The idea that some Republican senator would resign from the senate and give the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority (assuming Lieberman would vote with them on all issues, which is a fool's bet) was a bit much. Sen. Gregg's appointment as Commerce Secretary (what do they do again? well, yeah, the census) still is useful. First, his replacement apparently (also Rachel Maddow last night) is somewhat more liberal than he is, independence on certain issues actually possible in NH (Justice Souter's home). Second, again, it is not exactly a plum job. Third, the bipartisan message it sends has value, even if it is for the long term. Don't know if he's good for the job or anything, but things to think about.
The NYT had a good "meet the new senator" piece on Sen. Gillibrand, one of several on her that put them among the better sort of a rather mixed quality coverage on the matter. We have been down this road before, but note this paragraph that hits home more than some full articles on her appointment or discussions on talk shows did:
Her appointment occasioned yawps of disappointment from downstate Democrats, who tend to view Senate seats as proprietary possessions. Charles E. Goodell, who was appointed to fill Robert F. Kennedy’s seat in 1968, was the last senator to come from outside New York City or its suburbs. That Ms. Gillibrand was an ardent National Rifle Association supporter and a hard-liner on immigration soothed few hurt feelings. (She is more liberal on economic issues, opposing privatizing Social Security; favors a withdrawal from Iraq; and earns high scores from gay and civil liberties groups.)
Try even taking the last sentence and a half. Would it have been so hard for more articles and blog posts to focus on the diversity of her positions, instead of just focusing on guns or the like? The gun (and sometimes opposition to TARP funds last year that never was a slamdunk for progressives*) issue sometimes blocked out the immigration matter, which would have promoted the "conservative" pick meme. Anyway, other than the piece suggesting her energy and political skills, it is not so hard to provide a quick thumbnail of what is at stake here. The Gregg pick suggests that the governor pulled something of an Obama here, his early support of Lieberman underlining that this is not always a good thing.
I was personally down this road before when I emailed a reporter on his implication that "thousands" of Iraqis died, when even Bush noted something like thirty-thousand did. His reply? The number is debated and there was a shortage of space. What do you want, me not to mention the issue at all? My reply was that if you are going to write something that is misleading, maybe it is of limited value. Anyway, again, a sentence could have clarified the matter (toss in a range and note the debate), something I reckon a professor writer and editor can handle. Of course, the issue of Iraqi civilian dead was not a big concern of the media as a whole.
Btw, extremists are back at it in Gaza. The "disproportionate" Israeli response clearly quite useful. Kill kill kill! Yes, this includes the missiles.
---
* The NYT covered this too:
Her husband, Jonathan, is a venture capitalist and, Ms. Gillibrand said, a close adviser, particularly on fiscal matters. He persuaded her, she said, to vote against the $700 billion rescue for Wall Street banks; she was the only New York Democrat in Congress to vote against the bill. She argued, with some prescience, that the bailout failed to address the banks’ underlying problem, which was not liquidity but insolvency.
Meanwhile, Joan Walsh over at Salon today spoke of "the awful TARP program."