Give Caroline Kennedy an ambassadorship

[liberalpragmatist]

She's done some good things in public service and she's been a key ally of Obama's, but I don't think it's fair for her to ascend to the Senate seat by appointment based on her name and pedigree.

I would have nothing against her going to the Senate if she competed in a contested primary and was elected to the seat. But getting appointed to it purely on the basis of her family?

Give her an ambassadorship. Her name has been floated as a possible Ambassador to the Court of St. James (the UK) -- the post held by her grandfather.

And give the Senate seat to any one of numerous qualified NY Democrats. Preferably a woman, an upstater, or an African-American (such as Rep. Kirsten Gilibrand or Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown).

[143tbone]

1. There you go. n/t

[stillcool]

2. Why? She has asked to be considered...

for the vacant seat in New York. She was born in New York, has worked in New York, is a member of the bar in New York, has her family in New York, and has lived her entire life in New York. You may not like her, but she is as 'entitled' as any other New Yorker to ask to be considered for that Senate seat.

[ddeclue]

6. I think it is entirely fair to consider that there are already 2 Kennedies in Congress now

and that this would be a third and two in the Senate. No other family even comes close.

Senator Clinton is married to President Clinton but to my recollection their terms at best only overlapped for a two week period in January of 2001 when he was on his way out and she was just coming in.

The Diaz-Balarts are two Congressmen in Florida.

The Sanchez sisters are two Congresswomen from California.

There haven't been two Senators in this situation since the 1960's when both were named Kennedy and NEVER have there been two Senators and a Congressman.

At some point you have to give other people a chance no matter how "talented, intelligent, educated", etc. Caroline Kennedy may be. Right now African Americans have NO representation in the Senate when there ought to be 12 Senators and two governors where there ought to be six.

Doug D.

[stillcool]

9. Well, maybe you'll be lucky..

and Teddy will die. Will that make it all better?

[liberalpragmatist]

The issue for me is the appointment process

I like Caroline Kennedy and if she's picked, I'm sure she'll do a decent job. But lots of qualified Democrats in New York would do a decent job.

And what bothers me about this is the fact that she is being selected on the basis of her family connections and her pedigree and that this is being done via appointment. If there had been a special election and she competed in a primary and then a general election among the voters, that would be an entirely different situation -- analogous, IMO, to Hillary's run.

As an appointment, it bothers me because one person -- the governor -- is selecting a likely lifetime representative for New York on the basis of her family history.

[stillcool]

11. Why do you think she will not be selected..

on say her work in the New York Public School System. Or..maybe the charities she's helped. Or maybe the work she's done throughout her life for the Democratic Party? What's the matter with her serving 2 years in the Senate? What is so appalling about that? I truly hope she isn't chosen. As I've said, I hope she leaves her life, her work, and her family in New York, and moves here to MA. She can run for Teddy's seat, and if god forbid he can't finish out his term, I'm sure that our Governor would have no problem appointing her. I doubt that DU, or the people of MA would have a problem with it either.

[liberalpragmatist]

12. Well, in Mass., she'd have to run in an election

Since Mass. is one of only two states to require an immediate special election in the event of a vacancy (the law was changed in '04 to prevent Mitt Romney from appointing a Republican if Kerry won).

And, yes, there is a Kennedy-family succession going on there too -- Ted has said that he wants his wife, Vicki, to succeed him.

[stillcool]

13. Yes..I live here...

and I have no problem with any Kennedy, or anyone else running for office. I forgot about the law change, but after reading all this shit I'm glad the law was changed.

[sohndrsmith]

16. so your argument is not with her, per se, but the process, right? n/t

[liberalpragmatist]

20. Yes, kind of

She would not be under consideration for appointment if not for her family pedigree. If she were actually running for the seat and had to face a primary or even just the general election, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I just dislike that based on her family pedigree she gets appointed to the seat.

Again, I'm hardly a Caroline-hater or anything. If picked, she'll probably do a good job and I'll let bygones be bygones. But given the selection process, it would be fairer to pick one of the many other people in the state who are qualified -- numerous members of Congress, NY state senators, mayors and other elected officials or public servants.

[sohndrsmith]

21. okay - excellent answer. Which I respond to with 2 questions: : )

1. based on the fact that no one is running for this position (it will be appointed - it's not that anyone is being given special favors) what disqualifies Kennedy specifically since anyone who fills this seat will be appointed? Her resume? Her connection with and work for and dedication to NY? Or the lack thereof?

2. As I asked in another post, state who you think is more qualified, specifically, and why?

Arguably, the predecessor to this Senate seat was elected - no argument there. But what were her qualifications compared to those you provide as standard bearers now? I'm just curious... I'm not saying you're wrong. I happen to think that a native NYer who has shown incredible dedication and help to the state of NY is pretty qualified to represent it. Having expertise in Constitutional Law doesn't hurt either. I don't care what the heck one's last name is. This isn't political maneuvering. Can that be said of the Senator who's post it is that is being filled? I can't answer that. I do know that she was not and never has been a native NYer, if that matters and to some, it does...

