Democracy and the Senate (II)

The notion that the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald represent ideologically opposite editorial positions is overblown. The Herald and its editorial-page editor, Rachelle Cohen, aren't really all that conservative. And the Globe, whose editorial page recently transitioned from longtime editor Renée Loth to former Washington-bureau chief Peter Canellos, is just contrarian enough on issues like charter schools to keep liberals agitated.

An exception is today. The Globe offers its full-throated endorsement to Sen. Ted Kennedy's proposal that would allow Gov. Deval Patrick to name an interim senator in the event of a vacancy. The interim would serve until a special election could be held five months later. With Kennedy's battle against brain cancer apparently entering its final stages, the matter has taken on special urgency.

In supporting Kennedy's proposal, the Globe criticizes the Legislature for having taken the gubernatorial appointment away five years ago, when it appeared that Sen. John Kerry might be elected president and Democratic leaders at the Statehouse did not want then-governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, to name Kerry's successor. The Globe calls the 2004 law "a partisan bill."

Which, of course, it was. And which leads the Herald to invoke that same 2004 action as a reason to reject Kennedy's current proposal, in an editorial headlined "Hypocrisy factor."

Yet Kennedy is not proposing that the 2004 be repealed. Instead, he's suggesting a slight tweak that would benefit the state, which otherwise would go without a vote in the Senate for five months. (I'll note without comment that Massachusetts went without two full-time senators during Kerry's presidential campaign and, now, through long stretches of Kennedy's illness.)

Kennedy's idea is to choose a person who would make a personal pledge not to run in the special election. The Herald observes that Romney had proposed a similar provision only to get shot down. But that's no reason not to adopt a good idea now. And I'll go one better. Assuming there isn't some constitutional reason not to do it, why not write the no-run requirement directly into the Kennedy proposal and give it the force of law?

Obviously that's not going to satisfy Herald columnist Howie Carr, who portrays Kennedy's move as one last grand gesture of deathbed hackery — and makes much of the fact that Kennedy's letter to state leaders, reportedly sent on Tuesday, is dated July 2 (a catch made yesterday by friend of Media Nation Beth Wellington). Carr takes the mysterious timing of the letter as a sign that Kennedy's time is almost up, and he may be right.

But so what? This strikes me as a can't-lose idea. The benefit of the 2004 law would remain intact — Kennedy's successor would be chosen at the ballot box, not by the governor. Meanwhile, the state would continue to have representation in the Senate.

Which is why I'm especially intrigued by Globe columnist Scot Lehigh's suggestion that former governor Michael Dukakis fill the role as interim senator. (Disclosure: Dukakis is a colleague of mine at Northeastern, although only to the extent that we exchange hand waves.)

Media Nation commenter Amused thinks Dukakis "comes with too much baggage, a lot of it unjustifiable." I disagree. Dukakis' three terms as governor did not end well, but, outside the exceedingly small universe of talk radio, he is mainly seen as competent and honest. And, as Lehigh notes, Dukakis knows health-care policy. It's a great idea.

A final note. Also in the Herald, once and future Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom quotes from a 2004 Boston Phoenix editorial supporting the bill that took away the gubernatorial appointment. I may well have had a hand in writing that editorial — I recognize some of the clichés as being all mine.

But the editorial specifically objected to the idea of a governor filling the remainder of a senator's term if his seat became vacant. In Kerry's case, that would have been two years. By contrast, what we're talking about now is having an interim, temporary senator appointed as soon as there's a vacancy, followed by a special election five months later. That's quite a difference.

Democracy and the Senate

Ted Kennedy, battling brain cancer, strikes exactly the right balance in his letter (pdf) to state officials on how his seat in the U.S. Senate should be filled.

In a story broken by the Boston Globe's Frank Phillips, Kennedy endorses a 2004 law that took away the governor's ability to fill a Senate vacancy and gave it to the voters instead. But Kennedy also calls for an amendment allowing the governor to appoint an interim senator who would serve during the five-month period preceding the special election. Finally, Kennedy suggests that the governor appoint someone who promises not to seek election.

The law was changed five years ago when it looked like Sen. John Kerry might be elected president. Legislative leaders wanted to make sure that then-governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, would not have the ability to choose Kerry's successor. Once and future Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom refers to that on Twitter today:

Wishing Dems now calling for Gov to appt Kennedy replacement stood with Romney in 2004 when they took that power away from him.

(Fun random fact: I ran into Fehrnstrom on the summit of Mt. Monadnock recently.)

But Democrats did the right thing then, even if it was for partisan reasons. As Kennedy suggests, they should leave the law alone, but not let the seat go unfilled for five months.

The wisdom of the 2004 law was proved after President Obama's election last fall. First, then-Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich disgraced himself and his office by putting Obama's Senate seat up for sale — an action that led to federal corruption charges against him. The appointment went to the supposedly incorruptible Roland Burris, who turned out to be highly tainted himself.

