- ‹ previous
- 1906 of 2722
- next ›
No Royalty, Please
NO ROYALTY, PLEASE....From the New York Times today:
Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of an American political dynasty, has decided to pursue the United States Senate seat being vacated by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, a person told of her decision said on Monday....Ms. Kennedy will ask Gov. David A. Paterson of New York to consider her for the appointment, according to the person told of her decision.
For what it's worth, I'd like to join the almost unanimous blogosphere consensus that Paterson should choose someone else. Rich and famous people already have a huge leg up when it comes to winning political office, but at least they still have to run and win. Appointing them instead so they can avoid the whole messy business of engaging in a campaign is just a little too Habsburgian for my taste.
Needless to say, I've got nothing against Kennedy. But appointing her to the Senate just isn't the right thing to do.
My first thought when I heard the speculation was that she was too much of a class act to want to muck around in the seedy world of electoral politics.
Still, if she wants to make the effort, it seems to me that she has a skill set worthy of such a job. And there is that small chance that if Obama really is able to (even slightly) alter the way the "game" is played, there may be a place for candidates who are less attuned to the way electoral politics is currently practiced.
But Kevin:
?just a little too Habsburgian for my taste. ?appointing her to the Senate just isn't the right thing to do.
Huh? Not the right thing to do? My, that is rather (and somewhat unusually) definitive for you. Care to develop that thesis with a bit more tangible support?
Caroline Kennedy makes as much sense as any other applicant for the Senate. If she wants the job and David Paterson wants to appoint her, I don't have any problem with it.
I dunno, Kevin.
It seems unfair not to give her a shot. She's an accomplished New Yorker in her own right and has seen a number of different sides to power--the good and the ill. I imagine she has a host of personal and intellectual virtues, borne out of a life in politics, which she did not, after all, choose. Until now.
If she wants a Senate seat, let her go to Illinois and buy one, like everyone else.
I wonder if those who are so opposed to this are mostly younger. I for one am quite excited about the possibility of her being appointed. Of course, I do vividly remember her as a little girl... And I have been impressed with the mother and woman she has become. I guess I "like" the idea that she is not really a politician. I think of the "moms" who have raised their families and then ran for political positions. I find that by and large they make great Representatives and Senators. It is not as if NY does not have a long history of folks that get that seat, i.e. RFK or even Hillary. Caroline will have to "run" to keep it in two years. But someone is going to be appointed, and quite frankly, she looks as good to me as many of the names that have been thrown about.
Appointing them instead so they can avoid the whole messy business of engaging in a campaign is just a little too Habsburgian for my taste.
I hadn't realized that Patterson had called off the special election in 2010 and the general election 2012. That does seem a bit much.
In both New York and Illinois I would advocate the Delaware solution. Put in a placeholder and then let the Democratic voters choose their candidate in a primary, when the election comes up. Incumbency is an advantage, and it's unfair to give it, not just to Caroline, but to anyone.
To JWC -- I'm opposed to this, and I'm 53 (and a native New York stater, born and raised in Syracuse as the son of Brooklynites). I agree with Kevin -- we don't need royalty. Then again, for many of us, it's easier than thinking.
Oh, and if she's appointed, a tip for whomever runs against her...just remind everyone that the song named for her, Neil Diamond's "Sweet Caroline," is the anthem of the hated Boston Red Sox. Paterson probably knows that, too, but there are many Bosox fans among the wealthy elite of Manhattan, and they could supply him with plenty of campaign cash if Ms. Kennedy is appointed.
You are not with it today- are gases seeping from your mind?- If not her - then who and why? In fact you sound as if you are saying that she should not be the selected because of who she is. Tell me, who is applying the double standard again?
Amen, Kevin.
In fact, I'm all for a constitutional amendment that bars political dynasties by forbidding any relative, out to second cousins, from running for or being appointed to federal political office for at least three generations.
No more Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, etc.,
Seriously.
Anybody who is named Kennedy and wants a free ride to the senate should go to Massachusetts - I believe that their state constitution requires at least one Kennedy be in office at all times.
My first thought when I heard the speculation was that she was too much of a class act to want to muck around in the seedy world of electoral politics.
Still, if she wants to make the effort, it seems to me that she has a skill set worthy of such a job. And there is that small chance that if Obama really is able to (even slightly) alter the way the "game" is played, there may be a place for candidates who are less attuned to the way electoral politics is currently practiced.
But Kevin:
just a little too Habsburgian for my taste. appointing her to the Senate just isn't the right thing to do.
