Another insult

[Guest]

to the voters, Caroline Kennedy wanting the vacated senate seat of Hillary Clinton! What posses the Kennedy clan to think they are indispensable in the Senate? Not one iota of qualifications, less than Sara Palin even, and the pundits are already saying that New York's Governor would be hard pressed not to appoint her? You know why? Solely because she would be a major fundraiser for the Democratic party.

I can already see the liberals in this forum defending and supporting her, even though they hammered Palin for her supposed lack of experience. :cus:

[Guest]

to the voters, Caroline Kennedy wanting the vacated senate seat of Hillary Clinton! What posses the Kennedy clan to think they are indispensable in the Senate? Not one iota of qualifications, less than Sara Palin even, and the pundits are already saying that New York's Governor would be hard pressed not to appoint her? You know why? Solely because she would be a major fundraiser for the Democratic party.

I can already see the liberals in this forum defending and supporting her, even though they hammered Palin for her supposed lack of experience. :cus:

Greez....I didn't know Sara Palin went to law school or that she was running for a Senate seat. My bad.

[Guest]

to the voters, Caroline Kennedy wanting the vacated senate seat of Hillary Clinton! What posses the Kennedy clan to think they are indispensable in the Senate? Not one iota of qualifications, less than Sara Palin even, and the pundits are already saying that New York's Governor would be hard pressed not to appoint her? You know why? Solely because she would be a major fundraiser for the Democratic party.

I can already see the liberals in this forum defending and supporting her, even though they hammered Palin for her supposed lack of experience. :cus:


I checked the liberal websit about this.......All is not well with her appointment.

Check this website.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/05/caroline-kennedy-clinton_n_148671.html

[Guest]

I was watching a segment on CNN that was telling people who were going to be laid off, how to do their resumes. An interesting point was to list experiences or some things you might have accomplished, that you did not get paid for, but would help make you a viable candidate for the job.

This comes to mind with Caroline Kennedy. No, she never held a public office before. But this is a woman that was literally raised and steeped in politics and government. My guess is that she's far more educated and familiar with what the job of Senator entails then many of the Senators we already seated.

Plus she brings a legacy of American's first family, star power and name recognition and a ton of already established connections.

After all, what qualifications did Arnold Schwartzenegger have when he ran for Governor? His role in The Terminator? Or Ronald Reagan? His role as Knute Rockne? :shrug:

[Guest]

You know,, I gotta go in Gnu on this one.

If she can get VOTED in against ANY candidate.......fine! But, I don't think she wants to run for an office. She wants it the easy way.

I don't feel she is worthy of an appointment any more than Joe the plumber.

Once in, she'll never have to run again, NAME recognition will get her re-elected for as long as she wants.

[Guest]

You know,, I gotta go in Gnu on this one.

If she can get VOTED in against ANY candidate.......fine! But, I don't think she wants to run for an office. She wants it the easy way.

I don't feel she is worthy of an appointment any more than Joe the plumber.

Once in, she'll never have to run again, NAME recognition will get her re-elected for as long as she wants.

There it is in a nut shell ALN, and I've seen the defense of her on these posts already! Imagine that!:shrug:

[Guest]

Greez....I didn't know Sara Palin went to law school or that she was running for a Senate seat. My bad.

Since when is having a law degree a qualification for anything political? Most of the country holds lawyers in ridicule. In our home town alone there have been lawyers that have shot their partners, been convicted of drunk driving, tax evasion and who knows how much contempt of their clients for the money they charge. Simply having a law degree means nothing in itself.

And who said anything about Palin running for the Senate? The topic was experience to run for a public office. Palin had experience for the office she was running for and Kennedy has non for the office she seeks. Palin was ridiculed in these posts because of her lack of experience for public office, even though she has held public office, yet now Kennedy is defended simply because she has a law degree!

I've seen exactly what I expected to see for a response, one-up-manship, gotcha, and twisting of the topic to appear superior.barf

[Guest]

I

After all, what qualifications did Arnold Schwartzenegger have when he ran for Governor? His role in The Terminator? Or Ronald Reagan? His role as Knute Rockne? :shrug:

The major difference is that they were "elected" to a state level office. The public voted them in! Far less a political jump than from celebrity politicians daughter to the Senate.

I do not have a problem with her as a person. I'm sure that she has done many wonderful things in life because of her Kennedy name, daughter of President John F. Kennedy. But appointing her to an important public office because of her name status is wrong. Why didn't she get involved in politics at a lower level, say run for governor of NY? Was it not worth it to her? But, she'll take an appointment to the Senate with effortless ease!:shrug:

[Guest]

Gnu, there is a huge difference between VP of the United States and being a senator. The VP spot requires someone with broad knowledge and experience to RUN a country if the need arose. A senator REPRESENTS the people of a district. The qualifications for each are quite different.

As for Caroline Kennedy being appointed senator, the question should be, why not? She has the people skills to represent, has been involved with many public issues, has been a member of non-profit boards, authored a book on legal issues, has certainly been versed in the workings of politcs all her life. Being a senator is hard work for those who take it seriously and my belief is that she would work for the public good.

It seems irrational not to want Ms. Kenndey in office simply because she comes from a well known family.

[Guest]

Gnu, the people who have already defended Caroline Kennedy would defend a stone if it was specified as a democrat stone. The same two who have already chimed in, spend their days looking to pounce on this kind of thread. Caroline should be appointed the "Hostess in Waiting".

[Guest]

Irish Rover, your post would be received better if you would stick to the topic instead of sticking it to the posters.........

[Guest]

It makes little difference what we define as qualifications, for the Constitution says it this way:

“No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty 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.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section3

It always amazes me when we lean on the Constitution when it suits us and devise our own interpretation when it doesn’t, my post included!

[Guest]

The name Kennedy (strike two-by itself is not a qualification)....grew up in a political environment (strike three)....the latter like a child growing up in a household with other PhD parent/professors/brothers and sisters....what does this have to do with the childs capabilities? Established contacts (strike four).

What she does represent is what everybody that is being appointed to Obamas staff....more of the same.

It is common knowledge, real change cannot be brought into play by incumbents or those who have been a part of the broken system for years.

Where are the non lawyer, non politician, very capable real change agents?
They are smart enough to stay away from the government cess pool of non talented that manage to be re-elected every time.

BTK

[Guest]

Gnu, the people who have already defended Caroline Kennedy would defend a stone if it was specified as a democrat stone. The same two who have already chimed in, spend their days looking to pounce on this kind of thread. Caroline should be appointed the "Hostess in Waiting".

:1rotfl::agree:

[Guest]

It makes little difference what we define as qualifications, for the Constitution says it this way:

“No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty 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.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section3

It always amazes me when we lean on the Constitution when it suits us and devise our own interpretation when it doesn’t, my post included!

Then with those qualifications I should be in the Senate! Born American, life long citizen, served honorably in the service of my country and just turned 60. Guess leaning on the Constitution suits me. No other qualifications needed!

[Guest]

If the citizens of New York are happy if Ms. Kennedy gets appointed as fill-in senator, then they get what they deserve. These are the same folk who elected as the previous (current) senator a person whose total residence time prior to being placed on the ballot could have been measured in nanoseconds.

It's New York voters' call on what they consider "adequate qualifications" to represent their state. They are probably looking at Ms. Kennedy as keeping the seat warm until Ms. Clinton (the younger) needs a job.

But, the voters there must truly believe that in a state whose population totals approximately 19.3 million, there is no one else among them other than Ms. Kennedy in any way, shape or form qualified to be senator.

[Guest]

BTK - you described the Bushes.

Gnu - next time, just post only those who agree with you should respond - end of problem for you.

[Guest]

Then with those qualifications I should be in the Senate! Born American, life long citizen, served honorably in the service of my country and just turned 60. Guess leaning on the Constitution suits me. No other qualifications needed!

gnu, you are 100% correct in my view!

It’s not a matter if you or I SHOULD be in the Senate. According to the Constitution we COULD and are qualified to be in the Senate as well as millions of other Americans. As has been pointed out many times in this forum, “qualified” and “politician” are not synonymous. Kennedy is qualified according to the Constitution and COULD be in the Senate – whether she SHOULD be is open for debate.

[Guest]

gnu, you are 100% correct in my view!

It’s not a matter if you or I SHOULD be in the Senate. According to the Constitution we COULD and are qualified to be in the Senate as well as millions of other Americans. As has been pointed out many times in this forum, “qualified” and “politician” are not synonymous. Kennedy is qualified according to the Constitution and COULD be in the Senate – whether she SHOULD be is open for debate.

There is a difference between being qualified and eligible. The criteria within the Constitution only is concerned with who is eligible to be placed on the ballot. The voters (or in this special case, the state governor) determine from the eligible candidates who is best qualified to serve.

[Guest]

The biggest problem we have in this country is that our elected officials are mostly lawyers and not business people. Lawyers pass laws to promote lawyers. They have become the biggest non productive drag on our economy. They are most of the problem with our health care system. The last thing we need is one more. Put someone in there with business savvy. Someone who has worked for a living and been successful. Our Congress and our Senate are a joke. The most useless group of elected Representatives in our history. Any chance we have to change it we should and not appoint another useless lawyer.

[Guest]

Being from NY, I think that Ms. Kennedy is the perfect person to follow Sen. Clinton. Heck, she might even live there!

[Guest]

I'm of your opinion gnu. Since Mrs. Schloss(whatever) was a young adult, she acted like an elitist. Her brother, not so.

I don't care that her name is Kennedy. Makes no difference. It's just that Mrs. Schloss... is unqualified. I mean, come on, NOBODY in NY can step up but socialists?

But, as NYC votes, so goes NY State. Same in California with San Francisco; same in Illinois.

Batten down the hatches and bring it on... the next 4 dismal years. Obama will be the next Hoover !!!

[Guest]

BTK - you described the Bushes.

Gnu - next time, just post only those who agree with you should respond - end of problem for you.

Not a problem for me. I just expect a known response from known sources. Without the different points of view there would be no need to bother posting in political.

[Guest]

gnu, you are 100% correct in my view!

It’s not a matter if you or I SHOULD be in the Senate. According to the Constitution we COULD and are qualified to be in the Senate as well as millions of other Americans. As has been pointed out many times in this forum, “qualified” and “politician” are not synonymous. Kennedy is qualified according to the Constitution and COULD be in the Senate – whether she SHOULD be is open for debate.

No one questioned weather the Kennedys could be ELECTED but if they SHOULD be APPOINTED. As seen on TV (political thread) eligible and qualified are not the same thing.

[Guest]

If the citizens of New York are happy if Ms. Kennedy gets appointed as fill-in senator, then they get what they deserve. These are the same folk who elected as the previous (current) senator a person whose total residence time prior to being placed on the ballot could have been measured in nanoseconds.