Then, after Obama named Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York as his secretary of state, Gov. Donald Paterson turned the appointment of a successor into a circus, using anonymous aides to smear Caroline Kennedy, who wanted the job but was clearly unprepared. The post eventually went to an obscure Albany-area congresswoman, Kirsten Gillenbrand.

No one is suggesting that Gov. Deval Patrick would pull a Blago or even a Paterson. But senators should be elected, not appointed, as has been the case since the 17th Amendment took effect in 1913. Kennedy's proposal honors that proposition while plugging an unnecessary gap.

Photo of Kennedy (cc) by Will White and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

The Globe's Kennedy book makes a splash

"Last Lion," the book version of the Boston Globe's series on Ted Kennedy, edited by Washington bureau chief Peter Canellos, will be number seven on the New York Times' bestseller list next week. I never cease to be amazed at how much appetite there is out there for material about the Kennedy family.

Further thoughts on the Ted Kennedy series

Last week I wrote about why I wasn't reading the Boston Globe's series on the life and career of Ted Kennedy. Today I want to explain why I think the Globe was smart to take on such a project.

One of the major challenges facing newspapers these days is figuring out how to draw traffic over a long period of time. Readers do not spend as much time with an online paper as they do with a print edition. When a news organization puts a lot of effort into a project, it makes sense to present it in such a way that readers will come back to it several times, and that other readers will discover it long after it's been published.

With its skillfully done multimedia presentation, the Globe has ensured that the series will draw people in for some time to come. Though we might wish it were otherwise, Sen. Kennedy has come to the end of his life, even if he is able to enjoy some productive weeks and months ahead. When he passes on, the Globe series will stand as an important resource.

And it's not just the text. Through historical front pages, political cartoons and video, the Globe has fleshed out its series in ways that words alone would not be able to accomplish. I've had a chance to watch a few of the videos. The video that accompanies Chapter 2 (produced by Ann Silvio), on the death of Robert Kennedy, is particularly moving. There's a sequence in which Walter Mondale tries to recall Ted Kennedy's words at the funeral, spliced with the actual eulogy, that will send shivers up your spine.

The Globe also deserves credit, at this delicate moment, for serving readers rather than the Kennedys. Last week the Boston Herald's "Inside Track" reported, "Word on the Hill is that some Kennedy staffers are quite unhappy with the series, finding it far too critical of Ted."

Indeed, in reading bits and pieces of the series, I was struck by how unsparing it was with respect to Kennedy's behavior in the Chappaquiddick affair, and with his drinking and womanizing — problems he has long since put behind him, but which remain an important part of his story.

So when Kennedy agreed to talk with my former Boston Phoenix colleague Mark Leibovich of the New York Times over the weekend, I took it as a bit of puckish revenge on Kennedy's part. After all, Kennedy had refused to speak to the Globe.

My friend the Outraged Liberal suggests that there must be some long faces at 135 Morrissey Blvd. over being bigfooted by their larger corporate cousin. Mr. O.L. may be right. But I'd say the Globe ought to take Kennedy's interview with the Times as a signal that it had been appropriately tough.

Taking a pass on the Ted Kennedy series

No, I'm not reading the Boston Globe's Ted Kennedy series, either. As a 50-something political junkie, I don't need yet another overview of Kennedy's life and career, no matter how comprehensive and well-executed it is. And I'll assume it's quite good.

For me, the more interesting question is this: Who's the intended audience? Clearly the timing is based on Kennedy's terminal illness. Kennedy has been much in the news, and there are probably a lot of younger people out there who don't know that much about him.

Can the Globe lure the under-30s in with an effort like this? I suspect it's a tough sell, although anyone who doesn't know much about Kennedy ought to spend some time with the Globe series.

Not to be morbid, but the Globe has also positioned itself well for Kennedy's death, both with its online multimedia package and an accompanying book, "Last Lion," edited by Washington bureau chief Peter Canellos.

But I agree with Mr. Outraged Liberal: Right now, the series isn't generating any buzz at all.

Accurate, but almost certainly not true

If the New York Times doesn't want to run with something it can't confirm, I've got no problem with that. Still, it's a little unsettling to see the paper go with the patently ludicrous explanation from "a person told of her decision" that Caroline Kennedy is dropping out of the running for the U.S. Senate because of Ted Kennedy's illness.

The New York Post, citing anonymous sources, reports that Kennedy withdrew after she learned that New York Gov. David Paterson wasn't going to pick her.

Ted Kennedy has been fighting terminal brain cancer for months. His seizure yesterday, while scary, changes nothing.

It's been obvious for some time now that Caroline Kennedy wasn't going to the Senate. I guess her uncle's health problems gave her a graceful exit. But that doesn't mean the Times has to play along.

Good news about Ted Kennedy?

Yes, according to Boston.com. Reportedly his seizure today was brought on by simple exhaustion.

Meanwhile, the Charleston Gazette reports that Robert Byrd, initially thought to have taken ill as well, left the luncheon because he was upset about Kennedy's collapse.