Huh? Not the right thing to do? My, that is rather (and somewhat unusually) definitive for you. Care to develop that thesis with a bit more tangible support?
There are several qualified elected NYS congresspeople and other elected officials who deserve the shot of being considered for the Senate. They have paid their political dues, put themselves before the voters, and have shown that they can appeal to and represent a wide variety of constitutents. Caroline Kennedy, as admirable as she may be, has yet to show any of these qualifications.
The seat will be contested in 2010 and again in 2012 - if Caroline Kennedy wants a position in politics, let her earn the right to represent New Yorkers by running for the office and putting herself out there for people to actually vote for her the same as other deserving politicians and office holders already have.
What's the Ann Richards line about being born on 3d base and thinking that you've hit a triple? Let Caroline Kennedy hit the triple first - or maybe a single or a double first.
I'm sure she could make a great senator someday - let her earn the right to represent the people.
When I first heard she might be interested in the seat, I was all for it. (Yes, I'm old enough to very fondly remember Camelot.) But after thinking it over, I gotta go with Kevin on this one. I have no problem with her running for election to any political office. However, since we are talking about an appointment, as well as her being out of our vision for several years, it is too much like a coronation. Others have earned their way into contention for this seat; she hasn't _ at least not yet.
Most of us voted for a change in the way DC does business last month; ending political dynasties was a part of the change we were voting for.
New Yorkers (I was once one) don't have any problem with dynasties. Four Hamilton Fish's served in Congress for one district for the better part of 150 years.
At least Ms. Clinton showed up and won an election. This appointment thing stinks, and if C Kennedy wants to be senator, she should get it like her uncle Bobby. Run and win. No freebies for you.
Right on PDX, as a New Yorker, I want a special election.
The next two years could be a crucial moment in American history. I don't think it's asking too much that both my senators be elected. Especially considering how corrupt and inept Albany is.
If Kennedy wants to be senator so bad, then she should ask for my vote.
FREE Infinite On-Demand TV Shows, Movies, Music(millions and millions of digital quality tracks), Unlimited Games, Money, and FREE College Educations (Stanford, Oxford, Notre Dame and more) @ InternetSurfShack.com
...let her earn the right to represent New Yorkers by running for the office and putting herself out there for people to actually vote for her the same as other deserving politicians and office holders already have.
Well, it's not like she's asking for a lifetime appointment, you know. She will have to run to hold onto the seat. And as far as being appointed goes, somebody has to get the appointment. Why not her? She's a lifetime New Yorker, after all. Where is it written that only someone who's currently in office has a right to such an appointment? I mean, going from the House to the Senate is pretty traditional; I kind of like the idea of someone with a non-traditional background getting the nod. I also think it's frankly appropriate for the seat to be held by someone with a bit of glamor. This is New York, after all.
Anyone from a political family dynasty who serves in public office has to agree to wear a crown while in front of the TV cameras.
Offspring of successful politicians are often mediocre politicians themselves. To name a few: Patrick Kennedy, Kathleen Brown Rice, Kathleen Townsend and Al Gore. The last three were lackluster campaigners -- they simply did not look like they had the fire in the belly (to use Walter Mondale's explanation for why he dropped out in 1976) but instead were doing it only because it was expected of them. At least Gore has found something that he cares about and is good at; don't know whether Rice or Townsend has.
Of course Andrew Cuomo and Jesse Jackson Jr. are also sons of prominent political figures; I don't know whether they fit the pattern. And Adlai Stevenson and Jerry Brown did OK as politicians--although I think Brown was a terrible (albeit successful) politician in his first incarnation. And did someone mention George W Bush, another terrible politician but successful campaigner?
Dante commented somewhere in the Divine Comedy on the problem of sons of rulers who were better suited for the priesthood but forced into politics instead. I think that fits Caroline Kennedy and Al Gore, who are better suited to leading campaigns than running them,
Right on PDX, as a New Yorker, I want a special election.
You'll have an election in less than two years. Heck, the campaign will be actively underway in another ten months or so. Just how many elections do we need? At the end of the day, a gubernatorial appointment in such cases is stipulated by New York's constitution, no? Again, while there are no doubt worthy Democrats toiling in Albany or Washington who would make credible candidates, it's not like Kennedy has been sitting on her butt counting her money all these years either. She, too, has been toiling away all these years: as an eduction reformer, philanthropist, arts advocate, and Democratic party activist and fundraiser. The Senate doesn't need another lawyer or former Lt. Governor. I also hope I don't need to remind anybody (but I shall anyways) that there's a good chance Peter King will run for the seat, and in mid-term year with a shitty economy, it's not out of the question that he could win. But he won't beat Caroline Kennedy. No way no how. Not with her name, and her ability to raise cash. And call me crazy but the Kennedy brand to me -- while not something I get all warm and fuzzy about -- does represent a dependably liberal brand of politics. I feel I know what we'll be getting with her when it comes to actual positions on the issues.