It's New York voters' call on what they consider "adequate qualifications" to represent their state. They are probably looking at Ms. Kennedy as keeping the seat warm until Ms. Clinton (the younger) needs a job.

You're obviously not a resident of NY or you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous post. As a former resident of NY who voted for Mrs. Clinton, I note that she was re-elected by a landslide. The reason for this is that she is an incredibly hard worker. The people love her there. Who says that not being a longtime resident makes you unqualified in any way for the position? Hillary is an incredibly bright woman, with a law degree, who familiarized herself with the issues, then worked very very hard to make things better for New Yorkers.

In any event, at this point it will not be New Yorkers call, it will be Governor Patterson's call. There are many qualifed candidates, including Ms Kennedy, and I'm sure he'll make a good choice.

As Chelsea implied, why is everyone picking on Kennedy anyways? Take a look at Schwartzenegger. I mean, come on! How could anyone be less qualified, and for the office of Governor, no less!

[Guest]

You're obviously not a resident of NY or you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous post. As a former resident of NY who voted for Mrs. Clinton, I note that she was re-elected by a landslide. The reason for this is that she is an incredibly hard worker. The people love her there. Who says that not being a longtime resident makes you unqualified in any way for the position? Hillary is an incredibly bright woman, with a law degree, who familiarized herself with the issues, then worked very very hard to make things better for New Yorkers.

In any event, at this point it will not be New Yorkers call, it will be Governor Patterson's call. There are many qualifed candidates, including Ms Kennedy, and I'm sure he'll make a good choice.

As Chelsea implied, why is everyone picking on Kennedy anyways? Take a look at Schwartzenegger. I mean, come on! How could anyone be less qualified, and for the office of Governor, no less!

If the post seemed ridiculous to you, that's your call.

As Gov. Patterson is the duly-elected official to determine such an appointment, he speaks for the 19.3 million citizens of New York; thus, the voters speak through him.

Every time I see the Kennedy adoration society genuflect before another clan member, it makes me glad to be a former Bostonian.

Every time I see someone carpetbag into a state, especially one of a dozen-plus million citizens, and blitzkrieg into office by virtue of name recognition and heavy advertising, I become more impressed on how quasi-celebrity status and excellent marketing is more impressive to voters than then less-than-flashy person who has lived the state issues and can actually find their way around the state without a GPS and a personal guide.

Every time I see the country slip further into a select "ruling clique" consisting of a relative handful of families and a general herd of serfs who are expected to accept being "ruled" by this party elite (and both major parties do this!), it makes me wonder how much longer this Great Experiment occurring in North America will continue to survive.

The Senate is becoming the American "Privy Council" and the House of Representatives heading towards being the "House of Lords."

Whatever happened to the Founders' concept of citizen-delegate who served for a term or two, but went home to work their "real job" and then hand the baton to a local replacement. They actually believed that each district had more than one citizen competent to represent, and that was with a much smaller and less educated population back then.

Perhaps a periodic monarchy is what the masses today really want....

[Guest]

If the post seemed ridiculous to you, that's your call.

Every time I see the Kennedy adoration society genuflect before another clan member, it makes me glad to be a former Bostonian.

Every time I see someone carpetbag into a state, especially one of a dozen-plus million citizens, and blitzkrieg into office by virtue of name recognition and heavy advertising, I become more impressed on how quasi-celebrity status and excellent marketing is more impressive to voters than then less-than-flashy person who has lived the state issues and can actually find their way around the state without a GPS and a personal guide.

Every time I see the country slip further into a select "ruling clique" consisting of a relative handful of families and a general herd of serfs who are expected to accept being "ruled" by this party elite (and both major parties do this!), it makes me wonder how much longer this Great Experiment occurring in North America will continue to survive.

The Senate is becoming the American "Privy Council" and the House of Representatives heading towards being the "House of Lords."

Whatever happened to the Founders' concept of citizen-delegate who served for a term or two, but went home to work their "real job" and then hand the baton to a local replacement. They actually believed that each district had more than one citizen competent to represent, and that was with a much smaller and less educated population back then.

Perhaps a periodic monarchy is what the masses today really want....

SteveZ, well spoken and I couldn't agree more, particularly, "Whatever happened to the Founders' concept of citizen-delegate who served a term or two, but went home to work their "real job"."

[Guest]

Right on Steve. I'm from New York and I totally agree with you. NY has been the carpet ****** poster child. I remember when Robert Kennedy decided to be NY Senator in order to run for President.

Regard ARNOLD!!!, he's an idiot, truly. He got elected for his star power AND his wife is a (drum roll) KENNEDY.

I'm just sayin'

[Guest]

If the post seemed ridiculous to you, that's your call.

As Gov. Patterson is the duly-elected official to determine such an appointment, he speaks for the 19.3 million citizens of New York; thus, the voters speak through him.

Every time I see the Kennedy adoration society genuflect before another clan member, it makes me glad to be a former Bostonian.

Every time I see someone carpetbag into a state, especially one of a dozen-plus million citizens, and blitzkrieg into office by virtue of name recognition and heavy advertising, I become more impressed on how quasi-celebrity status and excellent marketing is more impressive to voters than then less-than-flashy person who has lived the state issues and can actually find their way around the state without a GPS and a personal guide.

Every time I see the country slip further into a select "ruling clique" consisting of a relative handful of families and a general herd of serfs who are expected to accept being "ruled" by this party elite (and both major parties do this!), it makes me wonder how much longer this Great Experiment occurring in North America will continue to survive.

The Senate is becoming the American "Privy Council" and the House of Representatives heading towards being the "House of Lords."

Whatever happened to the Founders' concept of citizen-delegate who served for a term or two, but went home to work their "real job" and then hand the baton to a local replacement. They actually believed that each district had more than one citizen competent to represent, and that was with a much smaller and less educated population back then.

Perhaps a periodic monarchy is what the masses today really want....

SteveZ, you say you don't like people that would choose a Kennedy just for the name and yet, you're making it clear that you would oppose a Kennedy just because of the name.

Why don't you listen to the people that actually live in the state. No one wants to hear about Chicago from someone that's actually lived there, i.e. Kahuna and me and now you completely ignore Rekop's opinion about New York! :shrug: I don't get it? Do you know better than everyone in this country that has lived in every state?

And BTW, I don't know if you guys are even reading what you're writing because much of what you say would apply to Bush, Palin and McCain. :ohdear:

[Guest]

SteveZ, you say you don't like people that would choose a Kennedy just for the name and yet, you're making it clear that you would oppose a Kennedy just because of the name.

Why don't you listen to the people that actually live in the state. No one wants to hear about Chicago from someone that's actually lived there, i.e. Kahuna and me and now you completely ignore Rekop's opinion about New York! :shrug: I don't get it? Do you know better than everyone in this country that has lived in every state?

And BTW, I don't know if you guys are even reading what you're writing because much of what you say would apply to Bush, Palin and McCain. :ohdear:

I read what I was writing, Chels. Across the board, serve two terms and you are through... out the door and off the dole.

[Guest]

I read what I was writing, Chels. Across the board, serve two terms and you are through... out the door and off the dole.

I agree with the two terms, Peachie. Absolutely! ;)

[Guest]

Since when is having a law degree a qualification for anything political? Most of the country holds lawyers in ridicule. In our home town alone there have been lawyers that have shot their partners, been convicted of drunk driving, tax evasion and who knows how much contempt of their clients for the money they charge. Simply having a law degree means nothing in itself.

And who said anything about Palin running for the Senate? The topic was experience to run for a public office. Palin had experience for the office she was running for and Kennedy has non for the office she seeks. Palin was ridiculed in these posts because of her lack of experience for public office, even though she has held public office, yet now Kennedy is defended simply because she has a law degree!

I've seen exactly what I expected to see for a response, one-up-manship, gotcha, and twisting of the topic to appear superior.barf

Last time I checked a law degree requires a Doctorate while Palin barely made it past a bachelors. She was a mayor of the Meth capital of Alaska and left the city deep in debt. Palin was running for Veep a heart beat away from the Presidency. No way was Palin qualified for the office of VP....

[Guest]

Gnu, the people who have already defended Caroline Kennedy would defend a stone if it was specified as a democrat stone. The same two who have already chimed in, spend their days looking to pounce on this kind of thread. Caroline should be appointed the "Hostess in Waiting".

You would oppose any Democrat the Governor picks. If he picks her she gets 2 years and then has to run in 2010 and again in 2012.

[Guest]

SteveZ, you say you don't like people that would choose a Kennedy just for the name and yet, you're making it clear that you would oppose a Kennedy just because of the name.

Why don't you listen to the people that actually live in the state. No one wants to hear about Chicago from someone that's actually lived there, i.e. Kahuna and me and now you completely ignore Rekop's opinion about New York! :shrug: I don't get it? Do you know better than everyone in this country that has lived in every state?

And BTW, I don't know if you guys are even reading what you're writing because much of what you say would apply to Bush, Palin and McCain. :ohdear:
If you read the entire posts, they specifically stated that the voters in the state (or their duly elected delegate) are the ones to choose whom they want as their representative. That's the way it is. The "star-power" attitude and "select families" concepts (and I said that both major parties do this) is turning the nation into a two-class system - rulers and serfs.

As far as Chicago is concerned, if you read the posts, they stated that Chicago is no different than any other major city in the US, in that the "political machine" concept applies elsewhere and provides the same results - exploitation, institutional racism, selective disposition of services, and patronage to the devout. Those who feed the machine and become the primary recipients of its output tend to ignore the effects upon others.

There is no difference between how the "political machine" concept works and that applied in any dictatorial regime elsewhere in the world - no matter how many potholes are filled.

As ar as the Kennedy's are concerned, if one became a candidate for office here in the Florida Fifth, or for the soon-to-be open Senate seat, or any state office, the eligible and qualified criteria appies. They would get no special break, as I don't see where there is anything within their DNA that automatically makes them the best person for a job simply by having notorious ancestors. They would not be biased - just treated as "equals" as explained in the Declaration of Independence.

Sometimes it seems the Democratic (or Republican) Party believes that people should follow as sheep behind Party aristocracy, as it is their birthright to lead us. And it happens again and again. Is that "shame on them" or "shame on us" for being so easily star-struck?

[Guest]

With all this discussion on appointments to a senate seat I found this article covering appointments of this type over the years to be very interesting.

This is a section near the end which is a good read...