[liberalpragmatist]

23. Okay...

1. Yes, no one is officially "running for the seat" and it's an appointed position, so yes, you're right that Caroline has every right to lobby for the appointment. But that doesn't mean she should be selected. An appointment is by definition less democratic, and it bothers me (and a lot of people) that she would get the position based on her name and connections.

Let's face it: someone with an identical resume but without her last name and family connections would probably not get selected or be in the running.

You can never eliminate the privileges people will get by names and connections, and I'm generally willing to let that go in elections. But again, when the appointment is coming due to a decision from the top (the governor), I think it is inherently less democratic and there ought to be some effort to make the selection a truly fair decision.

2. There are lots of other qualified NY'ers. There are several very-well qualified members of Congress such as Carolyn Maloney. There was a lot of talk about naming someone from upstate New York or a racial or ethnic minority, since most of the current NY leadership comes from the City. Names were thrown about such as the Mayor of Buffalo, Byron Brown, or Rep. Kirsten Gilibrand, a whip-smart young congresswoman from the Hudson Valley.

Again, at least Hillary had to run in the General Election before getting the seat.

Now I realize this is more a difference of degrees -- Hillary, after all, had the Senate nomination cleared for her by the NY Dems (they drafted her because the only other declared candidate, Rep. Nita Lowey -- wasn't seen as capable of beating Rudy; the irony is that Rudy imploded and Lowey almost certainly would have won against Rick Lazio, but whatever.). Still, at least her actual ascension to the Senate had a veto point by the people of New York, which at least theoretically is a check on the dynastic aspects of it.

[liberalpragmatist]

7. Double post - nt

[snowbear]

24. I'm not in NY.. but I agree with stillcool..

..
.

Why not at least consider her along with all of the others that are interested in the position?

[FrenchieCat]

3. I'll trade you Caroline Kennedy for Diane Feinstein!

Damn, I wish I could get that done.

Would love a liberal Caroline instead of Ms. Hawk Money Bag Feinstein, no matter her experience....she sucks.

That's what I don't understand about all of the "up in arm" about Ms. Kennedy. She's probably more liberal than a whole bunch of that dead weight currently sitting their asses in the Senate claiming to be Democrats.

Shit, I hate this "can't be a Kennedy person, simply because she's a Kennedy" bullshit, which is all that it adds up to being.

Hillary Clinton came into New York and because she was a Clinton she was elected. This is a two year appointment that no one expected, and somehow folks are pissed (not saying you).

I like the idea of a non-straight up pol getting a chance, and I like the Kennedy family, in particular I like Caroline. She appears to be an earnest person that won't lie, cheat, try to cut deals, and certainly not play politicks the whole time thru. I don't "get" the objections...and the attempts to reduce her down to size just because she ain't been a blood player. :shrug:

[Cha]

5. Exactly..it's not about "experience" it's

making the right decisions..having good judgment, as it were. Here we go again:bounce:

[AtomicKitten]

8. I swear I thought the same thing today. Straight up trade.

[FrenchieCat]

10. That would be devine!

Damn!

The more I think about, the more pissed off I get! :mad:

[rvablue]

15. UGH! Your Feinstein comparison is old and tired....remember what the alternative could've been????

[ddeclue]

4. Excellent post!

And it would use the Kennedy name in a way which benefits the nation as a whole rather than in a way which benefits the Kennedies first.

I like it! Ambassador to the United Kingdom it is!

Doug D.

[sohndrsmith]

17. I think we could probably expect that CK will be part of the process and/or

administration (and an integral part thereof) in the near future... Senate seat or not. Chances are if she doesn't get the Senate position, she'll likely get something most might consider "better".... just thinkin' this might be the case.

We shall see! : )

[Rowdyboy]

14. If she gets the senate nod, I trust New York Dems to decide if she deserves a full term...

they're generally pretty smart.

[nsd]

18. The same objection could be levelled against a lot of people.

As others have pointed out, when Hillary Clinton parachuted into New York state for the purpose of running for Senate, she didn't face a contested primary. Party leaders cleared the decks for her. The idea that Clinton "earned it" in an election is just a rationalization.

[liberalpragmatist]

Well, she still had to get elected in the General Election

Although I can see your point, esp. if Caroline were to subsequently win the '10 special election.

[liberalpragmatist]

19. Delete - double post.

[Thothmes]

22. I don't think its fair for a person to ascend to

an ambassadorship by appointment based on family name or pedigree. Dozens of career diplomats in the State Department that are eminently more qualified for ambassadorships. JMO