Usual?
 

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 ?

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.

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

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.

Confused.
 

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.

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!

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.

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???

[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. ;)

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.

Nonsense!
 

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!

I find the use of terminology and measurements...
 

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

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

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!

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

Tsk, tsk, tsk.
 

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 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.

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.

Are you kidding?
 

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:

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.

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.

Ha!
 

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:

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...121803175.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. "

Wow!!! I can't wait until the Clinton dynasty....
 

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

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 !!!!!

Not True!
 

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

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?

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.

You Betcha!
 

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 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)

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.

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.

What I don't understand is the constant, ongoing
 

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

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.

(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.