"Finally, while almost all states give the power to governors to fill vacancies, there are a few that do not, such as Oregon and Wisconsin. Two others have recently changed their laws to take away gubernatorial appointment power. Alaska changed its law after the Lisa Murkowski flap in 2002. And Massachusetts changed its process in 2004, when some Massachusetts legislators -- hoping John Kerry would be elected president -- didn't want Republican Gov. Mitt Romney to choice his successor. "

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/12/16/1718626.aspx

[Guest]

Let's hope that Gov. Patterson ignores the "legacy" candidates like Cuomo and Kennedy and picks a qualified person like Rep. Slaughter from Rochester. She has paid her dues.

[Guest]

Last time I checked a law degree requires a Doctorate while Palin barely made it past a bachelors. She was a mayor of the Meth capital of Alaska and left the city deep in debt. Palin was running for Veep a heart beat away from the Presidency. No way was Palin qualified for the office of VP....

Some people are in aw over anyone who has an education. Wow a Doctorate, he/she must be smarter than me! Not!

Let me see who was that Rhodes Scholar that was so intelligent that he was having sex in the White House?

I thought the liberals wanted change in government? With out having a crystal ball we'll never know if Palin would have been the best president we ever had. I'm pretty sure that at least she wouldn't be having sex with anyone other than her husband.:pepper2:

[Guest]

You would oppose any Democrat the Governor picks. If he picks her she gets 2 years and then has to run in 2010 and again in 2012.

I don't oppose a Democrat, as a matter of fact I'd be amazed if the Governor didn't!!! I just oppose Kennedy being appoint because she's from the Royal establishment. How about someone who worked their way up and earned the spot?

[Guest]

Ms. Kennedy, who apparently lives in Manhatten, is planning a quick trip through Upstate NY. Gove. Patterson feels that the next Senator needs to understand the problems of Upstate, as they are liable to run against Rudy in two years. He has tons of support Upstate. This talk of Kennedy and Cuomo is more reminisent of a seat in the House of Lords.

[Guest]

Thus far watching the Illinois situation and Emanuel's involvement, and the New York talk, the change we expected must be just around the next turn :)

Everything appears to me politics as normal, perhaps a bit earlier but normal...nothing much different.

Cant wait for the policies !!!!

[Guest]

What's usual Bucco is you sniping at the President-Elect. What happened to all the "I will support whoever is President" talk???? As I said before, talk is cheap and you're running a Blue Light Special. :laugh:

BTW, Number 6, Rudy made an arse out of himself by ridiculing Community Organizers at the Repub. Convention. He's never going to be Senator. He's become a joke. :yuck:

[Guest]

What's usual Bucco is you sniping at the President-Elect. What happened to all the "I will support whoever is President" talk???? As I said before, talk is cheap and you're running a Blue Light Special. :laugh:

BTW, Number 6, Rudy made an arse out of himself by ridiculing Community Organizers at the Repub. Convention. He's never going to be Senator. He's become a joke. :yuck:

If you want folks to NEVER crticize President Elect Obama then you have had much too much of whatever.......

Why can he not be criticized ? I recall the accusations the day after the election in both 2000 and 2004 but that was ok...right ?

Why, and I am serious, is President Elect Obama above being criticized ? I have applauded some of his appointments, but why do you think we should all shut up if we disagree ??? Please, are we just to be silent and accept whatever he or his followers say or does ? Must we all walk as one even we we disagree ?

[Guest]

Rudy has huge support in Upstate NY where he can say anything he wants about community orginizers. The folks in Ithaca aren't going to vote for him anyway. He also has good support in the City where he was a popular Mayor. If not for his cancer I suspect we would not be talking about Sen. Clinton.

[Guest]

Some people are in aw over anyone who has an education. Wow a Doctorate, he/she must be smarter than me! Not!

Let me see who was that Rhodes Scholar that was so intelligent that he was having sex in the White House?

I thought the liberals wanted change in government? With out having a crystal ball we'll never know if Palin would have been the best president we ever had. I'm pretty sure that at least she wouldn't be having sex with anyone other than her husband.:pepper2:

Yeah, she showed how intelligent she was during the Couric interviews.

[Guest]

I don't oppose a Democrat, as a matter of fact I'd be amazed if the Governor didn't!!! I just oppose Kennedy being appoint because she's from the Royal establishment. How about someone who worked their way up and earned the spot?

Jackie Kennedy made damn sure her children worked for the good of all Americans. They didn't sit back on their Trust Funds. In fact the entire Kennedy family was raised in that tradition of public service. JFK never took his salary as President, I don't think you can say that about anyone else. Just because Caroline hasn't been flouncing around in the spotlight doesn't mean she hasn't been working for the good of New Yorkers, especially when it comes to education.

As for you comment on Palin being possibly the best president we would have had, trust me you'll never know. She will never be elected. The core she appeals to is a very small minority of the extreme right Republicans. She doesn't have a prayer in hell of ever becoming elected. :yuck:

[Guest]

Jackie Kennedy made damn sure her children worked for the good of all Americans. They didn't sit back on their Trust Funds. In fact the entire Kennedy family was raised in that tradition of public service. JFK never took his salary as President, I don't think you can say that about anyone else. Just because Caroline hasn't been flouncing around in the spotlight doesn't mean she hasn't been working for the good of New Yorkers, especially when it comes to education.

As for you comment on Palin being possibly the best president we would have had, trust me you'll never know. She will never be elected. The core she appeals to is a very small minority of the extreme right Republicans. She doesn't have a prayer in hell of ever becoming elected. :yuck:
"Camelot" is part of a fantasy view of England during feudal times, as opposed to the Kennedy Administration and the entire clan. What some may call an "enlightened time" centered around a fabled family; can be also viewed as one of the most bungled presidencies ever, matched with blatant nepotism and flubbed foreign relations, tied into a political machine that was able to cover up White House tawdryisms and the facts surrounding an after-party death.

Whether Ms. Onassis inspired her daughter during the years from age 6 (when JFK died) to age 18 (when Mr. Onassis died), considering that most of those years involved living in Europe, is subjective. Suffice to say that being well-heeled allows the freedom to do or be what one wants.

Whether Ms. Kennedy is appointed or not, it is a New York issue. May the governor show wisdom in his decision.

Whether in the future Gov. Palin finds herself as a Senator from Alaska, that is an Alaskan issue. Their voters are inherently just as wise as any from the other 49 states, including New York and Illinois.

Whether Gov. Palin is ever elected into a national office, a lot will depend upon the qualifications of any opponent. It is not inconceivable that Gov. Palin four-to-eight years from now will be as prepared for national office as a four-years-ago heretofore unknown Illinois State Senator and candidate for the U.S. Senate grew to be. It would be nice to think that people can accept the potential for professional growth in others from opposing political parties, as they would like many to have regarding the President-elect.

And as far as Gov. Palin's voter appeal being only with "a very small minority of the extreme right Republicans," that opinion is in error. Rough edges and blunt talk is refreshing, especially to Independents not in awe of political quasi-royalty who believe title to various public office is a birthright.

[Guest]

Any American that has so much disdain for the Kennedy family always confuses me. This family, practically the entire family, has devoted it's life to public service. I believe that is why the majority of American people and people all around the world still have great admiration for them. They have always truly stood for "Country First". It's not just a "slogan" to them.

As for Jackie, I've always admired her lifting the American spirit through the arts. “Culture is the widening of the mind and of the spirit.” This is not her quote, but one I've always liked.

Have you asked yourself "Why does Caroline Kennedy want this job?" Do you think it's for the money? She doesn't need it. Do you think it's for fame? She certainly has that already and never sought it. But I can guarantee you most of the other people seeking the job, are seeking money or fame. She wants to give back. To do the public service she was raised to do.

As for Palin, sorry but I don't find "Rough edges and blunt talk" just will not cut it. We've just had 8 years of this and there's no turning back.

“A culture is made -- or destroyed -- by its articulate voices.”

No, sorry, you can't cram to be President. Palin is in her 40's. She should have been much more well versed in world affairs by this time. I just don't think she's intellectually up for the job and never will be. I don't think she stands a chance. Just my opinion. ;)

[Guest]

Any American that has so much disdain for the Kennedy family always confuses me. This family, practically the entire family, has devoted it's life to public service. I believe that is why the majority of American people and people all around the world still have great admiration for them. They have always truly stood for "Country First". It's not just a "slogan" to them.

As for Jackie, I've always admired her lifting the American spirit through the arts. “Culture is the widening of the mind and of the spirit.” This is not her quote, but one I've always liked.

Have you asked yourself "Why does Caroline Kennedy want this job?" Do you think it's for the money? She doesn't need it. Do you think it's for fame? She certainly has that already and never sought it. But I can guarantee you most of the other people seeking the job, are seeking money or fame. She wants to give back. To do the public service she was raised to do.

As for Palin, sorry but I don't find "Rough edges and blunt talk" just will not cut it. We've just had 8 years of this and there's no turning back.

“A culture is made -- or destroyed -- by its articulate voices.”

No, sorry, you can't cram to be President. Palin is in her 40's. She should have been much more well versed in world affairs by this time. I just don't think she's intellectually up for the job and never will be. I don't think she stands a chance. Just my opinion. ;)
Our differing opinions of the Kennedy clan probably have a lot to do with proximity to their actions over the years. Growing up within inner-city Boston of a different ethnicity than the ruling "political machine's" primary base, and watching the "royal family" operate was souring. The media gave them a free pass over many of their antics, and so the rest of the nation was presented a glossy and romantic image of a patriarchal rum runner who tried to obtain legitimacy for his criminal activity vicariously via his progeny. However, the progeny had nothing over the much-publicized youthful and later actions of the current President.

I've never been much for celebrity adoration, especially when the celebrity is created by media accent on the positive with total obliteration of any reference to the negative ever happening or being weighted. It gets worse when the negative involves a death, and demonstrates the difference between "them" and "us" when it comes to accounting for actions and conduct.

Ms. Caroline Kennedy's reasons for seeking public office in any fashion are her own, and conjecture on what those reasons may be are beyond my clairvoyant abilities. Why super-wealthy seek a public position which pays less than their car(s) cost(s) is between them and their conscience. However, "to protect and serve" is definitely not the sole and continuing reason.

Whether the "majority of Americans and others around the world" have great admiration of the Kennedy clan is questionable and subjective, unless "great admiration" includes reluctant recognition that in many Northeast jurisdictions the Kennedy's can live and operate without concern that the law applied to the general public will be applied to them.

[Guest]

Any American that has so much disdain for the Kennedy family always confuses me. This family, practically the entire family, has devoted it's life to public service. I believe that is why the majority of American people and people all around the world still have great admiration for them. They have always truly stood for "Country First". It's not just a "slogan" to them.

As for Jackie, I've always admired her lifting the American spirit through the arts. “Culture is the widening of the mind and of the spirit.” This is not her quote, but one I've always liked.