What? What kind of reason is that? The ONLY consideration is who, all things considered, would best represent the interests of New York. Being rich or poor is irrelevant. If you can't come up with a better reason than that, maybe she should be appointed.
Jasper, I want to change New York's crappy constitution, that's the whole point. And I want an election for every person that presumes to represent me. Even if it's just for a couple years. It's good enough for house reps, why not replacement senators?
Caroline Kennedy might even be my top choice if we had an election. But I'd like to hear a campaign speech from her first. Call me old fashion. Plus, our gov wasn't even elected to his current position, that makes me feel a little odder about an appointment.
I also think you really dig Caroline Kennedy. But that's okay.
New Yorkers overwhelmingly backed their junior Senator in the primary. Seems odd to choose someone who sided with Illinois to represent the people. If she wanted to be mayor of Ithaca or queen of Tompkins County that would make sense.
For karma purposes, I would like to see Stan Lundine appointed as a caretaker.
It's good enough for house reps, why not replacement senators?
ditto
1. She's the last Kennedy of her cohort who isn't a legacy or an embarrassment. For God's sake, make her ambassador to Ireland.
2. Sam Rayburn's remark about the McNamara whizkids pertains as well: I'd feel a little more comfortable about her if she'd ever won a race for sheriff.
Having gone public, Caroline will probably be running in 2010, whether she is appointed or not. I bet she wins.
I have no problem with her being appointed. There will be an election in two years and someone has to get appointed. I won't hold her name against her if she has shown some accomplishment.
Jasper, I want to change New York's crappy constitution, that's the whole point. And I want an election for every person that presumes to represent me. Even if it's just for a couple years.
G. Powell: you've GOT to be kidding me. You really want an election in a couple of months, and then another one in November of 2010, and then another one in November of 2012, all for the same seat? In other words an election every ten months for the next three years? That seems unbearably tedious to me, and I'm a political junkie. Not to mention wildly expensive and excessive. More democracy as a rule is better than less, but there ought to be limits, and Patterson, after all, was elected by the people, too. But you're right, I do have a bit of a crush on Mrs. Schlossberg.
Being appointed to a Senate seat when you have never run for any office is ridiculous. She would never have the opportunity with her background other than family. Screw that.
If she wants to run in the next election and wins, fine. But not by birth.
I have every confidence in her. After what happened to her family, as victims of heinous political murder, I don't think royalty is a fair description.
Good thought, Kevin. Instead, let's nominate a NYC garbage collector, a person who will be far less likely to be subject to influence and bribery, and who will, of course, be far more conversant with the affairs which affect the country.
Boy, I've got to take exception to your characterization of Gore as a mediocre politician. If you mean mediocre presidential campaigner, maybe I'd agree with you, but Gore was a very effective vice-president and senator, and I believe he even had to campaign for those positions.
If I were Patterson, I would appoint Bloomberg just to get him out of NYC. Otherwise I would go with someone from upstate since that is where the action will be in both the Congressional races and his own re-election campaign. Upstate is going to lose a congressional district after the 2010 census so maybe you move one of the Dems out. I would go with Slaughter if she wants it and then redraw the 26th, 27th and 28th to make life more difficult for the only Republican in western NY.
And completing my earlier thought: After her father and uncle gave up everything they had to serve; it seems outrageous to impugn Caroline in this way. She has been a progressive voice, and certainly knows the risks of office better than almost anyone. Further, she was the product of two exceptional parents. I think that the truncated term is fair if she wants it; she'll have to earn reelection. She has never been motivated by hubris, only service. You must admit, she has taken a very low visibility path intentionally to this point. I think if the country were not in such bad shape, she wouldn't have considered this move. I think that is why I am so favorably inclined to her as senator.
It seems to me that it is no more logical, or correct, to exclude her because she is a Kennedy than it would be to appoint her just due to her family connections.
Basil's kid picks Jack's daughter for Bill's wife's seat to make sure Mario's boy doesn't get it.