Kennedy's health scare is a serious down note on an otherwise glorious day. Media Nation extends its best wishes to the senator and his family.

Kennedy's dramatic speech

We won't have a more dramatic moment all week than Ted Kennedy's speech. I was stunned — I figured he'd wave and say a couple of words. Instead, he delivered one of his patented stem-winders.

If his health continues to improve, it's easy to imagine his returning to the Senate next January, as he vowed to do.

Thoughts on Ted Kennedy's illness

In my latest for the Guardian, I try to explain what it's like for Ted Kennedy to be one of our senators rather than a world and national symbol — and how it feels to be preparing for his passing.

Ted Kennedy has brain cancer

Associated Press reporter Glen Johnson writes that Sen. Ted Kennedy has been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. Though the prognosis is uncertain, this is truly bad news both for the Kennedy family and for Massachusetts.

According to Johnson's story, the usual course of treatment is radiation and chemotherapy, with survival ranging from less than a year to five years or more. Obviously it's way too soon to tell whether Kennedy might be able to return to a vigorous and effective Senate career, but it's a real possibility.

Sen. Arlen Specter, for one, has served while battling various forms of cancer, including a brain tumor, since the early 1990s.

Photo (cc) by diggersf and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

Ted Kennedy's illness

Sen. Ted Kennedy has fallen ill, and Media Nation extends its best wishes. Meanwhile, there are signs of early media confusion over what's wrong.

The Boston Herald reports that Kennedy experienced "stroke-like symptoms." The Cape Cod Times, whose account of Kennedy's illness is otherwise thorough, makes no mention of the nature of the senator's illness. (Those two links via Universal Hub.)

By contrast, the Boston Globe, relying on an anonymous "official briefed on the situation," tells us that Kennedy suffered a seizure, then a second as he was being transported by helicopter to Massachusetts General Hospital.

Not that the Herald and the Globe couldn't both be right.

Instant update: The Herald's Casey Ross has more details, and describes Kennedy's "stroke-like symptoms" as "mild." And the AP, among others, is also using the phrase "stroke-like symptoms."

The Clinton-Kennedy split

In my latest for the Guardian, I ponder Ted Kennedy's decision to throw Hillary Clinton over the side of the yacht last week — a far more significant move than his endorsement of Barack Obama earlier this year.

An old lie recycled

Unexpectedly, it's turned into Charlie Pierce Week here at Media Nation. Why? Because conservative media critic Tim Graham is smearing Pierce with a five-year-old lie — a lie that Graham had a hand in spreading in the first place.

Pierce has a story in the new Esquire on the presidential campaign. Graham doesn't like it very much. Fair enough. But Graham, writing for NewsBusters, begins with this:

Charles Pierce is the infamous Boston Globe writer who tried to insist in 2003 that if Mary Jo Kopechne had survived Chappaquiddick, she would enjoy all the senior citizen benefits provided by Ted Kennedy's beneficent policies.

Graham links to an old item at his own organization, the Media Research Center, which later bestowed on Pierce its "Quote of the Year" for what it considered his extreme liberal bias.

I've written about this several times before, and I don't feel like doing it again; just read this and this. As you will see, Graham deliberately misconstrues what may be the single meanest thing ever written about Ted Kennedy (by a liberal, anyway), strips out the irony and sarcasm, and then pretends that Pierce is tastelessly using Kopechne's death to praise Kennedy.

Since the record has been corrected several times, Graham is no longer mistaken. Now he's lying.

The Kennedys and the Clintons

It's hard to imagine that anyone would base his or her vote on what a Kennedy says. (Especially this one!) Still, it's pretty interesting that both Caroline Kennedy and Sen. Ted Kennedy would endorse Barack Obama on the same weekend.

Caroline Kennedy's choice, which she reveals in an op-ed piece for the New York Times, is all the more impressive because she submitted it before last night's South Carolina blowout. For all she knew, her op-ed was going to appear on a very good day for Hillary Clinton — that is, the day after a narrow loss in South Carolina and bulging leads in most other states. Whatever the opposite is of inevitable, that's how Obama was starting to look, and Kennedy endorsed him anyway. As it turns out, she looks prescient.

As for Ted Kennedy, I have to assume his endorsement has been in the works for some time, and that he's been waiting for the moment when it would have maximum effect. With Super Tuesday coming up on Feb. 5, and with Massachusetts being a part of it, now's the time. I'm surprised by Kennedy's choice. The Clintons have always been wildly popular here, and Kennedy seemed to have enjoyed a good relationship with them. Did something happen? Or does he simply find Obama too impressive not to support?

With Sen. John Kerry and Gov. Deval Patrick also supporting Obama, that's the trifecta for the state's top three elected officials. House Speaker Sal DiMasi's endorsement of Clinton isn't looking all that significant right now.

Predictions, always futile, have been especially so this year. But I can confidently predict this: The next few days are going to be the roughest of Clinton's campaign, regardless of whether she has a happy Super Tuesday or not.

Photo (cc) by toastiest. Some rights reserved.