Have you asked yourself "Why does Caroline Kennedy want this job?" Do you think it's for the money? She doesn't need it. Do you think it's for fame? She certainly has that already and never sought it. But I can guarantee you most of the other people seeking the job, are seeking money or fame. She wants to give back. To do the public service she was raised to do.

As for Palin, sorry but I don't find "Rough edges and blunt talk" just will not cut it. We've just had 8 years of this and there's no turning back.

“A culture is made -- or destroyed -- by its articulate voices.”

No, sorry, you can't cram to be President. Palin is in her 40's. She should have been much more well versed in world affairs by this time. I just don't think she's intellectually up for the job and never will be. I don't think she stands a chance. Just my opinion. ;)

Chels, you never address all the time spent "tuning up" Obama before he was allowed to speak without a teleprompter and he still erred at times. It's part of the training process and you must be very aware of that fact. I am hoping for the best now that he has been elected but contrary to some opinions, he isn't Einstein. He is very calculated is his actions and he has the media doing everything they can to cover his rough edges.

Individuals do not have to hate Caroline Schlossberg to hate this process. Voters are tired of the "inside, slick manuevering" of the political parties, PERIOD. You probably hated the fact that George W. Bush was slid into place on the coattails of his father but wholeheartedly endorse Caroline being annointed to a senatorial position for which she is hardly prepared.

Contrary to public opinion, attaining a degree to lawyer in the USA is not the nth degree of brilliance. Many of us find critical thinking important and aren't into monarchies. Perhaps New Yorkers should review a list of very qualified candidates and then chose the very best senator available. Caroline Schlossberg may be a viable candidate but at this point, who in New York knows? The credentials presented thus far are mediocre at best but maybe there is a dynamo within her that has been to date, very well hidden. Good luck, New York!

[Guest]

My take is that Gov. Patterson is too smart to pick Ms. Kennedy. The smart political move is to pick Cuomo so that he doesn't run for Govenor. Ms. Kennedy has limited support Upstate and the independent voters are not going to like the appointment based on name alone. We are done with this royal family. The wise pick is Rep. Louise Slaughter, a liberal from Rochester. Take a look at her background. She has actually been serving the people of Upstate.

[Guest]

I love it when people like the Kennedy's say, "They where taught to give back and to do public service." Give me a break. It's a cushy job. The salary is nothing. It's all the potential monetary benefits that go with it, not to mention power and prestige. Why do you think they encourage their children to follow in their footsteps???

[Guest]

[QUOTE=SteveZ;178300
And as far as Gov. Palin's voter appeal being only with "a very small minority of the extreme right Republicans," that opinion is in error. Rough edges and blunt talk is refreshing, especially to Independents not in awe of political quasi-royalty who believe title to various public office is a birthright.[/QUOTE]

The facts don't appear to support that statement. Many republicans didn't like Palin, and voted for McCain grudgingly because of his VP choice. And obviously, the independants didn't vote for the ticket either or Obama wouldn't have won. Most pundits I've read do say that Palin appeals to the right wing portion of the Republican party. In any event, 4 years is a long time in politics. She may educate herself and attempt to re-make her image; or new political stars will come onto the horizon that will outshine her. Obama may be such a great president, that the Republican candidate won't have a chance at all. ;)

[Guest]

The facts don't appear to support that statement. Many republicans didn't like Palin, and voted for McCain grudgingly because of his VP choice. And obviously, the independants didn't vote for the ticket either or Obama wouldn't have won. Most pundits I've read do say that Palin appeals to the right wing portion of the Republican party. In any event, 4 years is a long time in politics. She may educate herself and attempt to re-make her image; or new political stars will come onto the horizon that will outshine her. Obama may be such a great president, that the Republican candidate won't have a chance at all. ;)
There was a lot wrong with the way the Republican Party handled this last election: 1) the lead candidate did not espouse right-of-center values which were the party core; 2) the negativity of the campaign did not inspire confidence; 3) the secondary candidate lacked preparation and was thrown into the mix without strategy; and most of all 4) the incumbent President, as the party leader, made strategy inconsistent and contrary.

All that being true, Gov. Palin proved at the onset that for the Republican Party to compete, "fresh faces" devoid of alliances to the current establishment were necessary. Her selection as the V.P. candidate was an initial shot of adrenalin into the Party, as evidenced by the first two weeks of her entry into the campaign. However, the momentum could not be maintained since there was no prior planning and preparation to make the move a decisive one. The "fresh face" strategy proved successful for the Democrats who prepared for the moment with cautious preparation to have a "fresh face" candidate should the "familiar" candidate appear too similar to the Republicans in the sense of being "old school" and tied to past policies and tactics.

Republicans, during the primaries, demonstrated that Sen. McCain lacked across-the-party backing and there was little consensus ever reached. The Democrats too were divided, but linked better in the end.

Sarah Palin may indeed return to the scene, mainly due to the fact that she "took one for the team" and having survived the fray with little more than satirical scarring, proved she can take the heat. She will insure that another time at bat is in the offing, and the next time there will be much more and better prepping. It would seem doubtful that she would be the lead candidate (V.P. is a probable spot), and the Republicans would look more towards grooming someone like one of the current military generals.

Whether President-elect Obama turns into one of the best presidents in the last 100 years, only time will tell. For the sake of the nation, I hope he does.

[Guest]

I love it when people like the Kennedy's say, "They where taught to give back and to do public service." Give me a break. It's a cushy job. The salary is nothing. It's all the potential monetary benefits that go with it, not to mention power and prestige. Why do you think they encourage their children to follow in their footsteps???

Oh yes. Let's see, 2 children killed serving their country, 2 more sons assassinated in political life. Yes, I can see why they would be "encouraged" to serve this country by family members. Are you kidding me? Potential monetary benefits? Like they need them. Power and prestige? Like they need them. In case it alluded you, money, power and prestige were given to them at birth! They don't need any of this. Oh, yes cushy jobs all around. Your statement reminds me of the negative statements people make about the developer of The Villages. Pure green envy! At least the developers get wealthy, and well they should.

The Kennedy's, any Kennedy doesn't need anything you mentioned. They have it all. And that's what really bugs the hell out of some people!

[Guest]

such as degrees and intellectually up to the job very amusing if not hypocritical.
If we were to use intellectually up to the job as the measurement whether all the incumbents in any office State or Federal at any level pass or fail.....boy would we have a deluge of failing grades.
And they have the knack of being re-elected by their apathetic constituents down to a science.
The other phraseology that is totally inconsistent with the reality actual "governing" of today is any indication there is representation in any aspect of a politicians agenda....it simply does not exist anymore.

The preamble to the constitution has gone by the wayside...long ago...both parties....no exceptions!!!

In my humble opinion.

BTK

[Guest]

Oh yes. Let's see, 2 children killed serving their country, 2 more sons assassinated in political life. Yes, I can see why they would be "encouraged" to serve this country by family members. Are you kidding me? Potential monetary benefits? Like they need them. Power and prestige? Like they need them. In case it alluded you, money, power and prestige were given to them at birth! They don't need any of this. Oh, yes cushy jobs all around. Your statement reminds me of the negative statements people make about the developer of The Villages. Pure green envy! At least the developers get wealthy, and well they should.

The Kennedy's, any Kennedy doesn't need anything you mentioned. They have it all. And that's what really bugs the hell out of some people!

Chels, some of us don't hate the Kennedy's, we just don't find the Kennedy's at all enviable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3283161.stm

[Guest]

Oh yes. Let's see, 2 children killed serving their country, 2 more sons assassinated in political life. Yes, I can see why they would be "encouraged" to serve this country by family members. Are you kidding me? Potential monetary benefits? Like they need them. Power and prestige? Like they need them. In case it alluded you, money, power and prestige were given to them at birth! They don't need any of this. Oh, yes cushy jobs all around. Your statement reminds me of the negative statements people make about the developer of The Villages. Pure green envy! At least the developers get wealthy, and well they should.

The Kennedy's, any Kennedy doesn't need anything you mentioned. They have it all. And that's what really bugs the hell out of some people!
If "all" means being able to influence out of any responsibility for the death of a person because you virtually own all of turf where the death occurs, yeah, that bugs me.

If "all" means being able to turn the White House into a haven for nepotism (brother, in-laws) so that it looks and operates like a monarchy, yeah, that bugs me.

The fact that the family is wealthy is their good fortune. They have the luxury of living in the style and manner their fortune allows. Good for them!

That being said, the family fortune fuels a political machine to not only gain position and title, but also to manipulate any response to malfeasenses of its members - the most famous being documented at http://www.nndb.com/people/623/000023554/

Are the Kennedy's the only family so "fortunate?" Of course not. However, to raise their image to candidates for beatification is humbug. Are we so short of "heroes" that we need to elevate any group with money to pseudo-deity status? Do we do the same with other families who have had multiple losses due to war or other violence, or are these other families "off the radar" because they do not have a public relations service to inspire sympathy and worship? And should we ignore their transgressions because they are the so-and-so"s?

When you have more money than you can ever spend, all that is left is the accumulation of power. And in this world, money can indeed buy power, but power is not a birthright in a democratic republic - only in a monarchy. And all the money and power in the world cannot buy respect - you have to earn that!

[Guest]

I will only say that Caroline had help get passed for Law School. I can't give particulars but she never passed her LSAT.

[Guest]

SteveZ. If you are saying that there is nothing, NOTHING, that any of the Kennedy's have done that you respect, shame on you. :sad:

And yet you defend morons like Bush and Palin. :ohdear:

[Guest]

I will only say that Caroline had help get passed for Law School. I can't give particulars but she never passed her LSAT.
The New York bar exam is the second toughest in the nation (California being #1)(http://www.sfbsearch.com/content.cfm/ID/20004). The LSAT is simply a screening tool for entry into most law schools, with the bar exam being the final hurdle that counts.

Since Ms. Kennedy had to pass the NY Bar Exam to get licensed there, she earned her "Esq." regardless. Whatever help may have been available along the way, one sits alone when taking the bar exam and under highly monitored conditions.

[Guest]

SteveZ. If you are saying that there is nothing, NOTHING, that any of the Kennedy's have done that you respect, shame on you. :sad:

And yet you defend morons like Bush and Palin. :ohdear:
The double standard is so blatant.

If the person or lineage involves activity or financial support with the Democratic Party, there is an expectation that all should genuflect before them.

If the person or lineage involves activity or financial support with any other political party, or no party at all, then they are "morons."

For those who live their lives vicariously through what People Magazine and the supermarket tabloids report as the exploits of the rich and famous, it's a free country!

