Senator Caroline Kennedy ????????????? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-17-2008, 03:43 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:51 PM
The difference between Hillary getting elected the NY Senator and Caroline Kennedy being appointed is vast.

Most people believe Hillary is/ was a good Senator.
The hard fought campaign in 2000 is one of the reasons she was able to be successful. She traveled to every part of the state, got a chance to hear their issues and concerns. The people had a chance to look at her, watch her in debates and interviews. And I do remember the GOP pulled out all the stops to defeat her.

If Caroline ever announced to run in a primary for a seat to office, I would not even think it would deserve a thread. The people would have their say.

Is Al Franken qualified?
Who cares? Let the voters decide?
__________________

__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2008, 03:47 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 10:51 PM
Yet some people still say that the only reason Hillary is a Senator is that she was married to Bill, Bill cheated on her, whatever

What about Jesse Ventura?

Charles Barkley?
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2008, 03:51 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
Yet some people still say that the only reason Hillary is a Senator is that she was married to Bill, Bill cheated on her, whatever

What about Jesse Ventura?

Charles Barkley?
People that say that about Hillary are stupid.

She got elected, and reelected by an even larger margin.

Were Jesse Ventura or Barkley appointed to any office?
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2008, 03:55 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 10:51 PM
Well I think they're stupid too but plenty of them exist, even in good ole FYM. Ventura was elected, Barkley hasn't run yet but maybe some day.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2008, 11:05 AM   #20
Refugee
 
A stor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: U.S.A. East Coast
Posts: 2,464
Local Time: 03:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carek1230 View Post
I'd like to see a campaign for the seat. Why should it simply be "given" away to someone? Senators should represent the people of their state, in a democracy where majority rules. I say let the public vote for their choice of candidate and may the best candidate win, or in politics, may the more popular candidate win.
I agree.
__________________
A stor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2008, 01:14 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 10:51 PM
I support the idea of the governor appointing a successor to the seat. The people voted a candidate of a certain party into office; if that person gets a promotion or resigns or whatever, the people still voted a candidate of that party into office for that term. In many states - I'm not certain if New York is one of them - the governor is required by law to appoint someone of that same party to fill the seat. The other party shouldn't have a chance to gain a seat just because one senator did her job well enough that she got a big promotion. If there were a special election, that's exactly what would happen.

I think Caroline Kennedy would be good. I dispute the idea that you need a big resume in order to be qualified. I think she is an intelligent women and her surround herself with good advisors. Aside from her father being the president decades ago, her uncle is one of the longest-serving senators still in office today. I would think her proximity to Teddy has given her some knowledge about how the senate works and what it takes to be a senator that those without such ties may not have. That has to be an advantage.
__________________
namkcuR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2008, 01:56 PM   #22
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 10:51 PM
i think she could be totally fine, if not even totally good.

it still reeks of nepotism.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2008, 08:09 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 07:51 PM
A legislator is a job, and a job has qualifications. You may not need a huge resume of government work, but you need to have proven that you have sound judgment and policies.

In fairness I'm not David Patterson so maybe he's getting a dossier full of Caroline Kennedy's positions and policies. But that's an absolutely essential component, and given that most of the lists I've read why Caroline should have the job are skimpy enough to need "Well, surely she's got something through osmosis!" as one of the reasons...it doesn't suggest strength.

People seem to be conflating Obama's "I'm not a Washington creature" with "I have no experience being a legislator or getting things done".

Again, I'm not David Patterson. But I see a complete apples-to-oranges comparison of fundraising and being a Kennedy as her accomplishments.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 02:05 AM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 09:51 PM
I reject the method in the first place. It's not in the least democratic.

The Dems hold the seat, won fairly and democratically, however the Dems shouldn't have free reign over the specific choice. It should be opened back up to all Dems.

There should be a special election 30 days after the resignation, if the winner doesn't get 50% then a run-off two weeks later. In the interim, the Gov of the State casts votes in the Senate OR it is a vacated ballot.

BUT this gives equal footing to the have-nots and we know that can't happen.

So if he chooses Caroline then what difference does it make?
It's entirely subjective, he might as well choose Derek Jeter.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 02:24 AM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:51 PM
I have watched her at news conferences.

She is a complete zero. ( when looking for qualities that a Senator should have )

Perhaps they should appoint her to the House of Lords.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 09:45 AM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 10:51 PM
She's notoriously shy in public-that doesn't make her a "complete zero"

Caroline Kennedy Is No Sarah Palin

By Kathleen Parker Washington Post
Friday, December 19, 2008; 12:00 AM

WASHINGTON -- It is a legitimate question: Why is the resume-thin Caroline Kennedy being treated seriously as a prospective appointee to the U.S. Senate when the comparatively more-qualified Gov. Sarah Palin received such a harsh review?

It is legitimate, at least, to those inclined to see apples and oranges as essentially the same.

Some of the differences between the two women benefit the pro-Palin argument, but the underlying premise of the debate is flawed. Though they both are women, the important distinction is the power differential of the respective offices being sought.

There can be little debate that Palin, as a governor and former mayor, has the superior political resume. More to the point, she was duly elected to both of those positions and has enjoyed an 80 percent approval rating as governor.

