Should Barack Obama Protect Senate Incumbents?

I seriously thought this morning about trying to explain to the loyal readers of this blog the utter nonsense that’s going on in the New York State Legislature. However, that soap opera will probably change before midday from what I’m reading. Besides, when I talk to friends about it, their eyes glaze over after less than a minute. Another post, another day.

Today let’s talk about President Obama, and whether he wants to get involved in possible challenges to incumbent US Senators. We already know he dissuaded one potential challenger to newly minted Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.


Now she faces a challenge from veteran New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, and indications are she won’t back down no matter what the president says.

There’s also the matter of Pennsylvania, where Republican turned Democrat Arlen Specter could face Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak in a primary.


Like Maloney, he’s saying a possible Obama intervention won’t stop him from making a run. So now the question is this. Will President Obama risk putting political capital on the line to keep these insurgents from challenging the two incumbents?

The end game, as we all know, is a filibuster proof 60 vote majority in the Senate (though keeping all of them in line is another tough task). However, as Politico’s Jonathan Martin points out, does this president, the ultimate insurgent, want to now get into the incumbent protection business? Maybe not. Maybe he shouldn’t. Everyone, including the insurgents, are aware of the conventional line about why they shouldn’t run. The winner of a bruising primary then has to face a Republican opponent in a weakened position, both politically and financially.

But wait, isn’t that what they told Obama about running against the presumed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton? And didn’t he run anyway? As an insurgent (even though Clinton wasn’t an incumbent)? Why not let the process play itself out? If either Carolyn Maloney or Joe Sestak can’t raise enough money to seriously challenge Specter or Gillibrand, who says they’ll actually run next year?

The smart move would be for President Obama to stay out of these races, if they in fact happen. He intervened once on behalf of Sen. Gillibrand. Let it end there. Primary challenges can make an incumbent more politically responsive, and in these cases, both Sestak and Maloney will challenge from the left. On issues like the Employee Free Choice Act (which Specter has yet to embrace) and real health care reform, these moderate Democrats could be made to see the light if they have to worry about a challenge.

Besides, democracy is a good thing. President Obama should leave well enough alone, shouldn’t he? Or should he?


3 Comments Add yours

  1. sanda says:

    President Obama and the NY Senate races: stay out. U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney voted for the resolution that authorized the former President (W) to use force in Iraq = voted for war on Iraq. I listened to the speeches. Her reason was that her brother was in the military.
    Weird logic. I wrote to her that although I am not in her district, if she voted “YES” on that resolution, I’d not ever vote for her in any NYS election that included my district. I also wrote that to Sen. H. Clinton, who also voted “YES”. I have not voted for Sen. Clinton since. I will not vote for Maloney. There will be at least one other candidate, I think,
    based on and David Swanson’s article on Jonathan Tasini . He ran against Clinton in a primary before. This time against Gillibrand.

  2. MetsFact333 says:

    I just don’t understand why we can’t have a primary.

    This is particularly troubling since this position was appointed anyway. The people of NY deserve a primary. I guess it would suck for Obama Admin to see their appointee lose to a challenger.

  3. BlueManGroup says:

    Of course democracy is a good thing! In fact, that shouldn’t even be a question, it should be assumed in this country that if the primary is open to all challengers, then all challengers are free to enter without fear of political retribution. In the case of Gillibrand, she was appointed by a Gov that wasn’t elected, so I think it’s only fair for her to earn her seat through the process every other elected official earns theirs’: through voting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s