Those Unresolved Senate Seats

Four Senate Democrats are moving up in the DC pecking order-- Barack Obama (IL), the new President, Joe Biden (DE), the new Vice President, Hillary Clinton (NY), the new Secretary of State, and Ken Salazar (CO), the new Secretary of the Interior-- the most unscheduled openings since 9 senators died during Eisenhower's first term. And then there's the still not 100% resolved Minnesota race.

Ex-Senator Norm Coleman was narrowly defeated by Democrat Al Franken (by 225 votes out of over 2,900,000 cast). After endless counting and recounting, Coleman is dissatisfied with the outcome and is now suing to try to overturn his defeat. Minnesota politicians across the political spectrum are urging Coleman to give it up and think of the state instead of himself for a change.

Former Republican Gov. Arne Carlson said today that Norm Coleman should consider bowing out of the U.S. Senate election dispute.

"I don't think it's winnable," said Carlson, who served from 1991-99.

He said a court fight by Coleman contesting a recount that favors Democrat Al Franken could hurt the Republican's image.

"I think there will be a tremendous amount of public anger, I think it will hurt his reputation," Carlson said. "I think he's got to get on with his life. .. At some point you've got to recognize, it is over."

Colorado Governor Bill Ritter's fast decision to appoint Michael Bennet, although not without disagreement, was smart in terms of getting it over and done with, with the least drawn out public agony. By the time observers started pointing out that Bennet's approach is more right-wing and reactionary than a Democrat's should be-- or that America needs at this time, the nomination was a fait accompli.

The Delaware situation may be the next smoothest but even that one is odd. Our new egomaniac VP, was intent on being sworn in as a senator for the 7th time. That means his appointed successor (and chief of staff), Ted Kaufman, will have less seniority than freshmen senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Mark Begich (D-AK), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the Udall cousins (D-NM and D-CO), Mark Warner (D-VA), and Kay Hagan (D-NC), Mike Johanns (R-NE) and James Risch (R-ID).

After weeks of speculation, Biden's office announced Tuesday that he would resign from the seat Jan. 15, five days before he takes the oath of office as vice president. His former chief of staff, Ted Kaufman, will be appointed to serve in Biden's seat until a 2010 special election.

Biden chose to extend his Senate service even after President-elect Barack Obama resigned from his Senate seat shortly after the election. His friends said taking his final Senate oath was important to him.

"He wants to be able to tell his grandchildren he did it," said Mark Gitenstein, a Biden adviser who previously served on his Senate staff. "I just know that he feels it's important. He's told me that. I've been in meetings where he said, 'I really want to do this one last time.' "

Kaufman, 69, is widely considered a placeholder for Biden's son Beau (in the 2010 special election) who couldn't take the job just now because he's serving in Iraq.

In New York, Governor Paterson has seemed far more interested in finding a good, balanced running mate for his own 2010 re-election than for the best person to represent New York in the Senate. If he wanted to put the best person in the Senate he would have decided on Rep. Jerrold Nadler and that would have been that. Instead, he decided to play the role of ringmaster in a creepy circus. He dredged up the extremely unaccomplished (but certainly "nice" enough) Caroline Kennedy, although there has been so much opposition inside political circles that the nomination seems to be slowing down a bit. Apparently only the children of political dynasties are eligible.

Of course, the most dysfunctional situation of all is in Illinois, where a corrupt Gov. Blagojevich tried selling the seat and-- after being arrested-- suddenly decided to make a really good appointment. Jane Hamsher, in explaining why she'd love to play poker with Harry Reid, explains how Reid has shown anyone who's still wondering why he's just not the right person to serve as Senate Majority Leader. It now looks like Reid is backing away from his embarrassing position against seating Roland Burris. At least he knows where he stands on convicted felon Ted Stevens. Rachel Maddow on all this: video.

No wonder both Jeb Bush (R-FL) and Chris Matthews (D-PA) have taken themselves out of contention for 2010 Senate races!


