On Demand
For Your Consideration
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Elizabeth Holtzman, former Congresswoman (D-NY 16th) and the author of The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens, discusses her bid to fill Hillary Clinton's Senate seat.
- About the Brian Lehrer Show »
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Tapes and Transcripts »
- Latest Episode »
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date.
Subscribe to the Podcast
YOU PRODUCE The Brian Lehrer Show
Be a listener-producer with facts, questions and people you'd like to hear on the air.
More
The Brian Lehrer Show Scrapbook
Visit the scrapbook for daily photos and miscellany from The Brian Lehrer Show.
More
Shop at Amazon!
The Brian Lehrer Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
Refresh
An experienced, issues-focused candidate? Isn't that against the rules or something?
Impeach Bush? You're hired. Where do we sign up?
I remember Liz Holtzman during the impeachment hearings and she was stellar, if I can put it that way. And I am happy to hear someone taking seriously the impeachment and or putting on trial Bush and his crew. The unfortunate thing about this whole situation is that no one, except Kucinich and maybe one or two more others, in the current government seems interested. Pelosi and Reid are nothing but wimps and pathetic excuses for representatives of the people, because they don't represent the people, who don't want to go through with bringing to justice under the laws of this country those which this administration have ignored and broken in some cases. They broke the law they MUST be punished.
Liz would be the best person Patterson could appoint. GO liz go! ( perhaps she could also be a part of holding the past administration accountable for the disaster we confront now...)
I never hear any talk of rebuilding the power grid when anyone talks about infrastructure...
rebuild the power grid is so important to the future of the usa
Elizabth Holzman -- definitely! It would be poetic justice. She ran for Senator in the I late 70s or early 80s (can't remember exactly) and was done out of it by the late Sen Javits who ran as an independent (for spite). As we result, the Democrats' votes were split so D'Amato won.
The secret ballot in unionizing a workplace is a red herring. Employers take advantage of the delays to intimidate workers and fire the workers who are actively trying to unionize. Yes, it's illegal but it happens all the time and it is hard to get the courts to back it up.
I think Carolyn Kennedy would make a fine senator, and certainly has as much experience as Hillary Clinton did. However, Liz Holtzman is by far the BEST choice, and as she pointed out here, she would be ready to get to work from day 1.
I'd like to know if there's a place we can make our views on this known to Gov. Patterson.
Ms Holtzman would get my vote (if anybody asks). Accountability, rule of law, and higher wages as a basis for economic recovery. Amen
Some elections don't need a secret ballot. Come on! The unions real agenda is to bully workers into signing the petiions. As a former UAW member I saw first hand on what happened to anyone who crossed the union. "Uncooperative" employees were subjected to punishments ranging from having their tires slashed to being severely beat up. They are thugs. What are they afraid of? If the union is such a great organization they should easily win a secret ballot.
ms. holtzman has failed in 2 previous attempts to be elected to the senate and in 1993 finished her campaign
in debt.
why choose a proven loser and someone NOT able to raise funding.
I have nothing against Ms. Holtzman or her long and distinguished resume, but after all the discussion of how some vying for this appointment are unqualified and inarticulate… Well, with the length of her service and the experiences she has had, I have to say her performance in this interview is pretty pathetic. She’s said nothing but political catch phrases and shown all sizzle and no steak. Is she resting on her laurels? This is the first I’ve heard of her and I guess I’d expect little more meat from someone with decades of experience. (that's the problem when you do have experience, people expect more from you)
There is nothing wrong with C. Kennedy's experience. I have always thought that was a weak argument. Look at Obama. Not the most experienced, but to me, the best choice. My problem with Kennedy is that she seems to have suddenly decided she is interested in politics after staying away from it for so long. Didn't even vote for Senator in '94 when Moynihan was up for the seat she wants. Didn't vote in 2002 when Carl McCall lost to Pataki. We need someone who has been engaged since before everyone jumped onto the Obama bandwagon.