Her biography is familiar to all sentient beings, so there's no need to belabor it here. Suffice to say, she worked hard to get from Wasilla High to the governor's mansion.

Not so Kennedy, who, upon her marriage to Edwin Schlossberg, never changed her name. The girl-child of Camelot, Kennedy was to the political manner born and heiress to a famous brand. And though she undoubtedly has worked hard to become a lawyer, education-reform fundraiser, author and mother (none small feats), she hasn't had to press the flesh and fashion a national identity only from her own raw materials.

Suddenly, after a lifetime shunning publicity -- one of her charms -- Kennedy is a likely U.S. senator solely on the basis of having decided that she'd like that quite a lot.

The question for detractors isn't so much whether she's qualified, smart enough or even experienced enough. Respectively, "no," "yes," and "it may not matter" are reasonable responses. Among her qualifications is an ability to raise money and broker deals on the weight of her name. That such power is endowed by birthright doesn't diminish its political value.

The real rub is that she hasn't earned it. The sense of entitlement implicit in Kennedy's plea for appointment mocks our national narrative. We honor rags-to-riches, but riches-to-riches animates our revolutionary spirit.

Palin paid her own passage unfreighted by privilege. But I and others opposed her spot on the Republican ticket for good reasons, some of which resemble concerns now aimed at Kennedy.

To wit: It isn't enough to want the prize. One must be up to the job, in a league with one's fellow actors.

In Kennedy's case, those actors would be senators, not heads of other, potentially belligerent, nations. If appointed, she would be a single vote among 100 and otherwise a placeholder until 2010, when she would have to run for election as any other.

Palin, who one could argue was similarly anointed -- cynically selected without proper vetting -- was headed for much bigger business. As vice president, she would have been a heartbeat away from The Button, though she would not have been "in charge of the U.S. Senate," as she told a child who asked what the vice president does.

Critics on the other side of the political aisle may have had other reasons to oppose Palin (such as her pro-life position), but the loyal opposition was firmly based on substantive concerns about competence, as well as wariness about her tone and temperament, which became increasingly divisive.

Palin's demonstrated lack of basic knowledge, her intellectual incuriosity, her inability to articulate ideas or even simple thoughts all combined to create an impression of not-quite-there.

Few doubt that Palin is here to stay. She is the GOP's chosen closer, as demonstrated in Georgia when she roused the crowds to help re-elect Sen.

Saxby Chambliss. What she possesses by immeasurable orders of magnitude -- personal power, presence, pizazz -- one can't purchase. The rest -- theoretically -- she can learn.

Kennedy, a relatively erudite person who has authored several books, may have the political clout to get herself a Senate seat, but it isn't clear that she has the people power needed to sustain her. The electorate eventually will sort out the differences that matter.

In the meantime, a Sen. Caroline Kennedy would not be a nuclear-enabled leader of the free world, whereas a Vice President Sarah Palin might have been.

As such, they are as apples to ... zebras. Their treatment has been commensurate with that difference.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 01:36 AM   #27
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 10:51 PM
It is not the same as Palin, that is clear. Nor is it the same as Hillary. I am not Hillary's biggest fan but she is a brilliant woman who a.)listened and got elected b.)answered questions when asked and c.)was ALWAYS for better or worse, heavily involved in national policymaking. Caroline Kennedy could not get elected in 2010, most New Yorkers would view her as an entitled novice who backed her way into the job. Until she gives up her bizarre unwillingness to speak on issues that affect New Yorkers and makes her case, I cant say she is qualified or should have the seat.

There are alot of people who have been very smart, succesful lawyers and school fundraisers that I would not necessarily think to appoint as my Senator given the choice. Patterson has so many good, solid options, from Andrew Cuomo to Nita Lowey to the Mayor of Buffalo to even Bill Clinton. Appointing Caroline Kennedy would be a mistake and would greatly increase the chances of what should be a safe seat going Republican in 2010. US senator is a job, and an important one at that, one for which being appointed to, not elected based on your family legacy only just should not be acceptable. And this comes from someone who, though not in agreement w.100% of his views, has voted for Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts every time his name has come up.
__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2008, 10:42 AM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 10:51 PM
NY Times

December 21, 2008
Kennedy Offers Hints of a Platform, and a Few Surprises
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

ALBANY — In just a few days, Caroline Kennedy’s bid to replace Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has acquired nearly all the trappings of a traditional New York statewide campaign: a bevy of consultants, a tour of upstate cities and television cameras tracking her every move.

Now Ms. Kennedy has added something else to the list: a platform — of sorts.

Ms. Kennedy has not yet given a substantial interview to any publication and at recent appearances has declined to answer more than a few questions from reporters. But on Saturday, Ms. Kennedy’s spokesman provided written answers to 15 questions posed by The New York Times.

Most of the answers were brief, and some did not fully address the questions. Taken together, they cover only a small slice of the broad array of issues, from the parochial to the profound, that any New York senator is expected to confront. But as Ms. Kennedy seeks to convince Gov. David A. Paterson that she deserves the seat being vacated by Mrs. Clinton, the answers — drafted by Ms. Kennedy and her staff — provide a glimpse of her political ideology.

