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.