Given the news that Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick has chosen to appoint Democratic Party Chair Paul Kirk to Ted Kennedy’s former Senate seat, we thought we’d give a few examples of what not to do when choosing someone to fill the seat of senator, starting with the man who was appointed to hold the very same seat before Ted Kennedy’s election.

#5. Benjamin A. Smith II

Benjamin Atwood Smith, II

Benjamin Smith wasn’t all that bad a senator- he served the state of Massachusetts with competence and ability during his two-year tenure. The problem with Smith (as with most on this list) is not his competence or ability, but the manner in which he was selected.

Smith was chosen to fill some very big shoes: those of John F. Kennedy, who had resigned to become President of the United States in 1960. The obvious successor was Kennedy’s young brother, Ted. There was one problem with this: Ted was only 29. John had a simple solution: appoint his old college roommate, Ben Smith, until Ted was old enough to hold the seat.

John F. Kennedy’s words to then-Massachusetts governor Foster Furcolo oozed pure politics: Appointing Smith, he said, was in the interest of “promoting party unity”.

Smith’s appointment has had a lasting impact on the political implications of putting in a “seatwarmer” to fill a seat until a relative or political ally can attain the seat themselves- in fact, direct parallels have been drawn between Smith’s appointment and those of Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) and George LeMieux (R-Fla.): Kaufman is holding the seat for his old boss, Joe Biden, until his son, Beau, comes back from his tour of duty in Iraq. LeMieux is holding it for Charlie Crist, the Governor of Florida, who is running in the Senate election to succeed him.

Neither Kaufman or LeMieux, fairly or unfairly, are viewed as being truly representative of the people of their states; they are seen as political pawns simply in place to keep a seat safe for a successor. Benjamin A. Smith is the origin of, and poster child for, this political process.

#4. Jim Broyhill

James Thomas Broyhill

Jim Broyhill was a North Carolina congressman running to succeed John East, the retiring senator from his state. Everything was going smoothly: he had won the Republican nomination for the seat, and was ready to begin his campaign against the Democratic nominee, former North Carolina governor Terry Sanford.

Then came shocking news. John East had committed suicide, and, as a result, the governor of North Carolina, Jim Martin, appointed Broyhill to the Senate seat in order to get a leg up in the race and gain a bit of experience and seniority.

In part because of the popularity of Terry Sanford, partly because of the neck-and-neck nature of North Carolina politics at the time, and also due to voter disillusionment with Broyhill’s appointment, Broyhill lost the Senate seat to Sanford by three points.

This shows a political ploy that almost seems to contradict the Benjamin Smith ploy: Voters don’t want a lame duck who is just there to hold a seat for someone, but they also don’t want their elections unduly influenced by creating an incumbent when there is not a need for one.

This is not to say that appointed senators can’t run. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) are both reasonably popular and have long two-year terms ahead of them. Ted Stevens, Harry F. Byrd and Daniel Akaka were all appointed senators who went on to have long political careers. The difference is that, with these seats, there was no imminent election or anything to be tampered with by appointing any of them. People are fine with having a placeholder so long as they actually have a full say in who takes their place.

We can see contemporary examples of where this philosophy is NOT being used. Massachusetts, again, is a good example. Most in Massachusetts, the legislature in particular, warn against having someone take the seat who is planning to run in the upcoming special election, in order to avoid giving any one person an unfair advantage. Some even wanted to put a requirement for any appointees to pledge not to run into law.

Not everything needs to be a misguided and elaborate political scheme- some senate appointments are just plain bad judgement.

#3. David K. Karnes

David Kemp Karnes

In 1987, David K. Karnes was riding high: He was a White House Fellow, the Chairman of the Board of the Topeka Bank, and (as can be noted from the picture above) had a mustache that could make angels weep. So it was a bolt from the blue that on March 11 of that year, he became the Junior Senator from the state of Nebraska.

Karnes received skepticism right off the bat: the man he replaced was of another party. Senator Edward Zorinsky was a Democrat. Karnes, a Republican. Karnes had never run for elected office before, and was admittedly not the greatest public speaker ever to take a podium.

This became very evident at a debate with his opponent, Bob Kerrey. He made the statement, to mass booing, “We need fewer farmers at this point in time.” This statement (though he said it was a mistake and distanced himself from it soon after) is akin to saying “We need fewer fishermen” in Maine or Alaska, or “We need fewer coal miners” in West Virginia.

Though he tried to bounce back, Karnes’ political misfortune and ineptitude cost him the election. It was not even relatively close: Kerrey got 57 percent to Karnes’ 42.

The story of David Karnes shows simply that appointments should be taken as seriously as elections. Karnes was an immediate party shift not approved by voters, and had never held elected office before. It’s no surprise he lost his re-election bid so badly.

Some states, including Colorado, require that appointees be from the same party as the vacating senator. This is one fix to this problem; the other requires good judgement on the part of the governor. Picking someone who knows what they’re doing politically is not an incredibly simple task. This is why elections happen and are handled by millions of people instead of just one person.

