deep
Blue Crack Addict
Should she get appointed as the Senator for New York?
Senator Caroline Kennedy ?????????????
- Thread starter deep
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
OP
OP
deep
Blue Crack Addict
This princesses' resume is light, light, light
The only way I would like to see her in the Senate
is by legitimately winning it
in a knife fight of an election.
But, I do suppose she deserves a payoff for leading that early endorsement of Obama with the whole Kennedy clan,
that was awe inspiring, a real profile in courage
the turning point in the primaries.
yes we can
The only way I would like to see her in the Senate
is by legitimately winning it
in a knife fight of an election.
But, I do suppose she deserves a payoff for leading that early endorsement of Obama with the whole Kennedy clan,
that was awe inspiring, a real profile in courage
the turning point in the primaries.
yes we can
Carek1230
Blue Crack Overdose Get me off the internetz!
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.
cydewaze
Refugee
It's the way it's always been done. IMO the only reason we're making a big deal out of it this time is because it involves Hillary Clinton.
And if it wasn't for the corruption fiasco, Obama's replacement wouldn't have even made headlines.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
I think this and also the fact that Republicans are desperate for any seat they can get right now. What some people don't get is that another campaign will cost taxpayers...
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
She is beautiful, however the seat shouldn't be awarded her.
<>
<>
cydewaze
Refugee
Glad to see you back alive and well!
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
surgery thurs.
<>
<>
cydewaze
Refugee
Ah, well you're a robust guy. You'll be fine
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
The only way I would like to see her in the Senate
is by legitimately winning it
in a knife fight of an election.
But, I do suppose she deserves a payoff for leading that early endorsement of Obama with the whole Kennedy clan,
that was awe inspiring, a real profile in courage
the turning point in the primaries.
yes we can
why don't they just give it to Chelsea?
i mean, her father was a great president.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
They always talked about JFK Jr being in politics one day, maybe even President. Even Obama was far more qualified than JFK Jr-he would have been the hottest President of all time, that's for sure..God rest his soul.
I think Caroline might be more qualified than he ever would have been at that time, only having George Magazine and very limited law experience. She seems like one of the more humble and classy and intelligent Kennedys. Is she qualified for the US Senate, I don't think so-not as qualified as others for sure, not by a long shot. It is funny that Cuomo wants it too considering the past relationship there.
I think Caroline might be more qualified than he ever would have been at that time, only having George Magazine and very limited law experience. She seems like one of the more humble and classy and intelligent Kennedys. Is she qualified for the US Senate, I don't think so-not as qualified as others for sure, not by a long shot. It is funny that Cuomo wants it too considering the past relationship there.
OP
OP
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Candidate 1:
Born Nov. 27, 1957
Attended Radcliffe College (1979), Columbia Law School (1988)
1989: Establishes the Profile in Courage Awards
1991: Writes "In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights in Action"
1994: Becomes honorary chair of the American Ballet Theatre
1995: Writes "The Right to Privacy"
2000: Speaks at the 2000 Democratic National Convention.
2002-2004: Chief executive for the Office of Strategic Partnerships for the New York City Department of Education, raising more than $65 million in private support for New York City public schools
2008: Member of Barack Obama's vice-presidential search team
Current activities:
-President of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation
-Member of the board at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the Commission on Presidential Debates
-Vice-chair of the Fund for Public Schools in New York City
Candidate 2:
Born Dec. 6, 1957
Attended Fordham University (1979); Albany Law School (1982)
1982: Campaign manager for Mario Cuomo in gubernatorial race in New York
1983: Aide to Governor Cuomo
1984-1985: Assistant district attorney in Manhattan
1985-1988: Partner at Blutrich, Falcone and Miller
1986: Founds the Housing Enterprise for the Less Privileged (H.E.L.P.), the largest private provider of transitional housing for the homeless
1991: Becomes head of the New York City Commission on the Homeless
1993: Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for President Clinton
1997-2001: Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
2001: Counsel at law firm Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
2002: Runs for governor unsuccessfully
2006: Elected Attorney General of New York 58% to 39%
Current activities:
-Attorney General of New York
Born Nov. 27, 1957
Attended Radcliffe College (1979), Columbia Law School (1988)
1989: Establishes the Profile in Courage Awards
1991: Writes "In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights in Action"
1994: Becomes honorary chair of the American Ballet Theatre
1995: Writes "The Right to Privacy"
2000: Speaks at the 2000 Democratic National Convention.
