One thing, this discussion has given me a new respect for the President Elect. He did not have to use his father, uncle or college roomate to get ahead in politics. He did it on his own.

Oh, and these charges against Gov. Palin (did it on her own) were investigated and found to be groundless. They pale when you compare them with any of the Kennedys. I could list their "problems", but we all know them starting with how Joe Sr. got his fortune. How they have achieved sainthood status, just blows my mind.

references to Bush this...Bush that....as if there were no other dunce politicians in Washington. One savings grace is there are term limits on the Presidency. All the others that have more than their hand out get to stay there and fleece we the people forever. They are also the same ones who have been on the job long enough to understand the problems and create guidance and direction....but they do not....have not....and most likely never will. Yet nary a word about them. Many more of them are so far below Bush yet never a reference to them....like Stevens in Alaska a seven time felon who gets re-elected...Larry Craig the airport homo who declined to leave his job and gets re-elected...or Bill Clinton who turns the office into a cat house...as did Jack Kennedy...or how about Ted Kennedy and Chappaquidick...more recently Blogjogaditch who now says he will not leave....I can hear the wagons of political-lawyerly cover up circling already.
I am not defending Bush but am weary of those who have such a truncated, limited visibility when it comes to calling out character, credibility and performance of only one.
I know it is a waste of keystrokes to try to get others to look at the entirety of the Washington incompetency....not just one.....ALL THE TIME.

BTK

Gnu = told ya so. The same two or three members respond to every thread that questions qualifications of democrats. Hope Caroline gets the appointment to the House of Lords - ooops.

Originally Posted by Irish Rover

Gnu = told ya so. The same two or three members respond to every thread that questions qualifications of democrats. Hope Caroline gets the appointment to the House of Lords - ooops.

I, for one, did not respond at all until someone decided to call the President a moron and suggested that someone (STEVE) who posts his opinion backed with facts and well thought out was a name caller who somehow disguised his name calling.

I, frankly, do not care if Caroline Kennedy is appointed Senator and would not be surprised if that was the case.

(quote stevez) Are the Kennedy's the only family so "fortunate?" Of course not. However, to raise their image to candidates for beatification is humbug. Are we so short of "heroes" that we need to elevate any group with money to pseudo-deity status? Do we do the same with other families who have had multiple losses due to war or other violence, or are these other families "off the radar" because they do not have a public relations service to inspire sympathy and worship? And should we ignore their transgressions because they are the so-and-so"s?

When you have more money than you can ever spend, all that is left is the accumulation of power. And in this world, money can indeed buy power, but power is not a birthright in a democratic republic - only in a monarchy. And all the money and power in the world cannot buy respect - you have to earn that!(quote)

You have said what many of us from MA feel. From Joe, the prohibition illegal rum runner making millions , to Joe grooming his children for the position he wanted but didn't get, to Joe grooming his children for the power of being in government, to Ted the the man who committed manslaughter and got away with it. I guess we should be proud of their sacrificial government service. Elitist power mongers,all.

Originally Posted by chelsea24

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!

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.

Originally Posted by chelsea24

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!

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

Originally Posted by gnu

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

#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?

Originally Posted by Irish Rover

Gnu = told ya so. The same two or three members respond to every thread that questions qualifications of democrats. Hope Caroline gets the appointment to the House of Lords - ooops.

Is this different than the same two or three members that are fixated on Bush bashing with every post, no matter the original subject?

Originally Posted by chelsea24

#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.

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.

On tonight's national news the commentator referred to Caroline Kennedy's looking to hold office as "joining the family business". How nice 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....

Originally Posted by Sidney Lanier

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.

Originally Posted by Sidney Lanier

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....

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.