For those who oppose C. Kennedy for Senator-NY:

[sohndrsmith]

1. Please offer who you believe is a better pick, name included, and what facts you use to support your argument.

2. Please explain why Kennedy's credentials are insufficient, specifically, particularly in regards to what you deem unacceptable in her CV apart from what is required for the position per the Constitution (age, citizenship, residency, all of which she qualifies for without question). Clarify what and why her creds are unacceptable, and why the person you name is more qualified/better for the seat, in detail.

I'm just curious - I'm having a hard time thinking of anyone better, personally...


Thanks! : )

[Trajan]

1. Im not going to worry about what others in this knitting circle think ...

On the whole, DU can represent 1,000 different opinions on one subject at any one moment ...

It's difficult to care very much about 1,000 different opinions ...

If the Governor appoints her, he appoints her ... IF he appoints another, he appoints another ...

No one in DU is going to have a great impact on that choice ...

[babylonsister]

2. Yea, but it can be fun. Frustrating. Mind-boggling! nt

[Muttocracy]

3. Maurice Hinchey

Proven progressive (the kind you'd think DU would get behind).
Has a long record of environmental protection in New York State (in the Assembly and as a federal Rep.)
Has won reelection repeatedly in a moderate upstate district.
Not from the upper class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Hinchey

http://www.house.gov/hinchey/about/

He's not perfect but I would know what to expect from him.

Caroline has no campaign or legislative experience, no legislative staff, zero record in upstate NY.

[EFerrari]

4. She interned with Teddy and I heard she worked on the Obama campaign.

[Muttocracy]

6. I meant with her as the legislator or candidate - if we include working on

legislation or campaigns, there are many thousands of New York residents who have that qualification.

[pnwmom]

19. Are there thousands of NYers who could pick up the phone and call Obama?

Who have personally campaigned for him and was one of three on the committee to help choose his Vice President?

Are there thousands who would have the help of numerous experienced campaigners connected with Ted Kennedy (or a comparable member of the Senate) ?

Are there thousands who have already shown their own ability to fundraise, after raising hundreds of millions in private funds for the NYC schools (or other charity) ?

Are there thousands who, from their first months as a freshman Senator, would have a high enough profile to bring immediate attention to the needs of NYers?

Other than Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, can you name even one?

[EFerrari]

23. Okay, got it. Yes, that's true. n/t

[sohndrsmith]

10. I'm from upstate NY... so Mo Hinchey is better because he's not a Kennedy

and has campaigned?

I am from upstate NY (Millbrook), and as far as local issues are concerned, the Lyme disease epidemic (and the co-infection of vector borne diseases that are on the rise) and if Hinchey is on that like a dog on a bone - more power to him. I know that there have been some proposals to deal with this, but this is a big one.

That, however, doesn't qualify or disqualify one from the US Senate seat, but it's pretty close for those of us who have seen what this problem has done to those who live in the Hudson Valley.

So, I can't argue with you that local politics are an issue... this one being particularly important (to me - my mother nearly died as a result, and ever single resident on our road has been seriously affected, either permanently or long-term with recovery... it's ugly and the local pols need to stop pretending it doesn't exist).

[dkf]

31. Can he raise enough money to keep the seat?

[Jim Lane]

32. Frankly, I'm concerned about Hinchey's age.

He's certainly one of our best Congressmembers. (Thanks for linking to , which I started because of my admiration for him.)

The trouble is that he's already 70. If he wins the 2010 special election for the last two years of Clinton's term, then runs in the regular election in 2012, he'd be seeking a term that would end when he was 80. That's getting on a bit even for the Senate. He might be vulnerable to a Republican who could convey a more dynamic image.

[Muttocracy]

5. if a woman from NYC, why not Nydia Velazquez?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nydia_Vel%C3%A1zquez

http://www.house.gov/velazquez/

[sohndrsmith]

12. I'm not saying why not - I'm asking you to post your argument... n/t

[Muttocracy]

13. I tired of this and stopping myself.

I need to accept that politics is about celebrity.

[sohndrsmith]

17. that makes no sense. But okay... that's your choice nt

[Rowdyboy]

42. I think she would have been a great pick, but she took her name out of contention....

Didn't endorse anyone but said she wanted to stay in the house.

[boppers]

7. 29 state senators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Senate

1. All 29 have been vetted/voted by the people of New York to represent them. She has never been vetted, nor voted.

2. All 29 have actually been voted upon, and worked to represent people. In contrast, she has never proven a days worth of work as a civil servant, and has no experience in the fields of elected politician, senator, or lawmaker.

[pnwmom]

9. She already has the support of 46% of New York Democrats, twice as many

as the next in the field (Cuomo).