2002-2004: Chief executive for the Office of Strategic Partnerships for the New York City Department of Education, raising more than $65 million in private support for New York City public schools
2008: Member of Barack Obama's vice-presidential search team
Current activities:
-President of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation
-Member of the board at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the Commission on Presidential Debates
-Vice-chair of the Fund for Public Schools in New York City
Candidate 2:
Born Dec. 6, 1957
Attended Fordham University (1979); Albany Law School (1982)
1982: Campaign manager for Mario Cuomo in gubernatorial race in New York
1983: Aide to Governor Cuomo
1984-1985: Assistant district attorney in Manhattan
1985-1988: Partner at Blutrich, Falcone and Miller
1986: Founds the Housing Enterprise for the Less Privileged (H.E.L.P.), the largest private provider of transitional housing for the homeless
1991: Becomes head of the New York City Commission on the Homeless
1993: Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for President Clinton
1997-2001: Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
2001: Counsel at law firm Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
2002: Runs for governor unsuccessfully
2006: Elected Attorney General of New York 58% to 39%
Current activities:
-Attorney General of New York
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Aren't the Cuomos a version of the Kennedys? I think that name has helped them too along the way.
I see that Chris Cuomo om GMA and I always think he must have gotten that job due to his family name
By Roland Martin
CNN Contributor
(CNN) -- When Hillary Clinton announced in November 1999 that she was running for the U.S. Senate to replace the legendary Sen. Patrick Moynihan, she had never cast a single vote as an elected officeholder. She had never put forth an agenda the voters could use to decide whether she was the best candidate.
Her resume?
First lady. Lawyer. Advocate for health care and children's issues.
That's it.
But when she made it clear that she was going to seek the job, the New York Democratic congressional delegation stepped aside, bowing to the wishes of the first lady, who had barely lived in New York state long enough to figure out where to find a great slice of pizza. Even Rep. Nita Lowey, who had spent 10 years in the House of Representatives and was considered the front-runner for the Senate seat, bowed out to accommodate the wishes of Clinton.
So here we are nine years later, and there is a huge fuss over Caroline Kennedy's decision to let New York Gov. David Paterson know that she desires the job.
It's rather pathetic to listen to the naysayers deride Kennedy's accomplishments and dismiss them as if she was a spoiled rich kid of a family who has bounced from Paris to Monaco to Dubai, living the high life, and all of a sudden deciding that she wants to ride the Kennedy name into elected office.
New York Rep. Gary Ackerman did his best to dismiss Kennedy's qualifications by saying that "she has name recognition -- but so does J-Lo."
Even Clinton's rabid supporters are trying to scuttle Kennedy's bid, still angry because she endorsed then-Sen. Barack Obama over their candidate for president. Frankly, it's time you got the hell over it.
By the way, for all the Kennedy haters who are stuck on stupid when it comes to qualifications, go and read the U.S. Constitution. There are just three requirements as outlined by law for the seat:
"No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the age of 30 years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen."
That's it; end of conversation when it comes to the issue of qualifications. Anything beyond what the Constitution says is entirely subjective.
As a resident of the state of Texas who also resides in Illinois, I really don't give a hoot who represents New York in the U.S. Senate. But I am willing to call out sheer ignorance when it is operating in full glory.
I've met Caroline Kennedy just one time in my life, and that was in the CNN Grill at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado. I said hello. She said hello. End of story. So I have no dog in this hunt.
But I find it intriguing to know that this candidate is someone who has spent years focusing on philanthropic issues that deal with education, health care, expanding America's interests in the arts, writing books dealing with the right to privacy and the Bill of Rights, showing a passion for civil rights and serving as a national board member of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Instead of ripping her to shreds, maybe the haters should step back and recognize that here is a woman who understands public service. A notoriously private woman who is painfully shy in public, she clearly recognizes that we are in desperate need of people who care about the public good, and not necessarily amassing power on their way up the political ladder.
There are countless individuals in the U.S. House and Senate who sought the position because they actually wanted to change something. There are doctors, teachers, small-business owners -- all individuals who saw this nation going down the wrong path, and they desired to step up, rather than sit back and complain.