UPDATE: KIT BOND (R-MO) WON'T SEEK RE-ELECTION IN 2010

Missouri's senior senator, the very conservative Kit Bond, announced this morning that he won't be seeking re-election. He served in the Senate since 1986 (after two terms as Missouri's governor) and has generally been a complete tool for Big Business and is "credited" with pushing Bush's unconstitutional and highly controversial FISA and torture legislation through the Senate. He's generally considered an asshole on both sides of the aisle. Secretary of State, Robin Carnahan and Congressman Russ Carnahan are both interested in running. Bond joins Sam Brownback (R-KS), Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) in announcing early retirement plans-- and dooming the GOP to another disastrous cycle, especially if Voinovich (R-OH) follows suit.

Silly NYT! Trying to stop anyone from talking about the relationship between Caroline and Pinch will have everyone talking about it!

Only Caroline and Pinch know the truth, but even the NYT
surely understands that it has become part of the story.

by Ken

Let me stress that I'm not aware of any independent verification of the rumors that Gawker has been hawking. That said, let's look at Pareene's report there on a NYT blog reader's report of having a comment deleted by an online censor:

Times City Room Will Not Mention Caroline Kennedy's Special Friendship With Pinch Sulzberger

Don't even bother to leave a comment at the Times local news blog suggesting a sexy patrician affair between the Senator-to-be and the publisher of the Times.

It seems like a mostly legitimate question to ask, doesn't it? Whether or not they're having sexy sexy old rich scion sex, the special friendship between Sulzberger and Kennedy is well-documented. And when the publisher of your paper is BFF with a public figure, asking whether that friendship affects coverage of that public figure is certainly fair game.

But no, no comments allowed asking about the affair. When this guy tried, the City Room editors asked him to please not bring it up again. "we don't report stuff like this, regardless of the people involved." Stuff like... what? The Times certainly does report on the sexual lives of public figures, all the damn time, from Giuliani to Spitzer to Paterson. But reporting on the Sulzbergers not so much.

For the record, in the e-mail exchange Gawker reproduces, the City Room points out to the complaining reader that "Paterson called a new conference," and this is absolutely true. Is it really that hard to see the difference between reporting on rumors and reporting on the subject matter of a public figure's own news conference?

So David Paterson, at least, is a lousy example. And I'm not sure that Giuliani or Spitzer is a better one. In both those cases, there was actual news being reported.

However, the reality is that the Times's situation is much graver than whether or not to report on unsubstantiated rumors, and I can't believe that they don't know it. Rightly or wrongly, their publisher has become part of the story of Ms. Kennedy's candidacy for the Senate appointment. Talk about a nightmare!

Imagine what it must be like if you're a high-ranking NYT editor -- and I guess, realistically, we're talking about the highest-ranking NYT editor, Exec Ed Bill Keller, since who else would dare talk to Pinch Sulzberger about this? I have to assume that the subject has already come up in conversation, though I'm not at all sure that our Bill has had the nerve to say, "Now lookit, Pinch, just between us, you gotta level with me. Is there any truth to these rumors, 'cause if so, do have you any idea the size damage-control problem we got?"

Talk about a conflict of interest! I have no idea how the paper would go about reporting on a story that includes its highest-ranking official.

Come to think of it, thanks to the gossip-mongers, the NYT is really in that situation regardless of the truth of the rumors, or lack thereof. Because now that Pinch has been dragged into the story, how can the paper claim that its coverage is uninfluenced by this if it continues to fail to acknowledge the involvement?

Damned if I see any way out for the poor buggers. The only thought that occurs to me is that it's Pinch's problem, and he's going to have to solve it. Certainly nobody else can. I think that means some kind of public statement, the very thing I assume all the Timespeople are trying to avoid. And that statement had better not be coy or weasel-worded, regardless of what the facts are, because in that case everybody's going to come down on them, and they'll deserve it.

#