Thanks for hosting Ms. Holtzman, Brian. She sounds by far the most qualified of any of the other "candidates" being considered by Gov. Patterson.
Wow!
I want her for Senate! She got me when she talked about rule of law and she was Brooklyn DA. She has education and the polish and work experience that Kennedy doesn't have.
I want this lady for Senate!
Many compare the ideal of the secret ballot for general public officials and for having a union on the job. There are major significant differences.
When we vote for public officials, we are not at threat of our direct livelihood. We are not sitting at work while those who control our family's meals stands at the door of our office. Voting for or against our public officials does not--directly, i.e., not counting general economic policy--individually threaten these key parts of life, is not a long-term, ongoing, intimate threat.
When at work, employers have such control. Over the months and years that they sometimes draw out voting for a union, they hold "captive audience" meetings, requiring employees to sit in intimidating meetings, hear threats to their jobs--it is profoundly different. Letting everyone know who votes for a union *protects* those people from retaliation, because actions taken against them for organizing will become quickly evident.
Please let's get past the overly simplistic idealization of "secrete" ballots where they do not apply.
Weak unions is the cause of insecurity in the working class? That is narrow thinking typical of the Left. Our economic woes are most fundamentally due to bubbles, especially the real estate bubble, which is to this date NOT being addressed in Washington. Democrats who try to manage the big issues with extremely localized points of view are popular with voters of that Party, and that is exactly what gives the Party its well-deserved negative reputation. We need a Senator who takes the local point of view, supporting our community, and sees and "thinks" in the big pictures as well.
should we have a special election?
Jeff ,
I hear you vis-a-vis bullying. But I have also seen with my own eyes employees who are trying to organize a workplace summarily fired with not much recourse when the courts and the NLRB are stacked the way they currently are.
HJS, there will be a special election in 2010 regardless of who gets appointed and the seat is up for grabs in three years (2012) anyway. Guess that’s why I don’t care much who gets appointed. Clinton was a junior Senator anyway and other than name recognition and money, really didn’t bring too much to the state or nation (compared to Schumer)
RJ #19,
You speak my mind.
Karen #20,
One of the reasons the workplace is so un-unionized is because of the rise of part-time work, the service economy as opposed to manufacturing and the demise of defined benefits. It is not just bubbles, it is also the stagnation of wages and benefits. This is true locally, whether you observe it or not.
hjs #21,
Not a bad idea. I bet Illinois wishes it had done so.
I still think the appointment is important if we hope the individual will beat Peter King in 2010. I also think that your analysis of Clinton's one and a half terms is shallow and unfair. I was not at all enthusiastic when she ran; I preferred her over Giuliani and Lazio, but she turned out to be a hard worker who did not get a lot of credit for what she did accomplish (especially as a very junior senator).
My basic point was this: Whomever is appointed (at least in my eyes) won’t have much of a record to run on come 2012. However, I do acknowledge they will have the benefit of being the incumbent. That means any candidate with either means or motive can run for what is effectively an open seat with a body that’s kept it warm for 3 years. I just think too much is being expected of a mid-term three year appointment. I look forward to the primaries of 2012.
Impressive! I would much prefer this VERY experienced and sharp New Yorker be appointed to the senate over someone who's just working off her family's name and fame. It's about time we award people who put their time in, worked hard, and gained some real experience.
Liz Holtzman is infinitely more qualified to be a US senator than Caroline Kennedy.
Unfortunately, merit doesn't count for anything in our celebrity obsessed culture.
Caroline will be chosen by Patterson and al New yorkers will be worse off as a result.
Ha! "Protect the Constitution" Says the person who just got done talking about draconian federal programs that blatantly violate states rights as guaranteed by the Constitution
does it matter?
in this 2 party dictatorship we have whomever is coronated will tow the party line
Leave a Comment
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Back to EpisodeEmail addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. WNYC reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the WNYC.org Comment Guidelines before posting.