In most respects, Ms. Kennedy’s answers described views similar to those of other New York Democrats, including New York’s senior senator, Charles E. Schumer, and Mrs. Clinton. But she appears to support same-sex marriage, a significant difference between herself and Mrs. Clinton as well as president-elect Barack Obama, whose endorsement by Ms. Kennedy was a watershed event in the presidential race.

“Caroline supports full equality and marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples,” the statement said.

On social issues, Ms. Kennedy appears to oppose restrictions on abortion rights, including laws that would require young women to notify a parent before obtaining an abortion. But asked if she would support any state or federal restrictions on late-term abortions, Ms. Kennedy did not directly address issues like so-called partial birth abortion, instead simply offering an endorsement of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

“It’s a politician’s answer, and it doesn’t really tell you very much,” said Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School.

She appears to share mainstream Democratic views on most labor issues. Ms. Kennedy supports federal legislation, known as the “card check” bill, that would make it easier for unions to organize, the highest priority for the labor movement. She expressed some concern about what she described as “unintended, negative consequences” of the North American Free Trade Agreement, but stopped short of saying that it should be modified.

Ms. Kennedy also said she supported the auto industry bailout bill passed by the House and widely supported in parts of upstate New York that are home to auto-parts manufacturers.

She did not provide answers about other issues that may prove more controversial. Ms. Kennedy did not say whether she supports a cap on local property taxes in New York, something that has sharply divided Democrats and Republicans in Albany. And she did not say whether she supports raising state or federal income taxes for the rich to help balance the budget and pay for government programs.

In her responses, Ms. Kennedy expressed strong support for Israel and said an undivided Jerusalem must be the country’s national capital.

In responses issued on Saturday to written questions from two other publications, Politico.com and The Buffalo News, Ms. Kennedy said she opposed the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq and “supports President-elect Obama’s plan to work with our military leaders to begin a responsible withdrawal.”

But Ms. Kennedy did not answer a question from Politico about whether she would support a Democratic candidate for mayor during the 2009 elections or supported Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s controversial but successful effort to alter New York City’s term-limits law to allow him to run for a third term.

Ms. Kennedy’s Senate effort has been managed by Josh Isay, a consultant to Mr. Bloomberg, who won his first term as a Republican and is now an independent. And she is also being aided by Kevin Sheekey, one of Mr. Bloomberg’s top deputies.

This lack of an answer could provoke Democratic officials in New York, many of whom had little relationship with Ms. Kennedy until she undertook a whirlwind tour of meetings this week, and some of whom will expect her to back the party’s nominees in general elections.

“As the last Democratic nominee, I would be very upset by a response like that,” said Fernando Ferrer, the Democratic nominee for mayor in 2005. “I don’t know if this is a disqualifying nonanswer, but it certainly doesn’t make Democrats comfortable.”

Mr. Ferrer noted that politicians were expected to back their party’s nominees in general elections, though some Democrats broke ranks to endorse Mr. Bloomberg in 2005.“I assume she would want Democratic support if she won a primary, and I presume she wanted Senator Clinton to support Senator Obama in the presidential race when it became clear that Senator Clinton did not have the delegate votes.”

A spokesman for the state Democratic Party, Carly Lindauer, said in a statement: “The mission of the New York State Democratic Committee is to help elect Democrats, at all levels, across the state. We hope that as a member of the party, the next senator would share that commitment and work with us to achieve our goals.”

In her responses, Ms. Kennedy said she opposed school vouchers but supported charter schools and Mr. Bloomberg’s efforts to maintain mayoral control of city schools.

In response to a question about whether she would favor modifying the school-governance law — which must be renewed by state lawmakers in the months ahead — Ms. Kennedy’s statement said: “She is always open to new ideas on how to make the law better so long as they don’t prevent the mayor from taking the actions he thinks are appropriate and for which he will be held accountable.”

On illegal immigration, Ms. Kennedy supported a position promoted by her uncle, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, backing a so-called path to citizenship for the undocumented.

“Caroline believes all undocumented workers should be required to legalize their presence in the United States and that we must create a way for them to do so,” according to her statement. “Undocumented workers should pay a fine, learn English and go to the back of the line behind those who came here legally.”

In her responses to The New York Times, Ms. Kennedy described herself as a “strong supporter” of gun control. In her responses to The Buffalo News, Ms. Kennedy added that she wanted to restore the federal ban on assault weapons that expired in 2004. Both positions are likely to find more favor in New York City and its suburbs than upstate.

Ultimately, however, Ms. Kennedy must satisfy only a single voter: Mr. Paterson, who has sole discretion over who to appoint to Mrs. Clinton’s seat.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2008, 08:01 PM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 10:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post

“Caroline supports full equality and marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples,” the statement said.
At least she has the conscience to go against the Democratic establishment in this respect.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2008, 12:41 AM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:51 PM
If Caroline gets appointed
I am thinking it will be
bad for Gov. Patterson
bad for the Democrat Party
could hurt Obama

and good chance, she will lose in 2010.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com