|
Harold
Ford’s Phony Exit
Harold
Ford Jr’s short, strange trip as a possible Democratic candidate
for U.S. senator from New York ended this week, leaving the
same unanswered questions as his announcement two months ago
that he was exploring a run at the seat held by Kirsten Gillibrand:
Why did he and his backers think Gillibrand was so vulnerable
that he could beat her in a Democratic primary on a record
well to her right? Did he really think we would buy his image
makeover and ignore questions about his Wall Street ties,
Merrill Lynch bonuses and avoidance of New York state income
taxes? And why did The New York Times give him so much
love?
Ford, the scion of a Tennessee political family who served
10 years in the congressional seat he inherited from his father,
moved to New York after losing his 2006 Senate bid in his
home state against Republican rival Bob Corker. He went to
work on Wall Street, taking a position as vice chairman at
Merrill Lynch, at a salary sources peg at $2 million. He also
has been rumored to have been the recipient of one of the
hefty and controversial Merrill Lynch bonuses handed out in
December 2008, when the bank was incurring huge losses and
receiving taxpayer bailout money, and before the bonuses could
be scrutinized by Bank of America, which was in the process
of taking over Merrill Lynch. Ford has not directly answered
questions about the bonuses, saying only that all of his compensation
was contractually guaranteed. Ford also has not fully explained
why he has not paid income tax in New York state, though it
appears that he is using his dual residence status to his
advantage: He still maintains a home in Tennessee, where he
does not have to pay income tax.
Ford announced in early January that he was exploring a run
for the Senate, claiming New Yorkers were desperate for change.
From the start, he tried to create an image that left out
several inconvenient facts: In Tennessee, he took firm stances
opposing abortion and same-sex marriage; as a potential Senate
candidate in New York, he not only reversed those positions,
but pretended he had never held them. (To be fair, Gillibrand
has had to backtrack from pro-gun positions she took as a
congresswoman in a rural upstate district, but we would argue
that her modest transformation has been more artful and believable.)
And while Ford touted many of his various experiences—former
congressman, chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council,
commentator on NBC and MSNBC, visiting professor at NYU—he
seemed to think he could keep his Merrill Lynch affiliation
and murky income-tax status in the background. In fact, Ford’s
own Web site bio lists all of the aforementioned affiliations—except
that it does not once mention his employment with Merrill
Lynch.
When Ford decided last weekend that he would not run for Senate
after all, he was given prime op-ed space in Tuesday’s New
York Times to explain his decision. (We are curious about
his cozy relationship with the Times; he was given
another op-ed slot in January, and he has received generally
favorable coverage from the newspaper.) In his op-ed, he took
shots at the Democratic establishment for trying to bully
him out of the race, hinted that Gillibrand will be vulnerable
this November because she and the Democrats are too slow to
change, and compared her situation to that of the supposedly
“safe” seat that was lost to Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts
(we do not see too many parallels here, most notably because
Martha Coakley’s weak run was the antithesis of Gillibrand’s
formidable fund-raising and campaigning style). And finally,
Ford insisted he was bowing out not because he couldn’t win,
but because he didn’t want to cause a “brutal” primary that
would weaken the Democratic winner for the November election.
These are phony excuses, and the Times should be embarrassed
to have printed them. The reasons Ford dropped out should
be obvious: He was well behind in the polls, his support was
already eroding, and perhaps most important, he realized he
was losing the PR battle over which Harold Ford the voters
would see: the gracious, eloquent Southerner who would bring
experience and a new perspective to the state’s problems,
or the unctuous opportunist who could change his beliefs in
a New York minute and who did not want to talk about how much
money he makes and how little state income tax he pays.
There is one other story here: The New York Times and
others who are cool to Gillibrand continue to characterize
her as “vulnerable” and “underwhelming”—and yet, once again,
it is she who is still standing. If there is strong anti-
incumbent sentiment come November, she will have her work
cut out for her; on the other hand, the skeptics might just
discover how much they had underestimated her.
|
Site
Search 