No, accumulation of money and spending it in the hopes of obtaining respectability for drunks and philanderors may make others gawk in awe, but it's not my cup of tea. That being said, not all of the Kennedy clan fall into those categories. They are each separate people, and need to be treated as such. Those who demonstrate respectful behavior receive what they give - while those who thumb their noses at the law and behave hypocritically deserve nothing but disdain.

RESPECT is an honor bestowed for many reasons under a multitude of circumstances. All presidents, including Mr. Nixon, are worthy of respect for being willing to endure a lot more than they bargained for when they accepted the job. Even when they do a lousy job in the eyes of many of their constituents (and that's usually due to lousy press reports), they earn respect.

However, slimeball behavior and abuse of power shows disrespect to all of us. Those who show disrespect are themselves not worthy of respect.

[Guest]

For those who live their lives vicariously through what People Magazine and the supermarket tabloids report as the exploits of the rich and famous, it's a free country!


God I hope you're not referring to me with this statement! Boy are you off base!

And just what did Caroline Kennedy ever do to earn your disdain? I'll tell you what Bush did. Almost 5,000 of our young men and women killed in an unjust war. That's someone to disrespect. That's someone that should be brought up on charges of war crimes! :cus:

[Guest]

God I hope you're not referring to me with this statement! Boy are you off base!

And just what did Caroline Kennedy ever do to earn your disdain? I'll tell you what Bush did. Almost 5,000 of our young men and women killed in an unjust war. That's someone to disrespect. That's someone that should be brought up on charges of war crimes! :cus:

I agree. Stevez, I look at your posts about Caroline Kennedy, and you seem very bitter. I don't understand this level of dislike for the person. All she did was express interest in the Senate position. She has a reputation as being a down to earth person, not a snotty socialite. She's a Harvard graduate, and has a law degree. She's obviously no lightweight intellectually. Whether or not she gets the position, it seems to me there is no harm in her asking to be considered. Patterson will look at many factors, focusing on who can best deliver for New York. He'll also have to consider who can successfully run a campaign in the future, and raise the enormous amounts of money that is required for that purpose. She certainly has the name recognition for that piece of the job. If she doesn't get the job, she'll go back to doing good work such as her past efforts in helping the Department of Education raise $65million for NYC public schools. I've read that since her kids are grown, she now feels she has the opportunity to be more involved politically, and that she will be more visible in the future, regardless of whether or not she gets the Senate seat. I just don't get why so many people are up in arms about this issue. She's another name in the hat -- give it a rest. :mornincoffee:

[Guest]

God I hope you're not referring to me with this statement! Boy are you off base!

And just what did Caroline Kennedy ever do to earn your disdain? I'll tell you what Bush did. Almost 5,000 of our young men and women killed in an unjust war. That's someone to disrespect. That's someone that should be brought up on charges of war crimes! :cus:
Again, the double standard.

It is amazing how Pres. Bush is over-and-over again condemned for the Iraq War, but Pres. Kennedy gets a free pass for committing the US into Vietnam and the expansion of the conflict (again, with no treaty commitment to do so), the Bay of Pigs debacle, and the rest of the US-Cuba affairs of the times, as well as increasing the potential for nuclear war through unbridled proliferation of the nuclear arsenal and its deployment. Memories seem to be selectively short when there's a Democrat involved, and especially if that Democrat's surname is Kennedy.

Ms. Kennedy is not an item of disdain, as my previous post concerning her passing the New York Bar should indicate. On the contrary, it seems like the media and the Kennedy admiration society are trying to make her into more than who she is - a lady and mother with an interest in public service. There seems to be more made by the Democratic Party of her lineage than her as a person or her professional credentials. That's not only shameful exploitation of celebrity, but probably best explains why Gov Palin, also a lady and a mother with an interest in public service, was the target of such scorn.

As I said earlier, it is a New York matter, and the governor's decision will hopefully be made with wisdom, meaning that he will select the best person from the available candidates based on knowledge and skill rather than who can make the best media splash. If Ms. Kennedy makes the cut based on objectivity rather than as a Trophy Senator for the Democratic Party, then wisdom is served.

And if the concern of the governor is in any way influenced by who can fund-raise for the party rather than who is best qualified to represent ALL of the state's citizens, that would be a sorry testament.

[Guest]

CHelsea:

Do your replies always have to be insulting or name calling when you don't agree. Steve makes good points. Sometimes you do too.

Grow up.

[Guest]

CHelsea:

Do your replies always have to be insulting or name calling when you don't agree. Steve makes good points. Sometimes you do too.

Grow up.

Bush, Palin = Morons. I call it like I see it.

So happy you're a SteveZ fan. He calls names also, just uses more words! :1rotfl:

[Guest]

While we are discussing the "merits" of Ms. Kennedy's qualifications to represent NY in the US Senate, there are worse appointments. Let's look at Sen. Biden's seat in Deleware. The Gov. just appointed Ted Kauffman, a long time Biden aide, to serve for the next two years. In 2010 Kauffaman will step aside for, wait for it, Beau BIDEN, currenlty in Iraq. In Florida, it is expected that Sen. Martinez will step aside for a run by Jeb BUSH. The US Senate is becomming the House of Lords, with actual power!

The best editiorial that I have seen on the Kennedy travesty in NY was written by Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/18/AR2008121803175.html

Am I insulted as a former NY resident? Sure I am. Is it because of her "pedigree"? No, we have had worse. It is her, and her kinds, sense of entitlement. At least Jeb Bush and Beau Biden have run for office before. Krauthammer ends his editiorial with,

"No lords or ladies here. If Princess Caroline wants a seat in the Senate, let her do it by election. There's one in 2010. To do it now by appointment on the basis of bloodline is an offense to the most minimal republicanism. Every state in the union is entitled to representation in the Senate. Camelot is not a state. "

[Guest]

decides it is time to get their daughter in the political stream.

Back to Kennedy; why would anybody who is making such significant contributions ($$, time, effort, support) to so many worthy causes decide to give it up and join the US Senate? To go from where one makes a difference to a position joining the ranks of so many self serving dolts, idiots, lechers, cheaters, liars, felons and whore mongers......makes one wonder what the goal is other than the continuity of the political presence. She certainly is having a more positive impact on the lives of those in need in her current role than she will ever have as a US Senator. Why dump an accomplished oriented life for the bogged down, polarized, political merry-go-round??

Hopefully the responses will be Bush & Palin reference free or how about using Blogoviitch for some referrals and measuring of political competance and accomplishment.

Actually not looking for a response as much as tossing in my pittance.

BTK

[Guest]

Bush, Palin = Morons. I call it like I see it.

So happy you're a SteveZ fan. He calls names also, just uses more words! :1rotfl:



Steve's "more words" are what are called facts and reasoning to which you NEVER respond.

I do not agree that he "calls names"...he makes generalizations...you, on the other hand, have trouble posting without calling either another poster a name or a person with whom you oppose.

Try responding with facts and reason !!!!!

[Guest]

I don't call other posters names Bucco, I call certain politicans name, so bucco off! :laugh:

[Guest]

Jackie Kennedy made damn sure her children worked for the good of all Americans. They didn't sit back on their Trust Funds. In fact the entire Kennedy family was raised in that tradition of public service. JFK never took his salary as President, I don't think you can say that about anyone else. Just because Caroline hasn't been flouncing around in the spotlight doesn't mean she hasn't been working for the good of New Yorkers, especially when it comes to education.

As for you comment on Palin being possibly the best president we would have had, trust me you'll never know. She will never be elected. The core she appeals to is a very small minority of the extreme right Republicans. She doesn't have a prayer in hell of ever becoming elected. :yuck:

I don't know how being independently wealthy, therefor able to pursue Daddy Joe's ambitions of politics that he couldn't archive, can be considered not sitting back on their trust fund. JFK had so much money because of that trust fund that he didn't NEED the Presidential salary. Looks good when your rich and forgo income that you don't need.

How sad that you, obliviously of the Democratic left elite, feel comfortable putting down a mere mortal woman, for being a common American. No rich kid degree for her! No wealthy family to support and direct her to politics. She had to do it the old fashioned way, work hard, feel the calling to serve the public and actually not have the class of the Kennedy's. She couldn't possibly be good enough to be VP, not good enough, right?

[Guest]

Steve's "more words" are what are called facts and reasoning to which you NEVER respond.

I do not agree that he "calls names"...he makes generalizations...you, on the other hand, have trouble posting without calling either another poster a name or a person with whom you oppose.

Try responding with facts and reason !!!!!
You don't seem to grasp that many of us have responded to SteveZ's or your (interpretation of) the facts and reasoning with our own interpretation of the facts and our own reasoning.

[Guest]

I don't know how being independently wealthy, therefor able to pursue Daddy Joe's ambitions of politics that he couldn't archive, can be considered not sitting back on their trust fund. JFK had so much money because of that trust fund that he didn't NEED the Presidential salary. Looks good when your rich and forgo income that you don't need.

How sad that you, obliviously of the Democratic left elite, feel comfortable putting down a mere mortal woman, for being a common American. No rich kid degree for her! No wealthy family to support and direct her to politics. She had to do it the old fashioned way, work hard, feel the calling to serve the public and actually not have the class of the Kennedy's. She couldn't possibly be good enough to be VP, not good enough, right?

Well, first Bush didn't need the salary either, but he had no problem putting his grubby paw out. And that's not even counting all the under-the-table contracts and lobbyists.

And do I think Palin is good enough? Absolutely not! Not good enough or smart enough. I worked my way through Northwestern University. No on handed it to me. Democratic left elite? Maybe. I'll accept that. No problem. But Palin is far from a common American. I don't hunt wolves down via helicopter until they are too tired to run, then kill them. I don't force my daughter to have a baby at 17 and an unwanted marriage. BTW, are they married yet??? Don't think so. I don't put my family's expenses onto the tax payers of my state. I don't go to a church where they "hunt witches". I didn't leave a job as Mayor with the town deeply in debt. I didn't pull strings to have someone fired because they wouldn't fire my ex-brother-in-law. There is absolutely nothing, NOTHING, I respect about this woman. And if any of you want to talk "name calling" Sarah's your girl! She is a pro at that!

[Guest]

You don't seem to grasp that many of us have responded to SteveZ's or your (interpretation of) the facts and reasoning with our own interpretation of the facts and our own reasoning.

And I enjoy it no end when there's an exchange of ideas, opinions, and fact patterns, especially when it provides the reason for the opinion. We all see things differently, and that's why eye-witnesses to an event can be the most unreliable in decribing what really happened.

Open discussion hss changed my opinion several times when additional facts and how they correlate mesh with what I already know, and my thanks to those willing to take the time to articulate their knowledge.

I must admit to my own biases, no matter how I try to temper them. Elitism bugs me no end, especially when it results in abuse of the law and harm to others with no justice provided.

