Another insult
 

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.

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

Check this website.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_148671.html

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:

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:

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

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:

Why not?
 

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.

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".

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

Why not indeed!
 

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/constitut....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!

She being a lawyer (strike one).....
 

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

:1rotfl::agree:

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!

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.

BTK - you described the Bushes.

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

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.

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.

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

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 !!!

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.

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.

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....

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"."

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'

Listen and Learn!
 

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.

Yes!
 

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

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....

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.

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?

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/archi...6/1718626.aspx

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.

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:

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?

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.

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 !!!!