If the citizens of New York are happy if Ms. Kennedy gets appointed as fill-in senator, then they get what they deserve. These are the same folk who elected as the previous (current) senator a person whose total residence time prior to being placed on the ballot could have been measured in nanoseconds.

It's New York voters' call on what they consider "adequate qualifications" to represent their state. They are probably looking at Ms. Kennedy as keeping the seat warm until Ms. Clinton (the younger) needs a job.

But, the voters there must truly believe that in a state whose population totals approximately 19.3 million, there is no one else among them other than Ms. Kennedy in any way, shape or form qualified to be senator.

BTK - you described the Bushes.

Gnu - next time, just post only those who agree with you should respond - end of problem for you.

Originally Posted by gnu

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!

gnu, you are 100% correct in my view!

It’s not a matter if you or I SHOULD be in the Senate. According to the Constitution we COULD and are qualified to be in the Senate as well as millions of other Americans. As has been pointed out many times in this forum, “qualified” and “politician” are not synonymous. Kennedy is qualified according to the Constitution and COULD be in the Senate – whether she SHOULD be is open for debate.

Originally Posted by lazeelink

gnu, you are 100% correct in my view!

It’s not a matter if you or I SHOULD be in the Senate. According to the Constitution we COULD and are qualified to be in the Senate as well as millions of other Americans. As has been pointed out many times in this forum, “qualified” and “politician” are not synonymous. Kennedy is qualified according to the Constitution and COULD be in the Senate – whether she SHOULD be is open for debate.

There is a difference between being qualified and eligible. The criteria within the Constitution only is concerned with who is eligible to be placed on the ballot. The voters (or in this special case, the state governor) determine from the eligible candidates who is best qualified to serve.

The biggest problem we have in this country is that our elected officials are mostly lawyers and not business people. Lawyers pass laws to promote lawyers. They have become the biggest non productive drag on our economy. They are most of the problem with our health care system. The last thing we need is one more. Put someone in there with business savvy. Someone who has worked for a living and been successful. Our Congress and our Senate are a joke. The most useless group of elected Representatives in our history. Any chance we have to change it we should and not appoint another useless lawyer.

Being from NY, I think that Ms. Kennedy is the perfect person to follow Sen. Clinton. Heck, she might even live there!

I'm of your opinion gnu. Since Mrs. Schloss(whatever) was a young adult, she acted like an elitist. Her brother, not so.

I don't care that her name is Kennedy. Makes no difference. It's just that Mrs. Schloss... is unqualified. I mean, come on, NOBODY in NY can step up but socialists?

But, as NYC votes, so goes NY State. Same in California with San Francisco; same in Illinois.

Batten down the hatches and bring it on... the next 4 dismal years. Obama will be the next Hoover !!!

Originally Posted by conn8757

BTK - you described the Bushes.

Gnu - next time, just post only those who agree with you should respond - end of problem for you.

Not a problem for me. I just expect a known response from known sources. Without the different points of view there would be no need to bother posting in political.

Originally Posted by lazeelink

gnu, you are 100% correct in my view!

It’s not a matter if you or I SHOULD be in the Senate. According to the Constitution we COULD and are qualified to be in the Senate as well as millions of other Americans. As has been pointed out many times in this forum, “qualified” and “politician” are not synonymous. Kennedy is qualified according to the Constitution and COULD be in the Senate – whether she SHOULD be is open for debate.

No one questioned weather the Kennedys could be ELECTED but if they SHOULD be APPOINTED. As seen on TV (political thread) eligible and qualified are not the same thing.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

If the citizens of New York are happy if Ms. Kennedy gets appointed as fill-in senator, then they get what they deserve. These are the same folk who elected as the previous (current) senator a person whose total residence time prior to being placed on the ballot could have been measured in nanoseconds.

It's New York voters' call on what they consider "adequate qualifications" to represent their state. They are probably looking at Ms. Kennedy as keeping the seat warm until Ms. Clinton (the younger) needs a job.

You're obviously not a resident of NY or you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous post. As a former resident of NY who voted for Mrs. Clinton, I note that she was re-elected by a landslide. The reason for this is that she is an incredibly hard worker. The people love her there. Who says that not being a longtime resident makes you unqualified in any way for the position? Hillary is an incredibly bright woman, with a law degree, who familiarized herself with the issues, then worked very very hard to make things better for New Yorkers.

In any event, at this point it will not be New Yorkers call, it will be Governor Patterson's call. There are many qualifed candidates, including Ms Kennedy, and I'm sure he'll make a good choice.

As Chelsea implied, why is everyone picking on Kennedy anyways? Take a look at Schwartzenegger. I mean, come on! How could anyone be less qualified, and for the office of Governor, no less!

Originally Posted by rekop

You're obviously not a resident of NY or you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous post. As a former resident of NY who voted for Mrs. Clinton, I note that she was re-elected by a landslide. The reason for this is that she is an incredibly hard worker. The people love her there. Who says that not being a longtime resident makes you unqualified in any way for the position? Hillary is an incredibly bright woman, with a law degree, who familiarized herself with the issues, then worked very very hard to make things better for New Yorkers.

In any event, at this point it will not be New Yorkers call, it will be Governor Patterson's call. There are many qualifed candidates, including Ms Kennedy, and I'm sure he'll make a good choice.

As Chelsea implied, why is everyone picking on Kennedy anyways? Take a look at Schwartzenegger. I mean, come on! How could anyone be less qualified, and for the office of Governor, no less!