And she has proven fund-raising ability, which is critical since whoever is appointed now will have to run in the general election and then again in 2012.

Who is more likely to beat King, or whoever else the Rethugs choose to run? That is the question we SHOULD be asking. I think Caroline Kennedy-Schlossberg is that person.

[boppers]

15. Oooh, who can be more popular?

...

really?

[sohndrsmith]

18. you think this has anything to do with popularity? Maybe it does

that doesn't sit well with me...

[pnwmom]

22. The best candidate is the progressive Dem who can draw the most votes

against the Rethug.

She's a progressive, she's already popular with the public, and she's already proven her ability as a fundraiser.

[Muttocracy]

11. hmm, like Obama was before he went to the US Senate. Imagine that. nt

[boppers]

14. Obama had to prove himself in an election cycle. nt

[sohndrsmith]

20. and this is a different situation because a Senator has been

appointed to a cabinet position, therefore, as (I'm guessing) has always been the case, the governor of the state where a Senate seat has been left vacant as a result of a senior cabinet position - must appoint a replacement. It's not news or unique.

Is the problem with the appointment or with the appointee?

And I'm still looking for responses beyond generalities. I've only gotten two - names as to who would be better, and why....

[boppers]

40. Malcolm Smith

Elected, strong credentials as a legislator, mediator.

[sohndrsmith]

25. Good argument. Thanks. But... : )

The fact that historically - NY Senators have been voted in - disqualifies this person? If no Senator were appointed, ever, I'd agree with you. If this person was unqualified (per the Constitution) I'd agree with you.

Where is the requirement of prior civil service (elected/vetted) a requisite for the position of US Senate? Was the Senator whom Ms. Kennedy is interested in replacing elected or voted on in any public office prior to her election to the Senate seat? Is the prior Senator's election to the NY Senate seat your only qualification, then? Have you read or researched Kennedy's resume and work history that is her own and has nothing to do with her name? Do you find it insufficient as a representative of NY State or Senator? And her predecessor's NY qualifications are... or were...what exactly - specifically pertaining to NY.... ?

I think the problem is that people are labeling Ms. Kennedy without finding out who she is, and it's something of a reverse prejudice because she is not JFK, she is not Teddy, she is not RFK, she is Caroline. Judge her for who she is... not what her name is. Seems to me a reverend named King made a really good speech on this subject... and it goes all ways, not just one way (not saying you believe otherwise, I speak to the general argument).

[boppers]

39. It's not that she should be *disqualified* for never held office.

To the contrary, I think qualifications for an appointed role should be paramount. Not name recognition.

Have I read her resume? Yes. Her predecessor's? Yes. If she wants to run for office, as her predecessor did, great!

However, this is not an election, this is an appointment.

[ananda]

8. Caroline's the BEST!!!!

nt

[sohndrsmith]

21. why? nt

[emilyg]

24. What makes her the best?

[sohndrsmith]

16. I just was hoping to get the argument beyond "I like her" or "I don't like her"...

and I wanted to hear the pros and cons for both.... because it makes more sense to think it through than to stop at "she's a Kennedy", and have that mean anything regarding her ability (or lack thereof).

I happen to think she'd be damn good for the post - but that's just me and I'm sure lots of people disagree... I didn't automatically assume this simply because of her name, nor did I automatically dismiss her for the same reason. I like - primarily - her reasons for wanting the post, and her credentials (to me) are stellar. But that's my opinion. I want to hear from those who have other ideas, and can clarify who they think is better and why...

I think we need a discussion beyond (nyah - nyah - nyah, or pure agreement or disagreement without following it up with reason).

Hopefully that makes sense... : )

[Jim Lane]

26. Jerry Nadler

Congressman has a proven record as a progressive legislator, in the New York State Assembly and now for eight terms in the House of Representatives. He voted against the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq War Resolution, and the Military Commissions Act of 2006, just to name a few key votes over the past several years.

Unfortunately, he's a long shot to get the appointment. As a white male from New York City, he doesn't fill any of Paterson's demographic or political needs. He's not as well known as Caroline Kennedy. All he has going for him is the merits.

Oh, but, cower cower whimper whimper, he might be too liberal to win in 2010. I admit that occurred to me. Then I decided, screw it, I'm tired of thinking we have to abandon our principles just to win. New York is a strongly blue state. The Republican Party here is in serious disarray. We'll never have a better chance to install a genuine progressive in the Senate. Russ Feingold needs someone to talk to.

Okay, I admit, Nadler's first campaign (for student government president at Stuyvesant High School) was managed by a classmate of his, Dick Morris. But I can forgive him that youthful indiscretion. Morris hadn't yet turned into a piece of slime.

