Caroline Kennedy for Senate:

[Occam Bandage]

Poll question: Caroline Kennedy for Senate:

[kestrel91316]

1. Ok, who's the miscreant who thinks she, an attorney and accomplished author

and social activist, isn't qualified?

Probably somebody who thought Sarah Palin would be a great president.......

[Occam Bandage]

3. I provided that vote, but do not endorse that option.

When I start polls, I usually let it go four or five votes, and then throw a vote at whichever option does not have any votes, if such an option exists. I think that people are more likely to pick what they actually believe if they see that they are not entirely alone in their belief.

I don't bother voting how I believe in my own polls. After all, I already know how *I* think.

[ruggerson]

5. I thought you opposed her

[Occam Bandage]

8. Yes and no. I think she's a flawed and risky choice, who lacks

the breadth and depth of experience required to be effective on a policy level, and I'm not convinced she has the ability to withstand the rigors of the Senate--she hasn't even run a campaign yet. On the other hand, I think she could turn out very well indeed, in a Ms. Smith Goes to Washington sort of way. If I'm the governor, I wouldn't take the gamble of appointing her. On the other hand, it would be thrilling to have her be appointed.

She isn't the safe choice by any means, but then again, you don't win the big money if you don't bet big.

[ruggerson]

10. I'm pretty much of the same mind

I would prefer the Governor appoint someone who has run for political office, managed a primary and general election campaign and has been tested as a public servant responsible to a broad constituency. Someone who has made some tough decisions in the public arena.

If he wants to take a gamble and do something historic, my suggestion would be Christine Quinn.

Then again, I like Caroline and am sure she would make a fine Senator. I just would like to think one earns such a position through meritocracy. Even when appointed.

[Muttocracy]

14. what you said.

I think she could do fine, but I'd rather Paterson pick from among many state and federal elected Democrats.

[grantcart]

28. She is highly intelligent and has been very careful about conserving her image

and involvement in politics.


The most interesting part of this whole episode hasn't been addressed by anyone - why does she now want to get involved. She doesn't want or need the attention, in fact she is terribly shy.

I think it is a particularly good indicator of the kind of transformation Obama can have on people, even people who have been close to great fame and wealth. I am confident that if she were appointed and if she took it she would become one of the best Senators in the Senate.

[Cha]

36. Excellent points, grant!

And, as a New Yorker(these days) I absolutely agree.

[dansolo]

33. She could be a good placeholder

What if she was selected, but chose not to run in 2010?

[Shakespeare]

4. That would be the OP and another poster who just started a thread slamming her.

[ruggerson]

6. Why do you use the word "slam" to describe their opinions?

[Shakespeare]

9. Because, in my opinion, that's exactly what they're doing.

That okay with you?

[ruggerson]

11. Can one oppose her selection thoughtfully?

[Shakespeare]

12. When they selectively overlook her work as a constitutional scholar and her lifetime of public svc?

And refer to her dismissively as a dilettante and a cookbook author?

No, not so thoughtful.

[ruggerson]

15. Are there thoughtful reasons to oppose her appointment?

[Shakespeare]

16. Not many, no.

And you asked about two specific posters, and I gave specific examples specific to their comments.

[ruggerson]

17. Originally I did

but I'm wondering why you think there aren't a number of legitimate reasons to hope Governor Patterson appoints someone else.

[Shakespeare]

19. I said no such thing.

I've only addressed the comments here criticizing her (mostly baselessly, in my opinion).

[ruggerson]

20. I don't mind if she gest appointed

but I do think there are others more qualified. And more interesting as potential potent, fresh voices in the Senate.

[Occam Bandage]

26. You claim your examples are specific to my comments.

Where have I called her a "dilettante" or a "cookbook author?"

[jaysunb]

21. I thought poster # 8 did a good job of being thoughtful

Although I strongly disagree w/ the poster, I thought his/her arguement was well thought out and fair.

[AllentownJake]

13. Maybe because they compared her to Ma Bush

[saltpoint]

2. I voted 'yes.' In italics.

[TahitiNut]

7. Other

Ambivalent. She could probably handle the job better than a few dozen Senators I could list ... but I'm not inclined to see her savaged for such an appointment. She doesn't deserve the kind of partisan attacks she'd get.