Paterson may choose a typical politician to fill the remaining two years of Clinton's term. But at least he can count on Kennedy's heart being in the right place -- having love and compassion for the people, which is the true measure of a public servant.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Roland Martin.
I see that Chris Cuomo om GMA and I always think he must have gotten that job due to his family name
By Roland Martin
CNN Contributor
(CNN) -- When Hillary Clinton announced in November 1999 that she was running for the U.S. Senate to replace the legendary Sen. Patrick Moynihan, she had never cast a single vote as an elected officeholder. She had never put forth an agenda the voters could use to decide whether she was the best candidate.
Her resume?
First lady. Lawyer. Advocate for health care and children's issues.
That's it.
But when she made it clear that she was going to seek the job, the New York Democratic congressional delegation stepped aside, bowing to the wishes of the first lady, who had barely lived in New York state long enough to figure out where to find a great slice of pizza. Even Rep. Nita Lowey, who had spent 10 years in the House of Representatives and was considered the front-runner for the Senate seat, bowed out to accommodate the wishes of Clinton.
So here we are nine years later, and there is a huge fuss over Caroline Kennedy's decision to let New York Gov. David Paterson know that she desires the job.
It's rather pathetic to listen to the naysayers deride Kennedy's accomplishments and dismiss them as if she was a spoiled rich kid of a family who has bounced from Paris to Monaco to Dubai, living the high life, and all of a sudden deciding that she wants to ride the Kennedy name into elected office.
New York Rep. Gary Ackerman did his best to dismiss Kennedy's qualifications by saying that "she has name recognition -- but so does J-Lo."
Even Clinton's rabid supporters are trying to scuttle Kennedy's bid, still angry because she endorsed then-Sen. Barack Obama over their candidate for president. Frankly, it's time you got the hell over it.
By the way, for all the Kennedy haters who are stuck on stupid when it comes to qualifications, go and read the U.S. Constitution. There are just three requirements as outlined by law for the seat:
"No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the age of 30 years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen."
That's it; end of conversation when it comes to the issue of qualifications. Anything beyond what the Constitution says is entirely subjective.
As a resident of the state of Texas who also resides in Illinois, I really don't give a hoot who represents New York in the U.S. Senate. But I am willing to call out sheer ignorance when it is operating in full glory.
I've met Caroline Kennedy just one time in my life, and that was in the CNN Grill at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado. I said hello. She said hello. End of story. So I have no dog in this hunt.
But I find it intriguing to know that this candidate is someone who has spent years focusing on philanthropic issues that deal with education, health care, expanding America's interests in the arts, writing books dealing with the right to privacy and the Bill of Rights, showing a passion for civil rights and serving as a national board member of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Instead of ripping her to shreds, maybe the haters should step back and recognize that here is a woman who understands public service. A notoriously private woman who is painfully shy in public, she clearly recognizes that we are in desperate need of people who care about the public good, and not necessarily amassing power on their way up the political ladder.
There are countless individuals in the U.S. House and Senate who sought the position because they actually wanted to change something. There are doctors, teachers, small-business owners -- all individuals who saw this nation going down the wrong path, and they desired to step up, rather than sit back and complain.
Paterson may choose a typical politician to fill the remaining two years of Clinton's term. But at least he can count on Kennedy's heart being in the right place -- having love and compassion for the people, which is the true measure of a public servant.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Roland Martin.
OP
OP
deep
Blue Crack Addict
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?
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?
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
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?
What about Jesse Ventura?
Charles Barkley?
OP
OP
deep
Blue Crack Addict
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?
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
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.
A stor
Refugee
namkcuR
ONE love, blood, life
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.
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.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i think she could be totally fine, if not even totally good.
it still reeks of nepotism.
it still reeks of nepotism.
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.
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.
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
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.
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.
OP
OP
deep
Blue Crack Addict
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.
She is a complete zero. ( when looking for qualities that a Senator should have )
Perhaps they should appoint her to the House of Lords.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
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.
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.
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.
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.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
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.
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.
At least she has the conscience to go against the Democratic establishment in this respect.
OP
OP
deep
Blue Crack Addict
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.
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.
Similar threads