So, as we go through this spirited exchange, A TOAST! This one's for the nation - where we CAN discuss oopenly, no dark corners and no whispers. (clink)

[Guest]

Well, first Bush didn't need the salary either, but he had no problem putting his grubby paw out. And that's not even counting all the under-the-table contracts and lobbyists.

And do I think Palin is good enough? Absolutely not! Not good enough or smart enough. I worked my way through Northwestern University. No on handed it to me. Democratic left elite? Maybe. I'll accept that. No problem. But Palin is far from a common American. I don't hunt wolves down via helicopter until they are too tired to run, then kill them. I don't force my daughter to have a baby at 17 and an unwanted marriage. BTW, are they married yet??? Don't think so. I don't put my family's expenses onto the tax payers of my state. I don't go to a church where they "hunt witches". I didn't leave a job as Mayor with the town deeply in debt. I didn't pull strings to have someone fired because they wouldn't fire my ex-brother-in-law. There is absolutely nothing, NOTHING, I respect about this woman. And if any of you want to talk "name calling" Sarah's your girl! She is a pro at that!

And for a host of similar reasons I have no respect for Saint Edward of Hyannisport and the rest who see themselves as "in charge" because Daddy and both Grandfathers were really good at making money.

So, we all have people whom we do not respect for a host of reasons, and we see these people in different light. That's human.

[Guest]

One thing, this discussion has given me a new respect for the President Elect. He did not have to use his father, uncle or college roomate to get ahead in politics. He did it on his own.

Oh, and these charges against Gov. Palin (did it on her own) were investigated and found to be groundless. They pale when you compare them with any of the Kennedys. I could list their "problems", but we all know them starting with how Joe Sr. got his fortune. How they have achieved sainthood status, just blows my mind.

[Guest]

references to Bush this...Bush that....as if there were no other dunce politicians in Washington. One savings grace is there are term limits on the Presidency. All the others that have more than their hand out get to stay there and fleece we the people forever. They are also the same ones who have been on the job long enough to understand the problems and create guidance and direction....but they do not....have not....and most likely never will. Yet nary a word about them. Many more of them are so far below Bush yet never a reference to them....like Stevens in Alaska a seven time felon who gets re-elected...Larry Craig the airport homo who declined to leave his job and gets re-elected...or Bill Clinton who turns the office into a cat house...as did Jack Kennedy...or how about Ted Kennedy and Chappaquidick...more recently Blogjogaditch who now says he will not leave....I can hear the wagons of political-lawyerly cover up circling already.
I am not defending Bush but am weary of those who have such a truncated, limited visibility when it comes to calling out character, credibility and performance of only one.
I know it is a waste of keystrokes to try to get others to look at the entirety of the Washington incompetency....not just one.....ALL THE TIME.

BTK

[Guest]

Gnu = told ya so. The same two or three members respond to every thread that questions qualifications of democrats. Hope Caroline gets the appointment to the House of Lords - ooops.

[Guest]

Gnu = told ya so. The same two or three members respond to every thread that questions qualifications of democrats. Hope Caroline gets the appointment to the House of Lords - ooops.


I, for one, did not respond at all until someone decided to call the President a moron and suggested that someone (STEVE) who posts his opinion backed with facts and well thought out was a name caller who somehow disguised his name calling.

I, frankly, do not care if Caroline Kennedy is appointed Senator and would not be surprised if that was the case.

[Guest]

(quote stevez) Are the Kennedy's the only family so "fortunate?" Of course not. However, to raise their image to candidates for beatification is humbug. Are we so short of "heroes" that we need to elevate any group with money to pseudo-deity status? Do we do the same with other families who have had multiple losses due to war or other violence, or are these other families "off the radar" because they do not have a public relations service to inspire sympathy and worship? And should we ignore their transgressions because they are the so-and-so"s?

When you have more money than you can ever spend, all that is left is the accumulation of power. And in this world, money can indeed buy power, but power is not a birthright in a democratic republic - only in a monarchy. And all the money and power in the world cannot buy respect - you have to earn that!(quote)

You have said what many of us from MA feel. From Joe, the prohibition illegal rum runner making millions , to Joe grooming his children for the position he wanted but didn't get, to Joe grooming his children for the power of being in government, to Ted the the man who committed manslaughter and got away with it. I guess we should be proud of their sacrificial government service. Elitist power mongers,all.

[Guest]

God I hope you're not referring to me with this statement! Boy are you off base!

And just what did Caroline Kennedy ever do to earn your disdain? I'll tell you what Bush did. Almost 5,000 of our young men and women killed in an unjust war. That's someone to disrespect. That's someone that should be brought up on charges of war crimes! :cus:

Touched a hot button there chel! stevez and I both were in Vietnam. We know war and the consequences of war. I'll tell you what the Kennedy/Johnson war took, 52,000 American lives. Now there's two people to disrespect or charge with war crimes! Don't come using war deaths to make a political statement.:cus:

[Guest]

Well, first Bush didn't need the salary either, but he had no problem putting his grubby paw out. And that's not even counting all the under-the-table contracts and lobbyists.

And do I think Palin is good enough? Absolutely not! Not good enough or smart enough. I worked my way through Northwestern University. No on handed it to me. Democratic left elite? Maybe. I'll accept that. No problem. But Palin is far from a common American. I don't hunt wolves down via helicopter until they are too tired to run, then kill them. I don't force my daughter to have a baby at 17 and an unwanted marriage. BTW, are they married yet??? Don't think so. I don't put my family's expenses onto the tax payers of my state. I don't go to a church where they "hunt witches". I didn't leave a job as Mayor with the town deeply in debt. I didn't pull strings to have someone fired because they wouldn't fire my ex-brother-in-law. There is absolutely nothing, NOTHING, I respect about this woman. And if any of you want to talk "name calling" Sarah's your girl! She is a pro at that!

So, lets do the countdown.

#1 R If you take the offered pay your "putting his grubby paw out". D If your filthy rich with Daddy's money and don't take the money your a better man.

#2 R Your not good enough or smart enough for office if you don't have a power school degree. D A Rhodes scholar is good enough and smart enough for office, but is so dumb he has sex with a groupie in the oval office.

#3 R We fished with explosives in Vietnam, me bad. D You have to be smart enough to know which end of the rifle to point away from you to kill a wolf.

#4 R I didn't know that Palin had forced her daughter to get pregnant. I thought pregnancy was caused by something else and then you had the baby. D I thought liberals knew that marriage wasn't required to conceive.

#5 R Palin is "forcing" a marriage on her daughter. D Criticizing the fact that their not married.

#6 R Palins' getting dressed for the show, not unlike providing clothes and makeup for TV, is "putting her family expenses" onto the taxpayers. D Obama living in the White House isn't putting his family's on the taxpayers of this country.

#7 R Palins' family worships at a church of their choice. D Democrats are obviously religiously intolerant under the Constitutionals freedom of religion.

#8 R Palin leaves office with city in debt. D Obama leaves senate without accomplishing anything, with the largest 'present' vote ever. He never had a budget TO loose.

#9 R Palin is accused of having ex family member fired and is exonerated. D Clintons' fire most of the White House and legal staff. Whitewater papers mysteriously are found on the bed one morning barf

[Guest]

So, lets do the countdown.

#1 R If you take the offered pay your "putting his grubby paw out". D If your filthy rich with Daddy's money and don't take the money your a better man.

#2 R Your not good enough or smart enough for office if you don't have a power school degree. D A Rhodes scholar is good enough and smart enough for office, but is so dumb he has sex with a groupie in the oval office.

#3 R We fished with explosives in Vietnam, me bad. D You have to be smart enough to know which end of the rifle to point away from you to kill a wolf.

#4 R I didn't know that Palin had forced her daughter to get pregnant. I thought pregnancy was caused by something else and then you had the baby. D I thought liberals knew that marriage wasn't required to conceive.

#5 R Palin is "forcing" a marriage on her daughter. D Criticizing the fact that their not married.

#6 R Palins' getting dressed for the show, not unlike providing clothes and makeup for TV, is "putting her family expenses" onto the taxpayers. D Obama living in the White House isn't putting his family's on the taxpayers of this country.

#7 R Palins' family worships at a church of their choice. D Democrats are obviously religiously intolerant under the Constitutionals freedom of religion.

#8 R Palin leaves office with city in debt. D Obama leaves senate without accomplishing anything, with the largest 'present' vote ever. He never had a budget TO loose.

#9 R Palin is accused of having ex family member fired and is exonerated. D Clintons' fire most of the White House and legal staff. Whitewater papers mysteriously are found on the bed one morning barf

#1. Bush's daddy is rich too, so yes, it does make Kennedy a better man.
#2. No one said you had to have a "power degree" and no one said that Clinton was right.
#3. This just doesn't even equate and doesn't deserve an answer.
#4. She didn't force her daughter to get pregnant (obviously I misspoke) but
she is forcing her daughter to have the baby. And doesn't even believe in abortion for rape or incest. Disgusting.
#5. Yes, she was forcing that marriage. I felt sorry for that poor guy caught up in that circus. He clearly stated on his blog that he did not want to have children. Soon it mysteriously disappeared. I hope he runs for his life from that family.
#6. Again, this doesn't equate. In a few short weeks President-elect Obama will be President Obama. Palin is a wannabee that will never be. BTW, I was talking about her expenses, traveling, etc. while Governor, not running for VP.
#7. Everyone has the right to worship as they choose. No contest there. I just don't want someone that listens to witch hunters a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Just a personal preference there.
#8. Again, not a comparison question. How are you even defending Palin here??? Don't bother.
#9. Sorry, but Palin was not completely exonerated and Whitewater what a partisan joke from day one. Now that was a witch hunt!

Oh, and just for the record, I lost a family member and dear friend in Vietnam. I have two names on that wall, so don't tell me what I can or can't say.

It's clear that you and I will never agree, so I'll just step away and let you have the floor. Have at it and Good luck in the New Year.

[Guest]

#1. Bush's daddy is rich too, so yes, it does make Kennedy a better man. All presidents since Eisenhauer are/were millionaires. Following that logic, all of them, including the President-elect, are lesser men to JFK?

#2. No one said you had to have a "power degree" and no one said that Clinton was right. Amen.

#3. This just doesn't even equate and doesn't deserve an answer. You'd be surprised how many people need a "point away from yourself" sticker on a weapon...

#4. She didn't force her daughter to get pregnant (obviously I misspoke) but she is forcing her daughter to have the baby. And doesn't even believe in abortion for rape or incest. Disgusting. Maybe "she" isn't forcing anything, and the family members respect life instead of adding to the 1.5million this past year in the US who considered an unborn child as a bodily waste product.

