Keep Senator Feingold

US Senator Russell D Feingold has served the people of Wisconsin since 1983: first in the State Senate for ten years, then as US Senator since 1993. He has been a thoughtful and independent voice in both legislative bodies, and has earned re-election next week.

I do not agree with every position or vote he has taken, maybe no one does. For example, the Senator opposed the Clinton-era free-trade agreements,such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which I think were basically good. But he has been right more than wrong:

USAPATRIOT Act: Feingold voted against this major intrusion of Big Government into the lives of Americans, and it was passed over his objections. Later many members of Congress recognized its faults.

Iraq: Feingold was always against this war, and today we know that it was sold to the nation on false pretenses (remember Sadam's WMD?). With American troops on the way out, the new Iraqi government is turning to Iran for guidance and political support. How many American lives was that worth?

Campaign Finance: Feingold joined with Republican Senator John McCain to draft a bill limiting and regulating spending in federal elections, which was signed into law by President George W Bush. Some provisions have been ruled unconstitutional, but I contend it was a worthy bi-partisan effort to deal with the problem of buying political influence, which is as serious as ever now.

Congressional Ethics: Feingold sponsored the toughest restrictions ever on the acceptance of gifts (even free meals) by members of Congress.

Wasteful Spending: He is now working with Rep. Paul Ryan (R, Wisconsin) to craft a presidential line-item veto. (1)

Healthcare Reform: Feingold voted for this bill that regulated, but did not take-over, the health-insurance business. He is proud of his vote, and so am I.

The Republican nominee, Ron Johnson, is making his first try for public office, so he has no record of public service to evaluate. His campaign statements indicate that he is highly partisan (2) and has only superficial knowledge of the workings of the federal government.(3) He has spoken of cutting "billions of dollars" from the federal budget (1), but won't say what he wants to cut. He believes that the Obama Healthcare bill was a federal takeover, but the final bill did not even include a "public option".

If Johnson were elected, it is hard to imagine him partnering with a Democratic senator to craft legislation, something he has never done at all. He should stick to plastics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, October 24, 2010, page 3J.

(2) Johnson told a Tea Party rally that he would have gladly given President George W Bush the enhanced presidential powers in the USAPATRIOT Act, but did not want Obama to have them.

(3) Johnson claimed that the money in the Social Security Trust Fund was "gone", while in reality it is guaranteed by federal bonds, the world's safest interest-bearing investment.

Citizen Zuckerman

"Mortimer Zuckerman, publisher of The NY Daily News, is mulling a run for the Senate against (Senator) Kirsten Gillibrand."
NY Times, Feb. 12, 2010

If Zuckerman decides to run, he will become the real-life " avatar" of the fictional Charles Foster Kane, a wealthy newspaper owner who runs for governor in the film classic Citizen Kane. The film was loosely based upon the career of another real-life newspaper tycoon with political ambitions: William Randolph Hearst. ( So life imitates art, which in turn, imitates life.)


Although Zuckerman is now a US citizen, he was born in Quebec, Canada, in 1937. He earned his bachelor's degree at McGill University in 1957 and an MBA at Wharton in 1961. After teaching at Harvard and Yale Business Schools, he went into the real estate business. He founded Boston Properties in 1970, and went on to make a fortune, now estimated at about $2 billion, in New York commercial real estate. In addition to the Daily News, Zuckerman also owns US News and World Report, and previously owned the Atlantic Monthly.(1)

Mort Zuckerman has been active in Jewish and Zionist causes for many years, and served as Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations from 2001 to 2003. He is a frequent participant in the McLaughlin Group, a Saturday night gabfest carried on many public TV stations.

Although he holds liberal views on social issues, he may seek the Republican nomination for Senator or perhaps run as an independent. Either way, he has an excellent chance of success, and here is why:

Financial Expertise: The economy is the big issue today, and Mort Zuckerman has proved he knows financial markets. On the McLaughlin Group in January, 2008, he accurately forecast the crisis that exploded about eight months later. (2) Zuckerman says now that the stimulus was not big enough.
So, even if he runs as a Republican, he will not follow GOP leadership in the Senate on economic issues, and he will not tolerate fillibusters. Instead, he would be a voice for compromise between the parties to reduce the deficit, which Zuckerman sees as the most serious problem facing the nation.

Adequate Funding. If nobody gives Zuckerman a dime for his campaign, he can easily pay for a powerful one out of his own wealth. If Mike Bloomberg can do it, so can Mort. New Yorkers don't seem to mind.

Endorsements: Zuckerman owns the Daily News, and the New York Post has already supported his candidacy. US News and World Report will probably look kindly upon him, too.

