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:

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

Sigh.
 

#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.

#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?

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

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:

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..

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.

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.

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?

Excellent post, Red.

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?

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.

"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 !!!

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.

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

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.

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.

bump

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!

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

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.

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:

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