As to your second question, I have nothing against Kennedy. It's just that Nadler's credentials are superior.

[sohndrsmith]

27. thanks for one of the most coherent and well thought out answers I've gotten thus far :)

Not saying that other answers weren't useful or good, but I really was looking for specifics. I don't know Nadler very well, and I personally don't care what one's last name is either, and I'll look into him - what you've written is intriguing. Thank you.

You're right, though, his lack of name recognition is probably not helpful. But that's another reason why I started this thread. I wasn't hearing any names (or reasons) for alternatives to Kennedy, and I want to know who or what is the rationale for who "deserves" the position (bad wording, no one does, but unknowns - like a skinny kid with a funny name - can get pretty far if enough people think highly of him/her, no?) : )

thanks again... I'm going to find out more. Much appreciated.

[sohndrsmith]

28. has Nadler shown interest in the position? At first glance,

and I admit I have not done more than that - he's very interesting - on many levels and absolutely on par (or better) vis a vis qualifications compared to Kennedy... but I've just skimmed so I'm not really speaking with any sort of authority. But I think you have made a good pick - I'd like to know if you have heard of his interest in the post - or not ...


thanks again. I was hoping for responses like yours. : )

[Jim Lane]

30. I think he's interested, but I'm not really on top of the process.

I know that Nadler is one of several members of the New York delegation who've been mentioned as possibilities in news articles about the vacancy (dating back to when it was only a prospective vacancy in case Clinton won the White House).

On the House Judiciary Committee, Nadler chairs the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, a duty he's discharged admirably. You can see him on YouTube. For example:

* denouncing telecom immunity in the FISA bill <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JMjfzCgxlc>
* making a statement and grilling witnesses at the impeachment hearing <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKP9re6-IfE&feature=PlayList&p=62005FB2A5B1EECC&playnext=1&index=13> and <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68gFW_9ZBp8&feature=PlayList&p=62005FB2A5B1EECC&index=14>
* at the introduction of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUiS_kIBjJI> -- though he ended up voting "No" on the version of ENDA that came up for a vote, because it had been stripped of protection for transgendered people. (Yes, we have a Congressman who thinks that protecting gays, lesbians, and bisexuals from job discrimination doesn't go far enough.)

Thanks for your kind words about my post.

[sohndrsmith]

38. no, thank _ you _ -

I'm intrigued with Nadler and embarrassed I'm not more familiar with the name... but interested in learning more. Thanks, too, for the links...

The only other names I recall hearing (at least in retail media - more embarrassment) are Cuomo, RFKjr and WJ Clinton, two of which were pretty much dismissed at the get-go, the other apparently not brought up again - although I could have missed anything... Just because a name isn't out there doesn't mean the person isn't worth looking at...

NY isn't so lifeless that it can't come up with several viable candidates - at least worth discussing on their own merits... it seems weird to just take sides over one person as if no one else exists... I'm happy with Kennedy (so far) but I'm not betting the farm on anyone, especially with the dearth of alternative possibilities.

I know, I know, it's Paterson's decision - and his alone. But that doesn't mean we have to limit the discussion. The "innernets" have become a powerful force in the political process... it's goofy not to think out loud on things like this. So thanks for adding to that process. It's possible that a relative unknown (even with a funny name) can do rather miraculous things - coming seemingly out of nowhere... why would we assume it can't ever happen again?

[elleng]

33. Sure didn't know that about Nadler and morris!

What a Class!

[Muttocracy]

44. if a strong progressive can't win in NY, where can they win?

MA and VT I guess.

Thanks for your post.

[sohndrsmith]

29. For those who are adamant against Kennedy because this is an "appointment"...

were you as adamantly opposed to the governor of NY who was - not elected - and is now authorized to appoint the representative Senator to the vacant NY seat?

Was there an outcry there? Patterson was the next in line, by default... if your argument is against this being an appointment... can you rationalize against an appointment among a pool of prospective candidates?

It's something to square in one's mind, no?

[cali]

35. He was elected. He's been elected repeatedly in NY

In fact, he was first elected over 20 years ago. Caroline has never been elected to anything.

What a spurious comparison.

[sohndrsmith]

36. Governor? huh... spurious? hm. I respectfully disagree with your

categorization, but that's fine.

I never said Paterson had never been elected, nor did I say that prior election to any office was requisite for anyone concerned in the issue at hand. It isn't - and that was my point. Paterson is no less valid as Governor than if he'd been elected, as whomever (I think that's grammatically correct, not sure) he appoints to the Senate seat is no less valid by not being elected. If we can accept one, I find it hard to understand not being able to accept another. The argument was not about one's election resume, if it were, we'd have to deal with that old thorn in W's side known as the Constitution... that, as of now, validates appointment to office and where/when applicable. Regarding the Senate, appointment was the ONLY way to get into office, originally:

"Originally, Senators were appointed by the state legislatures. This method was chosen to allow the Senate to better offset the House, which the Framers felt would be impetuous, it being elected by the people. Senators are now chosen by the people in direct election; this provision was changed by the 17th Amendment."