This is not a good move for Obama or his administration. There is already a cloud over his Senate seat and now a Clinton seat is going to his party chief as well. This is influence peddling at its worse and should be nipped in the bud-If Caroline Kennedy wants Clinton's Senate Seat, she should campaign for it and get it on her own merits!
New Yorkers need a senator who represents them, not a senator who represents the Kennedy's.
"Caroline Kennedy makes as much sense as any other applicant for the Senate."
"It seems unfair not to give her a shot."
These are typical reactions of those in favor, and indicate an undemocratic political ideology and a very bizarre sense of "fairness". The idea is find the best person for the job - this is what makes sense. If you think that the best way to decide this is by parentage, you are a royalist or a supporter of aristocracy. In a democracy, demonstrated personal merit and achievement are supposed to be paramount. There are many others who have better qualifications than Kennedy.
Fairness would be giving Kennedy the same shot as anyone else, not instantly putting her at the head of the list. If I want to be considered for the NY Senate seat, do I have the same "shot" as Kennedy? Considering Kennedy and not me (or anyone else) is hardly "fair".
This is what disgusts me about democrats. ALWAYS pi$$ing and moaning about something. Caroline Kennedy is a great New Yorker and a great Democrat, and helped get Obama elected but nooooooooooooooo, lets turn this into a problem. Idiots.
Fair enough, skeptonomist.
In my haste upthread, I obliterated my central point, which is that it would be unfair to exclude Caroline Kennedy because of her status as an ultra-privileged daughter of a martyred president and member of storied political dynasty.
She's a Kennedy, yes. But this can be a liability as much as an advantage. She's turned an accident of birth into an opportunity for quiet, lifelong service.
The way I see it, she should be evaluated for the position alongside the dozen or so also being considered--not because of her forebears but because of her remarkable skill set and what I regard as her personal dignity.
Sure there are people who can claim to "deserve" the Senate seat more, because they have "paid their political dues." And continue to pay them in the future, I should add. And isn't that exactly the point? Won't it be refreshing to see someone who hasn't issued all those chits (that's with a ch, mind you) to people who helped them climb the greasy partisan pole? Caroline might be the most refreshing thing to hit the Senate in decades; there is little question that she has the skills and the concerns to shine there. And there is little of the usual tarnish.
Won't it be refreshing to see someone who hasn't issued all those chits (that's with a ch, mind you) to people who helped them climb the greasy partisan pole?
Well, then, if you feel that way, why not dig out the phone books from Syracuse, Rochester or Buffalo and pick someone at random? (Okay, if the powers that be demand it, make it the Manhattan phone book.)
If one opposes the method whereby vacant offices are sometimes appointed rather than filled by election, then fair enough -- you're free to lobby your fellow citizens to get the law changed. Me, I don't have a problem with this method provided the appointment is short-term, but I can understand why others think otherwise.
But as long as NY's constitution calls for a vacancy to be filled short-term in this manner, then anybody who is appointed is going to be getting an "unfair" (by this line of reasoning) advantage. In other words, if Maloney or Slaughter were appointed, wouldn't either of these women also then possess an "unfair" advantage?
Now, if your point is that Kennedy's name is a really unfair advantage (ie., she's some type of royalty) then what you're really arguing is that someone should be passed over because of something she has no control over. And this is what seems fundamentally unfair to me.
You can also make the argument, of course, that Kennedy is unqualified, or that she's not the best qualified - and again, fair enough. But I haven't read much in the way of substantive arguments in this regard. I'd like to know why a long career serving the greater good in the arts, say, or in education reform, is automatically an inferior background to a long career as a public official. It seems to me both backgrounds have their merits, and it is not at all obvious to me which is superior.
Actually, "Tessie" is the anthem of the Boston Red Sox. We also favor "Dirty Water," which is played at home after every victory. "Sweet Caroline" is played in a number of ball parks, not just here. I'd rather hear something by the Bon Savants or Hallelujah the Hills myself.
As for appointing Caroline Kennedy to the Senate, can anyone else really come up with the money and organization to run two statewide campaigns in quick succession?
As for appointing Caroline Kennedy to the Senate, can anyone else really come up with the money and organization to run two statewide campaigns in quick succession?
Peter King can, I reckon.
Pardon me for being a bit skeptical about the idea that people have "proved" themselves by winning elections. How do most people win elections nowadays? By having a huge personal fortune, or by getting huge contributions from others to whom they then become beholden.
How many elections did George W. Bush win? How many elections did the last few governors of Illinois win? How many elections did Vito Fossella win? What did any of that prove?