#2. Roland Burris

Roland Wallace Burris

I suppose this was sort of bound to be on here, wasn’t it?

The biggest quid pro quo in recent memory happened this year, with Burris being one of the key players; more specifically the primary beneficiary.

Now former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was given an important task in late 2008: Appoint a Senator to represent the people of Illinois following the resignation of Barack Obama to become President of the United States. Instead of taking the honorable route and just interviewing a few candidates before appointing the most qualified, Blagojevich attempted to sell the seat, because he quote “Had this thing, and it’s f@%$ing golden”. He planned to use it to raise campaign contributions, gain a Cabinet or other political appointment, or get some other valuable political favor.

This backfired when it was revealed that his conversations were being recorded by local law enforcement and investigative teams, and his scheme was revealed to the nation by Patrick Fitzgerald. He was going to be impeached shortly, despite feeble attempts to redeem himself or deny his involvement. The U.S. Senate said they would not accept anyone appointed by Blagojevich. Unfortunately, this national political scandal was just beginning.

Blagojevich decided to, before his impeachment, take a shot at appointing a senator regardless of what the public had to say about it. So he appointed Roland W. Burris, former state comptroller and civil rights trailblazer in the state of Illinois.

Public opinion of Burris in the Senate changed; he was not viewed as a pawn of Blagojevich, just a decent guy caught in unfortunate circumstances. Nobody could be completely sure, but the general consensus on putting a padlock on the senate doors for any Blagojevich appointees seemed to be shifting.

This was not Burris’s only obstacle, however; Rod Blagojevich was not the only person with authority over who was to be appointed to the seat. The certificate of appointment must be signed by a state’s governor and its Secretary of State. Illinois’ Secretary of State, Lisa Madigan, had made no secret of her distaste for Blagojevich, and she refused to sign the certificate. Burris tried to go to the Senate, but was turned away because he could not present proper credentials.

After Burris testified before the Illinois legislature about his lack of involvement in Blagojevich’s scandalous dealings, Madigan signed the certificate, and Burris was controversially allowed to become the Junior Senator from the state of Illinois.

Burris, it was revealed later, did agree to donate to the governor’s campaign fund in return for the senate seat, and though there were calls for his resignation, he decided not to run for re-election (after gathering a massive campaign fund of $845) and controversy calmed down. He has remained in the Senate as something of a pariah: people are polite but not enthusiastic, and nobody will co-sponsor any of his legislation.

The lesson of Roland Burris is simple: Don’t be corrupt.

So Roland Burris was #2. Who could possibly have been a more foolish appointment?

#1. Wendell Anderson

Wendell Richard Anderson

Wendell Anderson was the choice by the Governor of Minnesota to fill the Senate seat vacated by Walter Mondale in order to become Jimmy Carter’s Vice President. This wouldn’t be such a big deal if it weren’t for the name of the governor who appointed him: Wendell Anderson.

Anderson appointed himself so that Rudy Perpich, his Lt. Governor, could become Governor, and he could become Senator. The plan backfired extraordinarily: Anderson was seen as motivated by shallow political self-interest.

Minnesota now had two senators AND a governor it didn’t elect (Muriel Humphrey was chosen to take her husband Hubert’s Senate seat after he died) and this was Anderson’s fault.

The Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor party (the local branch of the Democratic party) lost all three statewide offices in the subsequent election, in no small part because of Anderson’s actions.

So to appoint oneself is the most hollow political ploy one can make; appointing an aide, relative, or family friend can show self-interest, but when you appoint yourself, you’re basically abandoning any notion of humility or thought for the representation of the people of the state. There was speculation, quickly dismissed, that Charlie Crist would appoint himself to the Senate in Florida. It’s never a smart political move: all five governors who appointed themselves lost re-election bids.

So Deval Patrick probably realized that an appointment is a difficult decision to make: You can’t appoint someone who is just waiting until an election is held, but you can’t appoint someone who just wants a leg up in an election. You need to be careful of people who don’t have a lot of political experience, you can’t sell it, and you can’t give it to yourself. He caught a break from that difficult decision when both of Ted Kennedy’s political sons endorsed Paul Kirk for the seat.

Senate appointments are a confusing aspect of our government, and they have the power to put people in positions of political power that may not be representative of the public at large.

Maybe that’s why Russ Fiengold wants to end the process entirely.

Now, “Politics filtered through the lens of history” may sound like a rather inclusive statement, one that tends to turn people off who aren’t interested in academic exercise. We’re attempting to give this model more wide appeal by organizing each post into a format, like “Battle of The Titans” where we might theorize about an election between two major (or not so major) political figures in history or present day, based on their organization, the political climate in their previous elections, and their ideas and how they were viewed in their time and today. We’ll be giving biographies of current and former congressmen, and providing weekly updates on current election news (because what would a political blog be without elections?)

A political/historical analysis blog written by three teenagers from Minnesota may not sound like the most enticing concept, and frankly, we have our own skepticism of the prospects of our idea. It doesn’t mean we’re not going to try.