#5. Yes, she was forcing that marriage. I felt sorry for that poor guy caught up in that circus. He clearly stated on his blog that he did not want to have children. Soon it mysteriously disappeared. I hope he runs for his life from that family. Again, the "she" comment. Usually it's the father who wields the shotgun and puts the 'Fear of Dad' into the young buck. That's an old-fashioned way to problem-solving, especially in a non-urban setting, and not a bad one.

#6. Again, this doesn't equate. In a few short weeks President-elect Obama will be President Obama. Palin is a wannabee that will never be. BTW, I was talking about her expenses, traveling, etc. while Governor, not running for VP. And now we have the President-elect looking to set up his mother-in-law as a White House resident. How many more of his extended family are next to be covered by the US taxpayer? Perhaps his aunt illegally living in Massachusetts, too?

#7. Everyone has the right to worship as they choose. No contest there. I just don't want someone that listens to witch hunters a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Just a personal preference there. In one sentence you go from tolerant to intolerant. So, if a Democratic atheist were nominated, or a Buddhist, or a Hindu, where are they on the tolerance meter?"

#8. Again, not a comparison question. How are you even defending Palin here??? Don't bother. Not even going to try. It would be like trying to explain how almost every major city and county in the US, and many states are over-committed and under-funded.

#9. Sorry, but Palin was not completely exonerated and Whitewater what a partisan joke from day one. Now that was a witch hunt! The Whitewater Development Corporation saga had a felon (Hale) make an allegation against a liar (Clinton - "I never had sex with that woman"). The allegation, if true, is felonious. So, when a denial comes from a known liar, you can either believe the liar or investigate the matter.

Oh, and just for the record, I lost a family member and dear friend in Vietnam. I have two names on that wall, so don't tell me what I can or can't say. My condolences on your loss. Going to The Wall is a wrenching experience for me each time I do it, as the list is long and the memories very vivid. However, I must go with the thought that Pres. Kennedy and Pres. Johnson did what they believed was the right thing to do, even though there was no treaty to compel US involvement. The same to me is true of Pres. Clinton when he, with no treaty requirement, committed troops to Somalia and the results were tragic; and committed well-beyond-proportions US troops to NATO's involvement in the Bosnian War. It is easy to Monday-Morning-Quarterback Pres. Bush's decision regarding Iraq (which was backed by the Senate) when one only has access to limited information (a lot is still classified, and rightly so) and makes conclusions based on that limited information. We can either give him the same consideration as given to Pres.' Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton, or condemn him for doing what others before have done with no national demand to retaliate against any and all in any way or form involved on an attack upon US soil and to protect the US from any potential for a repeat action.

Or is it simply partisan politics?

[Guest]

Gnu = told ya so. The same two or three members respond to every thread that questions qualifications of democrats. Hope Caroline gets the appointment to the House of Lords - ooops.

Is this different than the same two or three members that are fixated on Bush bashing with every post, no matter the original subject?barf

[Guest]

#1. Bush's daddy is rich too, so yes, it does make Kennedy a better man.
#2. No one said you had to have a "power degree" and no one said that Clinton was right.
#3. This just doesn't even equate and doesn't deserve an answer.
#4. She didn't force her daughter to get pregnant (obviously I misspoke) but
she is forcing her daughter to have the baby. And doesn't even believe in abortion for rape or incest. Disgusting.
#5. Yes, she was forcing that marriage. I felt sorry for that poor guy caught up in that circus. He clearly stated on his blog that he did not want to have children. Soon it mysteriously disappeared. I hope he runs for his life from that family.
#6. Again, this doesn't equate. In a few short weeks President-elect Obama will be President Obama. Palin is a wannabee that will never be. BTW, I was talking about her expenses, traveling, etc. while Governor, not running for VP.
#7. Everyone has the right to worship as they choose. No contest there. I just don't want someone that listens to witch hunters a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Just a personal preference there.
#8. Again, not a comparison question. How are you even defending Palin here??? Don't bother.
#9. Sorry, but Palin was not completely exonerated and Whitewater what a partisan joke from day one. Now that was a witch hunt!

Oh, and just for the record, I lost a family member and dear friend in Vietnam. I have two names on that wall, so don't tell me what I can or can't say.

It's clear that you and I will never agree, so I'll just step away and let you have the floor. Have at it and Good luck in the New Year.

If you want to demean the loss of brave American lives, I guess it's your RIGHT! After all, the men and woman soldiers who have died to give you the right to free speech, throughout American history, are numbers to you. You demean the loss of your relative and friend when you reduce their sacrifice to a number.

Using the number of lives lost to discredit President Bush, or for any other reason, is to say the President threw lives away. A soldiers life, when given in the service of his country, is not a loss, but a sacrifice for his/her country. :cus:

[Guest]

On tonight's national news the commentator referred to Caroline Kennedy's looking to hold office as "joining the family business". How nice:cus: And to think some people still believe that the media is not biased towards liberals.

He also mentioned that 17% of all people in public office had a family member or relative precede them! There's way too much to be said about NOT electing candidates that have had relatives precede them. We need to CHANGE that..

[Guest]

Only occasionally do I read threads in the Political Forum and virtually never post, but as a New Yorker snowbird I did begin to read this one, thinking that I would read some thoughtful opinions about my home state from fellow New Yorkers who will be the ones affected by Governor Patterson's choice to replace Senator Clinton. Instead I was 'treated' to an ongoing diatribe. I am curious to know how many NEW YORKERS are included among the posters to this thread. It's a long thread and I think I saw only one mention being a New Yorker. Are there others, or are all the others posting solely for political partisanship and themselves have nothing to do with New York State?

I would like to correct one misconception posted in this thread. When our small town in the Mid-Hudson Valley underwent a townwide reassessment, I discussed it with the town assessor. Among the questions she asked me was whether I am a veteran, because, she explained, there is a partial property tax exemption for veterans. 'Yes, I am a vet,' I replied, 'but I didn't serve in a theater of war.' 'But EXACTLY WHEN did you serve?' she asked, and I told her (during the 1960s). 'You're eligible for the Vietnam War, the years of which are from 1959 to 1975.' 'What?! Vietnam started in 1959?!' I exclaimed. 'Yes, indeed!' was her reply, and I received that military exemption in New York until I became a Florida resident. Eisenhower was president in 1959, not Kennedy....

[Guest]

Only occasionally do I read threads in the Political Forum and virtually never post, but as a New Yorker snowbird I did begin to read this one, thinking that I would read some thoughtful opinions about my home state from fellow New Yorkers who will be the ones affected by Governor Patterson's choice to replace Senator Clinton. Instead I was 'treated' to an ongoing diatribe. I am curious to know how many NEW YORKERS are included among the posters to this thread. It's a long thread and I think I saw only one mention being a New Yorker. Are there others, or are all the others posting solely for political partisanship and themselves have nothing to do with New York State?

I would like to correct one misconception posted in this thread. When our small town in the Mid-Hudson Valley underwent a townwide reassessment, I discussed it with the town assessor. Among the questions she asked me was whether I am a veteran, because, she explained, there is a partial property tax exemption for veterans. 'Yes, I am a vet,' I replied, 'but I didn't serve in a theater of war.' 'But EXACTLY WHEN did you serve?' she asked, and I told her (during the 1960s). 'You're eligible for the Vietnam War, the years of which are from 1959 to 1975.' 'What?! Vietnam started in 1959?!' I exclaimed. 'Yes, indeed!' was her reply, and I received that military exemption in New York until I became a Florida resident. Eisenhower was president in 1959, not Kennedy....

Eisenhower proposed the possible need for intervention in Vietnam, Kennedy is the one who sent the troops and escalated by Johnson in to the war that it was.

[Guest]

Only occasionally do I read threads in the Political Forum and virtually never post, but as a New Yorker snowbird I did begin to read this one, thinking that I would read some thoughtful opinions about my home state from fellow New Yorkers who will be the ones affected by Governor Patterson's choice to replace Senator Clinton. Instead I was 'treated' to an ongoing diatribe. I am curious to know how many NEW YORKERS are included among the posters to this thread. It's a long thread and I think I saw only one mention being a New Yorker. Are there others, or are all the others posting solely for political partisanship and themselves have nothing to do with New York State?

I would like to correct one misconception posted in this thread. When our small town in the Mid-Hudson Valley underwent a townwide reassessment, I discussed it with the town assessor. Among the questions she asked me was whether I am a veteran, because, she explained, there is a partial property tax exemption for veterans. 'Yes, I am a vet,' I replied, 'but I didn't serve in a theater of war.' 'But EXACTLY WHEN did you serve?' she asked, and I told her (during the 1960s). 'You're eligible for the Vietnam War, the years of which are from 1959 to 1975.' 'What?! Vietnam started in 1959?!' I exclaimed. 'Yes, indeed!' was her reply, and I received that military exemption in New York until I became a Florida resident. Eisenhower was president in 1959, not Kennedy....

Political discussions here are not limited to only having responses buy people living in NY alone. The NY Senate seat Kennedy seeks involves the entire country. The last I knew the Senate voted on National issues, not just NY issues. Her votes would effect all of us.

[Guest]

I have to start by saying I am a Kennedy fan. I loved JFK as a kid. I do think the Kennedys have done a lot of good for this country. At the same time, looking at history, JFK really was a bad president. Even so, the family has charisma and is truly admired around the world. Not a bad thing.

There have always been political dynasties in America. Some good -- the Adams, the Roosevelts; some bad; some so-so.

Do I think Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg deserves to be a State Senator? If New York is okay with it, why not? She really has done a lot of good for NYC and her State through the years. Do I think she's the best candidate to be seated? Not at this time.

However, I see no reason to be so upset about whether she is appointed or not. She said she wanted the job. Ms. Clinton feels she would do a good job and I doubt there is any question that Ms. Clinton did do a good job for her constituency. Her opinion should count.

It has always been the practice of appointing people into open seats that are not necessarily the best qualified but who will do the most for the party in power, who hold the most cards so to speak about who is buried where, etc. Rarely are true qualifications a factor for politically appointed seats. CKS has more qualifications than many but definitely less than those who should be truly considered. Yes, her name is a cachet and a big one at that. She's proven to be a successful fundraiser. She's shown she can speak in public. She is a Kennedy and, whether you like the Kennedys or not, that is a name to be factored into any equation.

Can she win the seat in two years? It depends what she does if appointed now and how successful she is for her state. Upper NY is not going to vote for her if she doesn't do a good job. Neither will many in NYC. Automatic election to the seat is not a guaranty after this two-year appointment unless you do a good job while seated.