If the post seemed ridiculous to you, that's your call.

As Gov. Patterson is the duly-elected official to determine such an appointment, he speaks for the 19.3 million citizens of New York; thus, the voters speak through him.

Every time I see the Kennedy adoration society genuflect before another clan member, it makes me glad to be a former Bostonian.

Every time I see someone carpetbag into a state, especially one of a dozen-plus million citizens, and blitzkrieg into office by virtue of name recognition and heavy advertising, I become more impressed on how quasi-celebrity status and excellent marketing is more impressive to voters than then less-than-flashy person who has lived the state issues and can actually find their way around the state without a GPS and a personal guide.

Every time I see the country slip further into a select "ruling clique" consisting of a relative handful of families and a general herd of serfs who are expected to accept being "ruled" by this party elite (and both major parties do this!), it makes me wonder how much longer this Great Experiment occurring in North America will continue to survive.

The Senate is becoming the American "Privy Council" and the House of Representatives heading towards being the "House of Lords."

Whatever happened to the Founders' concept of citizen-delegate who served for a term or two, but went home to work their "real job" and then hand the baton to a local replacement. They actually believed that each district had more than one citizen competent to represent, and that was with a much smaller and less educated population back then.

Perhaps a periodic monarchy is what the masses today really want....

Originally Posted by SteveZ

If the post seemed ridiculous to you, that's your call.

Every time I see the Kennedy adoration society genuflect before another clan member, it makes me glad to be a former Bostonian.

Every time I see someone carpetbag into a state, especially one of a dozen-plus million citizens, and blitzkrieg into office by virtue of name recognition and heavy advertising, I become more impressed on how quasi-celebrity status and excellent marketing is more impressive to voters than then less-than-flashy person who has lived the state issues and can actually find their way around the state without a GPS and a personal guide.

Every time I see the country slip further into a select "ruling clique" consisting of a relative handful of families and a general herd of serfs who are expected to accept being "ruled" by this party elite (and both major parties do this!), it makes me wonder how much longer this Great Experiment occurring in North America will continue to survive.

The Senate is becoming the American "Privy Council" and the House of Representatives heading towards being the "House of Lords."

Whatever happened to the Founders' concept of citizen-delegate who served for a term or two, but went home to work their "real job" and then hand the baton to a local replacement. They actually believed that each district had more than one citizen competent to represent, and that was with a much smaller and less educated population back then.

Perhaps a periodic monarchy is what the masses today really want....

SteveZ, well spoken and I couldn't agree more, particularly, "Whatever happened to the Founders' concept of citizen-delegate who served a term or two, but went home to work their "real job"."

Right on Steve. I'm from New York and I totally agree with you. NY has been the carpet ****** poster child. I remember when Robert Kennedy decided to be NY Senator in order to run for President.

Regard ARNOLD!!!, he's an idiot, truly. He got elected for his star power AND his wife is a (drum roll) KENNEDY.

I'm just sayin'

Originally Posted by SteveZ

If the post seemed ridiculous to you, that's your call.

As Gov. Patterson is the duly-elected official to determine such an appointment, he speaks for the 19.3 million citizens of New York; thus, the voters speak through him.

Every time I see the Kennedy adoration society genuflect before another clan member, it makes me glad to be a former Bostonian.

Every time I see someone carpetbag into a state, especially one of a dozen-plus million citizens, and blitzkrieg into office by virtue of name recognition and heavy advertising, I become more impressed on how quasi-celebrity status and excellent marketing is more impressive to voters than then less-than-flashy person who has lived the state issues and can actually find their way around the state without a GPS and a personal guide.

Every time I see the country slip further into a select "ruling clique" consisting of a relative handful of families and a general herd of serfs who are expected to accept being "ruled" by this party elite (and both major parties do this!), it makes me wonder how much longer this Great Experiment occurring in North America will continue to survive.

The Senate is becoming the American "Privy Council" and the House of Representatives heading towards being the "House of Lords."

Whatever happened to the Founders' concept of citizen-delegate who served for a term or two, but went home to work their "real job" and then hand the baton to a local replacement. They actually believed that each district had more than one citizen competent to represent, and that was with a much smaller and less educated population back then.

Perhaps a periodic monarchy is what the masses today really want....

SteveZ, you say you don't like people that would choose a Kennedy just for the name and yet, you're making it clear that you would oppose a Kennedy just because of the name.

Why don't you listen to the people that actually live in the state. No one wants to hear about Chicago from someone that's actually lived there, i.e. Kahuna and me and now you completely ignore Rekop's opinion about New York! I don't get it? Do you know better than everyone in this country that has lived in every state?

And BTW, I don't know if you guys are even reading what you're writing because much of what you say would apply to Bush, Palin and McCain.

Originally Posted by chelsea24

SteveZ, you say you don't like people that would choose a Kennedy just for the name and yet, you're making it clear that you would oppose a Kennedy just because of the name.

Why don't you listen to the people that actually live in the state. No one wants to hear about Chicago from someone that's actually lived there, i.e. Kahuna and me and now you completely ignore Rekop's opinion about New York! I don't get it? Do you know better than everyone in this country that has lived in every state?

And BTW, I don't know if you guys are even reading what you're writing because much of what you say would apply to Bush, Palin and McCain.

I read what I was writing, Chels. Across the board, serve two terms and you are through... out the door and off the dole.