Weak Incumbent: Kirsten Gillibrand was appointed to the Senate less than a year ago to fill the seat vacated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (3) She has not had enough time to make a significant record in the Senate. This will be her first race for statewide office.
Although the Democratic nomination is usually a big plus in New York, in 2010 she will be dragged down by association with President Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership. Obama carried New York easily in 2008, but he has squandered much of his political capital in the state by pressuring Israel about settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem. I do not believe that Senator Gillibrand will dare to break with Obama on this issue, since she needs the support of the national Democratic Party. The President's party usually loses seats in the mid-term congressional elections, and this could well be one of them.

The Jewish Factor: The Jewish vote is crucial to winning statewide races in New York, and Mort Zuckerman is perfectly positioned to take the lion's share, especially if he plays the Israel card effectively. President Obama's support for the Palestinian cause will hurt Democrats everywhere in 2o10, but nowhere more than in New York State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Wikipedia

(2) The Glazerbeam advisory to sell all stocks ("Maxed Out", January 20, 2008) was based upon Zuckerman's prediction. The DJIA was over 12,000 then. Was he right or was he right?

(3) The last appointed senator from New York was Republican Charles Goodell, who had been picked by Gov. Nelson Rockefeller to complete the term of assassinated Senator Robert F Kennedy in 1968. He lost in 1970 to Conservative Party nominee James L Buckley.

Seat Senator Burris

"When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate...The legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments ..."
Amendment XVII to the US Constitution ( in part)

"Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members..."
Article I, Section 5 of the US Constitution (in part)

On Tuesday, December 30, 2008, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich appointed Roland Burris, former Attorney General of the state, to the US Senate seat vacated by President-Elect Barack Obama, in accordance with the 17th Amendment quoted above and Illinois law. However, since Blagojevich is facing charges of trying to sell that Senate seat :
1. Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White indicated that he would refuse to certify this appointment.
2. Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said that under the circumstances any Blagojevich appointee "would serve under a shadow" and should not be seated.

Who is right? Who is wrong?

1. Certification
I contend that the Secretary of State of Illinois has a legal duty to certify this appointment and any other lawful acts of the incumbent Governor. The certification requirement is merely an administrative act, like a notary public certifying a document. I do not believe that the people of Illinois ever intended to give the Secretary State a type of veto power over the acts of the Governor, especially one not constrained by an override provision. If Mr White is correct, the Secretary of State is more powerful than the Governor, whose veto is subject to legislative override.
If White refuses to certify the appointment, Blagojevich should have the document authenticated by an attorney and forward it to the Senate. If the question goes to court, I believe that the ruling will support the Governor's right to make the appointment effective without the consent of the Secretary of State.

2. Seating the Nominee in the Senate
In 1969 the US Supreme Court ruled that the House of Representatives did not have the authority to exclude Rep. Adam Clayton Powell (D, NY) (1). Since the Constitutional provision cited above about the right of each house to judge the qualifications of its members applies to the Senate as well as the House of Representatives, that decision should be dispositive in the Burris case, especially since Burris (unlike Powell) is not personally suspected of corruption.
I contend that if a person has been appointed to a Senate vacancy in accordance with the laws of the state in which the vacancy occurred, the Senate must accept the new senator, "shadow" or no "shadow." If Harry Reid and his colleagues believe they have the right to reject a nominee because of charges pending against the Governor of the state, I say they are wrong and will be ordered by a federal court (perhaps even the US Supreme Court) to seat Burris.

3. Political Ramifications
Rod Blagojevich is facing both impeachment proceedings and federal indictment. Since the rules of impeachment are much more flexible than those of a criminal conviction, there is a better chance that he will be removed from office than convicted in court. But right now he legitimately exercises all the legal powers of the Governor of Illinois, just as President Bill Clinton acted as President even after impeachment and while on trial in the Senate in 1998. I do not recall Senator Reid questioning Clinton's prerogatives of office at that time, including his right to fill vacancies in federal offices. Did Reid believe that Clinton or his appointees were "serving under a shadow?" Not that I recall.
Burris, who is not one of the senate candidates mentioned in the notorious Blagojevich wiretap tapes, has served in various high Illinois offices (off and on) since 1973, without scandal. In Illinois, that is not a routine achievement. He was chosen probably because he is the only living Illinois Democrat not actively working to either impeach or indict the Governor. It was politically astute for Blagojevich to pick a black senator, since other black politicians (such as Rep. Bobby Rush) could be expected to support the nomination. Moreover, it will be embarrassing for Democratic senators and/or Obama to publicly oppose seating the nominee. (2)

The Illinois legislature has had nearly two months (since Obama won the presidency) to change the law so that vacancies in the state's two US Senate seats would be filled by special election instead of appointment by the Governor. The legislature failed to act, the Governor did act, and now Roland Burris is legitimately the junior senator from Illinois. Live with it, and move on!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Powell vs McCormack. Powell, a corrupt and arrogant politician, was expelled from the House in 1967, and later lost the Democratic Primary in Harlem to Charles Rangel, who continues to represent the district.

(2) If US senators were chosen at random from the American people, about 12 of them would be black. Right now, none are.