So, my question to gnu, et al. is, why is asking to be considered such an evil act in your minds? She didn't demand she be appointed. She was open that she was interested now that her kids are adults; in fact, she's always said she would try to work in the public sector and preferably in an elected position once she raised her children. Would you object if someone named Caroline Schlossberg (and a Kennedy) had tossed her hat into the ring? Remember, this is a woman who has raised tremendous funds for NY education, has been schooled in politics since childhood and has been raised to give to the public. So, if this woman without the Kennedy name had said she would be interested and the governor of her state felt she was worthy of consideration because of her past contributions to her state, would you be so incensed?

[Guest]

Excellent post, Red.

[Guest]

I have to start by saying I am a Kennedy fan. I loved JFK as a kid. I do think the Kennedys have done a lot of good for this country. At the same time, looking at history, JFK really was a bad president. Even so, the family has charisma and is truly admired around the world. Not a bad thing.

There have always been political dynasties in America. Some good -- the Adams, the Roosevelts; some bad; some so-so.

Do I think Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg deserves to be a State Senator? If New York is okay with it, why not? She really has done a lot of good for NYC and her State through the years. Do I think she's the best candidate to be seated? Not at this time.

However, I see no reason to be so upset about whether she is appointed or not. She said she wanted the job. Ms. Clinton feels she would do a good job and I doubt there is any question that Ms. Clinton did do a good job for her constituency. Her opinion should count.

It has always been the practice of appointing people into open seats that are not necessarily the best qualified but who will do the most for the party in power, who hold the most cards so to speak about who is buried where, etc. Rarely are true qualifications a factor for politically appointed seats. CKS has more qualifications than many but definitely less than those who should be truly considered. Yes, her name is a cachet and a big one at that. She's proven to be a successful fundraiser. She's shown she can speak in public. She is a Kennedy and, whether you like the Kennedys or not, that is a name to be factored into any equation.

Can she win the seat in two years? It depends what she does if appointed now and how successful she is for her state. Upper NY is not going to vote for her if she doesn't do a good job. Neither will many in NYC. Automatic election to the seat is not a guaranty after this two-year appointment unless you do a good job while seated.

So, my question to gnu, et al. is, why is asking to be considered such an evil act in your minds? She didn't demand she be appointed. She was open that she was interested now that her kids are adults; in fact, she's always said she would try to work in the public sector and preferably in an elected position once she raised her children. Would you object if someone named Caroline Schlossberg (and a Kennedy) had tossed her hat into the ring? Remember, this is a woman who has raised tremendous funds for NY education, has been schooled in politics since childhood and has been raised to give to the public. So, if this woman without the Kennedy name had said she would be interested and the governor of her state felt she was worthy of consideration because of her past contributions to her state, would you be so incensed?

It is the decision of the NY governor, and the voters there should let him know their opinion.

Probably the most frustrating is that in a land of 300 million, these "family dynasties" that are Party-connected (Republican and Democrat) seem to always trump all others, no matter what the qualifications. It does get old.

I don't even doubt that the "family dynasty" members don't have the knowledge and/or skill to hold the job, but for them to keep getting priority over others equally as knowledgeable and skilled is blatant favoritism equating to "royal pick."

If these political parties are truly "of the people" as they keep trying to claim, then make the picks when they come up from "the people" - all of them! Otherwise, stop trying to snow everyone how "democratic" either are.

This country separated from rule by the House of Hanover, and I hate to think the intent was to follow under present-day rule by the House of Bush, the House of Kennedy, or any other such herd. That was one positive thing with the President-Elect and his opponent - neither came from a political "house" and thus hopefully a separation from "family rule" would occur.

Don't others than from the Kennedy, Bush or such clans deserve a shot, too?

[Guest]

Steve, the simple answer is that of course others deserve a shot but reality says it doesn't happen often enough. Personally, I don't mind political dynasties. Heck, I don't even mind the handing down of a business to the son or daughter for generations. Sometimes you really do get some good people that way. Sometimes you don't.

I'm not a big fan of monarchies. Fortunately, there is a difference between a political dynasty and a monarchy. If we don't like the relative, we don't have to elect them or re-elect them.

America has been far more fortunate than many nations. Most of our leaders have been pretty good and some downright exceptional. We have had few that were absolute failures. Many of their private morals have been dismal at best but have shown themselves to be very able leaders. Some have had impeccable morals and been lousy leaders. A very few like Truman have had morals that the world should emulate and was an excellent leader.

On the political dynasties, we've been pretty lucky, too. Both John Adams and John Quincy Adams were elitists but very able presidents. FDR and Teddy R both served this country well. While we may not like Ted Kennedy's morals, he has been a pretty good senator. JFK may not have been the best president and made some pretty bad mistakes and he definitely had the morals of an alley cat, but he was beloved before and after his death and his administration did accomplish some good things, too. Bobby may well have been the best of the Kennedy group but we'll never know. Caroline really does seem to follow more in the Bobby line and she may well be the best Kennedy we've seen (she's certainly brighter than her brother). I certainly wouldn't cry if I were a New Yorker and she was appointed. I probably would be disappointed that other, more able people were not given the position, but there definitely could be much worse choices for the two years remaining.

[Guest]

"A very few like Truman have had morals that the world should emulate and was an excellent leader. "
__________________________________________________

Interesting comment.....Truman was/is one of my favorites.

His approval rating dropped to 22% at one time due to an unpopular war (Korea)...sound famaliar ? :)

By the way, history has served Truman and his unpopular war very well as it is hailed with time !!!

[Guest]

I would not mind so much if Ms. Kennedy were elected, because she would have to be tested in a campaign. She would have to answer questions, not send out a Q&A sheet. She would have to debate an opponent. The voters of NY would see what she was like.
Also, I was thinking about the Kennedy dynesty. I think an impartial person (if there were one) would find that the public record of George H. W. Bush would trump all three of the Kennedy brothers combined. The one piece of legislation that Ted authored that I had to deal with (HIPPA) was a mess.

[Guest]

So, my question to gnu, et al. is, why is asking to be considered such an evil act in your minds? She didn't demand she be appointed. She was open that she was interested now that her kids are adults; in fact, she's always said she would try to work in the public sector and preferably in an elected position once she raised her children. Would you object if someone named Caroline Schlossberg (and a Kennedy) had tossed her hat into the ring? Remember, this is a woman who has raised tremendous funds for NY education, has been schooled in politics since childhood and has been raised to give to the public. So, if this woman without the Kennedy name had said she would be interested and the governor of her state felt she was worthy of consideration because of her past contributions to her state, would you be so incensed?

I don't consider Carolines' looking for the Senate seat an evil act. I just feel that it is audacious that the Kennedy dynasty feels that they know what's best for America. The Kennedy's have even become carpetbaggers in order propagate their role as political leaders of our country.

As far as looking at her as Caroline Schlossberg goes, calling a leopard a tiger doesn't change it's spots. She still is a Kennedy family, power seeker. Yes I would think any woman, other than Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, etc. worthy of consideration. One cannot however separate Caroline (Kennedy) Schlossberg from the family political dynasty

[Guest]

You misunderstood my question. Would you object if she was not a Kennedy? If she was just Caroline Schlossberg with absolutely no connection to the Kennedys?

I don't take it as another Kennedy deciding she knows what is best for this country but rather another Kennedy willing to step up and trying to help this country. I honestly don't see it as an arrogant act and certainly do not believe she is insulting New Yorkers or the nation by saying she wants to be a senator. She will be one of many if appointed and a junior senator at that. Her power will be pretty limited and she'll have little chance to make any real difference for quite awhile.

Even if she is appointed now, she will have to run for office in two years. That should be enough time for New Yorkers to decide whether they like the job she is doing and vote accordingly.

[Guest]

You misunderstood my question. Would you object if she was not a Kennedy? If she was just Caroline Schlossberg with absolutely no connection to the Kennedys?

I don't take it as another Kennedy deciding she knows what is best for this country but rather another Kennedy willing to step up and trying to help this country. I honestly don't see it as an arrogant act and certainly do not believe she is insulting New Yorkers or the nation by saying she wants to be a senator. She will be one of many if appointed and a junior senator at that. Her power will be pretty limited and she'll have little chance to make any real difference for quite awhile.

Even if she is appointed now, she will have to run for office in two years. That should be enough time for New Yorkers to decide whether they like the job she is doing and vote accordingly.
Whether it is Ms. Kennedy now, or either of the Bush twins in 5-10 years, the issuen remains - there's almost 50 million families in the US. Why should a select few corner the market on political offices?

If there is that much adoration or hero worship for the Kennedy clan, then set them up for a reality TV show. The Congress is not a place for dynasties of any kind.

[Guest]

You misunderstood my question. Would you object if she was not a Kennedy? If she was just Caroline Schlossberg with absolutely no connection to the Kennedys?

I believe that I did answer your question. ANY woman other than a Kennedy, Clinton or Bush. Personally I wouldn't vote for for Caroline, if she was never connected to the Kennedy's, simply because I'm opposed to most Democratic policies, and she's a Democrat.

[Guest]

bump

[Guest]

Does that mean you'd vote for Barbara Bush, simply because she's a Republican, in spite of the fact she is part of the Bush dynasty?

I'd vote for Barbara Bush because she is a truly classy and intelligent lady. I might say she was too old for the job, but by US Senate standards, she is still quite young!

[Guest]

Does that mean you'd vote for Barbara Bush, simply because she's a Republican, in spite of the fact she is part of the Bush dynasty?

As it says, any woman other than a Kennedy, Bush or Clinton. Last I knew Barbara Bush is a Bush.:shrug:

[Guest]

In my opinion, Barabara Bush would be part of the Royal Bush establishment, and she certainly wouldn't have earned the position.

[Guest]

As it says, any woman other than a Kennedy, Bush or Clinton. Last I knew Barbara Bush is a Bush.:shrug:

That seems a little contradictory. After all, you previously posted: "I just oppose Kennedy being appointed because she's from the Royal establishment. How about someone who worked their way up and earned the spot? "

In my opinion, Barabara Bush would be part of the Royal Bush establishment, and she certainly wouldn't have earned the position.
The key work is "earned" and the criteria comprising what "earned" is. If that includes perpetuating family influence or control or is very good at soliciting political contributions, then NO! The jobs are to serve the public as a legislator or administrator, not serve the party by feeding the kitty.

[Guest]

That seems a little contradictory. After all, you previously posted: "I just oppose Kennedy being appointed because she's from the Royal establishment. How about someone who worked their way up and earned the spot? "

In my opinion, Barabara Bush would be part of the Royal Bush establishment, and she certainly wouldn't have earned the position.

Once again. Barbara Bush is a Bush, I would not vote for her because she is a Bush. I said no Kennedy, Clinton or Bush. I don't know how to make it any clearer.:loco:

[Guest]

Sorry, I misread your post - didn't see Bush. My hat is off to you. I wouldn't vote for a Bush either.