until she was Senator. Then she thought she was a good and effective Senator promoting the State's best interests.

[rudyinbama]

Patterson should appoint himself and exit the Albany rats' nest.
That would at least give us one black senator who wasn't tainted by having been appointed by a corrupt white governor.
He's also charming, smart and qualified.

[LiberalDemIda]

Had Eliot Spitzer not buckled under the pressure by Democrats and resigned while he didn't have to (he did nothing wrong) Paterson would've surely cast his name into the mix for the seat. I read he wanted to run for Senator, so this must be hard on him.

[AnAverageAmerican]

Spitzer did nothing wrong? Has prostitution been legalized?

[jsomerville5]

Spitzer did nothing wrong ?? Uh, you are aware that he was employing the services of prostitiution rings - the very rings he busted as Governor and was always ranting about in press conferences ?? You're delusional. Whether you agree with the law or not, he didn't just break the law- he was the world's worst kind of hypocrite.

[glorialovelace]

That was the original plan before the Spitzer debacle. That Paterson would be appointed to Clinton's seat, if she had been elected.

[sunny555]

OMG, Blue Moose, you are still here? You must be a "bored housewife" lol. I just returned from a meeting with my staff, btw

[VegasBabe]

I have nothing but respect and admiration for Caroline Kennedy and she will bring to the Senate and to New Yorkers, leadership and sound judgement and they are lucky to have her. It's sad that some here don't see that as well. She is as good a candidate if not better than anyone else going for it, with a long family history of public service.

[LiberalDemIda]

Most are closeted repubs, some bitter HRC people, but none seem to see that new brooms sweep clean. This is what's wrong with our government. Kennedy lacks political experience, but in a day and age of cronyism, corruption, a Dem party infighting between the Progressives and the Repub-lites, and the Grand Old Party morphing into the Grand Obstructionists Party isn't it time we get some people in that care more about the people than their campaign coffers?

[glorialovelace]

Most of us live in New York and know what we are talking about, which definitely excludes YOU.

[meko]

When I read posts on HuffPo, more than half of the people objecting to Caroline Kennedy are progressives.

[AnAverageAmerican]

Give me a break. Just because her father was president, her uncles were blah, blah, blah, does not mean she is fit to be sentor of New York, especially since I live in New York!

[jsomerville5]

Um, you must not be from New York...Everyone I know in NY doesn't want Kennedy anywhere near the senate. According to the latest polls, that is the majority opinion in NY

[banja]

The Kennedy family has stood up for the poor, immigrants, refugees, workers, the invisible among us, civil rights, universal health, quality education and have died in the line of duty for this country. It is shameful the way people are treating Caroline. NY should be excited to have her as Senator. I frankly don't know about the Cuomo clan and what they have done for the country.

[swe123]

and you frankly don't know anything about NY or it's needs and concerns

[glorialovelace]

Anybody who doesn't know about the Cuomos doesn't live in New York and therefore has nothing to say about this appointment. Case closed.

[sunny555]

Who are you? The judge and jury? Why don't you close your OWN case.

[sunny555]

I live in NY and I can tell you about them, as my husband and I have actually met the elder Mr. Cuomo and know a couple of unreported things about the family.

They are big -- and I mean big -- d__cks, as arrogant as they come.

[glorialovelace]

Tell us about what you know about the Cuomos. Why keep it under your hat, when the purpose of the discussion is to enlighten people and correct misinformation?

[meko]

I think the list of progressive achievements of Andrew Cuomo and Carolyn Maloney are vastly superior to those of Caroline Kennedy.

This appointment is not appointing a family, but a single person. That person should be chosen based on what he or she brings to the table as an individual, not based on what their parents could do in the position.

[jsomerville5]

How has Caroline stood up for the immigrants and refuges and invisible among us ? And civil rights and universal health care ? Last time I checked, she's the one running, not her ancestors. Just because you liked what they did is no reason to think she'd be a good candidate.