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.

Originally Posted by gnu

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.

Greez....I didn't know Sara Palin went to law school or that she was running for a Senate seat. My bad.

Originally Posted by gnu

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.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by aln

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!

Originally Posted by cologal

Greez....I didn't know Sara Palin went to law school or that she was running for a Senate seat. My bad.

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.

Originally Posted by chelsea24

I

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?

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!

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.........

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!

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

Originally Posted by Irish Rover

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".

Originally Posted by lazeelink

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!

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!