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.