Peril!

I have to say that I think it shows exceedingly poor judgment on Kirsten Gillibrand's part that she "has agreed to allow The New York Times to chronicle her first year in office." Michelle Cottle did a great piece way back in November 2004 about how Democrats' eagerness to please the press leads, semi-paradoxically, to them getting terrible press coverage. This stunt seems, broadly construed, to be part of that trend. Let's hope for her sake she constructed an explicit quid pro quo where the Times decided for some reason to throw ethics out the window and guarantee her glowing coverage in exchange for this unusual level of access.

All of which is by way of setup for this hilarious passage:

For her and other freshman lawmakers, it is a time of intense learning and sudden challenges, harried travel and nonstop work. But it is also a period of political peril: Gary Jacobson, a professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, has found that while veteran incumbents enjoy a re-election rate of 98 percent, the rate drops to less than 92 percent for first-term incumbents.

Less than 92 percent, what is the world coming to! Next thing you know competitive elections might be a regular feature of American democracy.

Comments

Re "Let's hope for her sake she constructed an explicit quid pro quo where the Times decided for some reason to throw ethics out the window and guarantee her glowing coverage in exchange for this unusual level of access"
------
You mean like Scooter Libby and Judith Miller?

Hell, I'll bet the Times reporter will even go down on her if she pushes it.

The "Gray Lady" is looking kinda ..er.. "shopworn" from Punch's tenure.

Posted by Don Williams | May 15, 2007 9:28 AM

I prefer to think, perhaps wishfully, that what Gillibrand is doing is a necessary first step toward changing the public perception of what elected officials are about and, whether it pays off for her in 2008 or not, has potentially significant longer term positive effects.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | May 15, 2007 9:48 AM

It will have no positive long term effects. I doubt even 25% of the people in Gilibrand's district read the Times.

Posted by Rob | May 15, 2007 9:52 AM

Allow me to express a rare disagreement. I think Kirsten Gillibrand is one of the sharper politicians in Congress - her talents are striking given the fact that she won her office in her first-ever political campaign. She does an excellent job being visible in her district, and being accessible and open is part of her persona. I think it might be a mistake on the part of somebody who's more of a loose cannon, but Gillibrand is extremely mediagenic and knows how to work that to her advantage. She's in a moderately tough district, but if she survives 2008, I think she's got that seat as long as she wants it.

Posted by SDM | May 15, 2007 10:58 AM

I think it was a questionable decision -- but in a heavily-Republican district, her greatest challenge is getting in front of her constituents enough before the next election to establish her personality and her work. Granted, the NYTimes' primary interest is not bolstering her credibility -- it drops its most positive bit at the end -- but it is a New York district where some sizable number of folks will now be reading about her in the national, instead of only the local, section.

And she's coming across like Mr. Smith.

Posted by Devo | May 15, 2007 11:34 AM

I think having her name in the Times more often, and more prominently, than it would otherwise appear would help with her fundraising. Even moreso when the articles discuss the fact that she'll be in a close race. I don't know if there are countervailing effects that mean this still isn't worthwhile.

Posted by washerdreyer | May 15, 2007 2:29 PM

I've got to work on my self-editing skillz. I had the same thought - less than 92 percent - but I self-edited it right out of existence. Seemed too silly to comment on, especially when the writer used the word "peril" in connection with that 92 % re-election rate.

"Oh, let me have just a little bit of peril?"

Posted by Lame Man | May 15, 2007 2:41 PM