"If a Senator's seat becomes vacant for any reason, the governor of that state must provide for a new election to fill the seat."

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_govt.html#Senate

I didn't make this stuff up... honest! I'm not smart enough to do so, believe me. : ) (you can find the exact wording through the link).

I think spurious is unfair, because I wasn't aware of the requirements of your argument and it doesn't help to get personal, but that's my opinion - so, there we go. But assuming your stipulation, however, I still don't think it works considering the fact that it negates all but election as an illegitimate means to hold or qualify for public office when that's actually the case...

Or am I missing something?

[Number23]

41. Wow. See, it's stuff like this that makes me want to root for anyone BUT CKS

even though I have absolutely nothing against her and think that she's a (moderately) admirable person.

Patterson was the Lt. Gov of NY. He was ELECTED to be the Lt. Gov of NY. When the Gov (Spitzer) got drop-kicked out of office, it was proper protocol and procedure that Paterson take the job.

Why in hell would there have been "outcry" against something that was legally and constitutionally supposed to happen??

The ridiculous thing about all of this is that I have absolutely NOTHING against CKS, but it's comments like this from her "supporters" that drive those of us who aren't consumed by emotion and devotion to her screaming into the woods and clinging to anyone BUT CKS. And that's a total shame because it really doesn't have to be this way.

[cali]

34. I oppose her being appointed.

I'd like to see a place holder appointed and a real primary in 2010. If someone is appointed who plans to run in 2010, I'd like to see someone like Maurice Hinchey, Caroline Maloney or Andrew Cuomo. All three have actually done the grind of elective politics. Hinchey is very progressive and an experienced Congressman. Same goes for Cuomo and Maloney.

And your little demands are quite amusing. Now how about YOU explain why Caroline is so so qualified. And do tell how she'd be considered if her name was Jones.

[sohndrsmith]

37. Heck, why are you so mad...? The reason I worded my question the way

I did was because I've not really heard any discussion about anyone else regarding this Senate seat, other than Caroline Kennedy - either for or against.

I was curious to hear other names and the arguments for them. I didn't post my original message as a promotion for Kennedy (though, admittedly, I am impressed with her at this point, that doesn't mean I think she is the only person or even best person available. I just haven't heard a lot of alternatives and wanted to fill out the conversation).

I'm also not arguing that she'd be the focus of this issue if her name were Jones. It isn't. Name recognition is a realistic part of life - good, bad or indifferent. If her name were Nixon or Stalin, do you think she'd be free of judgment? No. That doesn't mean that her accomplishments (or lack thereof) are related to her name. Personally, I can acknowledge the fact that her name likely helps her... it also hinders her (clearly) and she receives both undue criticism and reward as a result. That's not my concern, actually, because I don't care what her name is, if I don't like what I learn after doing research, I'm not going to support her - no matter what her name is - or isn't! You are free to do otherwise, as we all are. Doing my homework and basing my opinions on such research when I've done enough to feel comfortable about it is my way of figuring out whether or not to support someone. That's not really relevant to my original question, though, but it seems you want justification on that point, so I submit my two cents on the subject.

I just found it odd that Kennedy's name was being discussed in something of a vacuum - and I, thankfully, received some interesting answers and suggestions... I wasn't looking to pick a fight, but it seems like you are hoping I would. I don't know...

So far, I am pleasantly surprised at what I've learned about Kennedy, but she ain't the only fish in the sea - even though she's the only one we're discussing. Rather than repeating one's dissent or support for her, I wanted to know if anyone had something else to say in support of others because that is a lot more interesting. Lo and behold, people have responded with names rather than "I do/don't want Kennedy" - which is very cool... We don't need another thread lauding or slamming Kennedy's resume, and I'm not going to provide one if I can help it...

Hope that clears up any confusion as to my original post... I don't always make my point as clearly as I'd like, but I'm learning.

[Phx_Dem]

43. I love how people say she didn't "earn" it.

She just waltzed right in blah blah blah. Well guess what, no one will have "earned" it. Whomever is appointed with have been APPOINTED, not elected.

If, for example, Rep. Weiner wanted the appointment we could ask why he hasn't been able to get himself elected to the Senate since he's been in the House for so long. Why did he have to wait for a appointment from the Governor? It's a stupid argument but no more stupid than the argument that Caroline hasn't earned it.