[AllentownJake]

18. I think she's tough enough to handle it

She beat back the entire party over the VP appointment...and there is that little thing of her families history.

[amborin]

22. the state of NY has too many serious problems to risk an untested neophyte; she'd be a bad choice

[kerry-is-my-prez]

23. I have mixed feelings - It would be kind of cool to have her there but she really hasn't paid dues

I'd be pretty po'd if I were an accomplished politician who had been around for years and saw some big profile person with little political experience leapfrog over me.

[totodeinhere]

29. That's what they said about Teddy too.

When he became a senator he was much younger and much less experienced than Caroline is now, but I think everyone will agree that Teddy turned out to be one of our greatest senators ever and a great voice for liberalism. I expect no less from Caroline.

[marlakay]

35. Thank god Obama didn't have to pay his!

thats what everyone said about him. That he should wait his turn.

It's hard when you see someone taking cuts, but sometimes their the best person for the job.

I think Caroline would be great.

[Radical Activist]

24. There are much more qualified people but I'm sure she would do an adequate job.

I'm not sure how I would feel about it if I lived in New York, and since I don't, I'm not too worried about it.

[Occam Bandage]

25. kick.

[grantcart]

27. I voted yes but she doesn't really belong there.

She's far too intelligent and graceful for that group - (thinking of the quote from the Senator in 'Religiousity' = "You don't have to pass an IQ test to get to the US Senate").

[Bjorn Against]

30. I voted yes because I will not be upset if she gets the position...

I don't necessarily think she would be the best person for the position, but I do think she would be very competent. I would like to see a woman in the seat as well for the simple reason that men outnumber women in politics by a large margin, and I think it is important to have some gender balance. Considering we will be losing one female Senator from New York it would be good to see another woman take her place. Ultimately this is Patterson's choice however, and as long as he doesn't choose someone who is really regressive on key issues I will be happy.

[brianna69]

31. Definitely yes!

Go Caroline. Patterson needs to make this happen.

[tigereye]

32. would love to see former Gov. Cuomo, but she would be fine

she's smart, classy and beloved by pretty much everyone.

[cali]

34. couldn't vote in your push poll

there are fair ways to phrase the question. I, for example, am not against Caroline being appointed because she's not qualified; I'm against her being appointed because no other person with her qualifications, but without the family name, would stand a chance of being appointed, and because there are others who are MORE qualified than she.

[Occam Bandage]

37. Then you believe she's not qualified; you just talk around it to make it seem gentler.

"Well, she's qualified enough I guess, but not so qualified that I would choose her over any of the more-qualified people" can be shortened to "she's unqualified" and not lose any meaning. You are against her appointment because of her level of qualification. I think that whether you believe she fails to meet some external, objective standard, or whether she fails to rise above the bar set by her competitors, a declaration of non-qualification is equally fair.

But let's leave that aside. Admittedly, I could have provided no justifications whatsoever after "yes" and "no." On the other hand, I like providing brief, fair justifications; it reminds people what the arguments are, and in the few dozen polls I've posted here, this is the first time anyone's claimed a justification was evidence that I was posting a push poll. Sorry you didn't like the justification for the "no" choice--despite agreeing with it--but that doesn't make it a push poll. I'm not sure how it could be construed as a push poll, actually. I can't even decide which side you think I'm pushing. So, you don't like the "no" choice. Is it an anti-Kennedy push poll, because you think the "no" justification is harsher than the "yes" justification is favorable? Is it a pro-Kennedy push poll, because you think the "no" answer is harsh, keeping people from voting for it, giving an inflated "Yes" total? You're not usually one to assume malice over negligence, so I'm kind of surprised at your assumption of underhandedness.

Anyway, if I had changed the "no" choice to "No, I either believe that she fails to meet my standard of qualifications for office and as such am against her nomination fearing inadequate job performance, or believe that she does meet such standards, but that other people are more qualified, and as such I am against her nomination while believing that she would perform well in the job," would that have made you happy?