kos: NY-Sen: Avoiding that pesky "democracy" thing

[cali]

by kos
Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:55:04 PM PST
When you're rich and come from a political family, and are heir to American royalty, you can apparently dispense with dealing with pesky voters by simply ringing up the governor.

Ms. Kennedy will ask Gov. David A. Paterson of New York to consider her for the appointment, according to the person told of her decision. The governor was traveling to Utica today and could not immediately be reached for comment.
An appointment would give her two years before she'd have to deal with voters. Her presence would clear the Democratic primary field, while the general election would be relatively easy given the heavily Democratic tilt of her state.

Kennedy might very well be a favorite of Democratic primary voters in a contested race (and current polls suggest that), but that would require her to run, and elections can expose candidate weaknesses not readily apparent before the harsh glare of the spotlight is trained on them. In 2002, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend lost her bid for the governorship of heavily Democratic Maryland despite entering the race with a 27-point lead in the polls. In 2004, Sen. Jean Carnahan lost the special election to the seat she was appointed to in 2002 after her husband was tragically killed in an airplane accident.

But running for office is an icky process. It's hard work. Much harder, of course, than merely picking up the phone and calling the governor.

<snip>

Patterson should appoint a caretaker senator for the next two years, and let the voters make their decision in 2010. If Kennedy wants to enter the scrum at that time, all the power to her. But to deliver what might be a lifetime appointment to a Senate seat based on a phone call is offensive on too many different levels.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/15/154958/45/886/673387

I can readily imagine what's going to be said about kos in the responses: He's a Kennedy hater (ridiculous). He's not really a progressive/liberal (equally ridiculous). And more. I'm with him. He says exactly what I've been saying about why a Kennedy appointment isn't the best option.

Let the kos hate on commence!

[salguine]

1. "American royalty". Didn't we fight a war from 1776 to 1781 to be rid of this shit? Of course,

I realize that i'm now a "Caroline Hater".

[Moochy]

45. Yes, and it's apparently "anti-progressive"

at DU to question the appointment of a Princess.

[CTyankee]

69. Well, one of our founders had, himself, a son who ran for President and won.

It was John Adams, not exactly someone who liked monarchy. So you'd think he would have discouraged his son, John Quincy, from running for president. While I don't think JQ was up to his father's greatness, he was a great anti-slavery advocate, and the Republic did survive and thrive without any damage.

Your alarm is a bit over the top, don't you think?

[dkf]

2. Kos is off base. The Senate isn't a lifetime appointment.

Anyone can mess up and be thrown out and whoever gets appointed will have their day of reckoning aka elections.

[Orsino]

4. But only a little off-base.

The celebrity of a Kennedy will be hard to beat in a mere election, and senators have been known to die of old age in office.

Should New York replace one celebrity senator with another?

[dkf]

8. All I know is I'd give a few clams to Caroline Kennedy.

Anyone else, I could care less.

[Orsino]

19. Not following you.

Clams? And are you saying that Schlossberg is the only candidate you like for this seat?

[dkf]

24. She's the only one I'd donate to.

I usually don't donate to Senators since mine are old timers and pretty much shoe ins.

I do all my donations based on who inspires me, and I really like what I hear from Caroline. She moves me, just like Obama did, and just like Dean did. I don't find many politicians who do so when I find one, I go the extra mile.

Mostly, I like how she has led her life and how she appeals to our better angels. I can't find one thing about her I dislike.

[Orsino]

25. Yeah, I don't see anything to dislike in her, either...

...unless it's that she has done little to prepare for the Senate. Had she been serious about public office, could she not have run for the state House or Senate? Or any other position? What I really don't like is that no less prestigious office seems to have interested her before. This speaks more of a will to rule, rather than to serve.

But there are some good things she's done, and in her case, New York could do a lot worse (and has).

[dkf]

34. It sounds like she has a nice set of skills to work with.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/16/america/16qualifications.php

Mostly, she's had to overcome a desire for privacy, which she has been inspired to do by Obama.

I like that she hasn't always wanted to do this but has stepped up to the plate now.

Go Caroline!

[No Elephants]

55. Rule rather than serve? Are you familiar with all the phenomenal, unpaid work she has done?

[Orsino]

65. That's why I like her so much.

But her appointment to the Senate (if it happens), will use that as an excuse rather than as a reason to pick her over others.

Almost anyone can be a senator, but Kennedy's work history (paid and unpaid) doesn't look much like preparation for the Senate.

[quiller4]

30. She is the only one my upstate inlaws would support

and although I don't often send money to out of my state senate races, Caroline could count on a contribution of two from me.

[Bucky]

71. So you don't mean *actual* clams

Cause that would be a pretty weird donation.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. A 'caretaker senator'?

Any appointment will be interim and there will be a subsequent primary contest and an election where the appointee can be tested by the voters. New York State, like other states do, could have special elections to fill vacancies for the Senate, but they don't. Their governor appoints the replacement, and the replacement is not tested by the voters until he or she runs for election. There is no such thing as a 'caretaker senator', kos just made that shit up to hide his dislike for Caroline Kennedy under a false banner of democratic fairness. Any appointee will, regardless of commitments made or not made to the governor, decide on his or her own what to do in two years.

[No Elephants]

56. Whoever gets the seat will have to run twice within the next four years. Caretaker, my foot.

[LynneSin]

5. BOO HISS on Kos

I stand by that too

Sorry, I look at what Kennedys have done this past 40 years when it comes to civil rights, unions, womens issues, education and the fate of the working class people and Kennedy's rank TOPS on all of these.

[NashVegas]

6. "An Icky Process"

:rofl:

I think we've been through this before.

[saltpoint]

7. The process by which Governors appoint vacant-seat Senators IS democracy.

That mechanism has been in place for a long, long time.

Governor Paterson will be one of its most recent ___ or _____ (beneficiaries / victims).

He is himself Governor because Spitzer resigned, but voters cast votes in the majority for a ticket he was on, thus entrusting him to pull the levers of government in New York State if and when he ever might have to replace a U.S. Senator, as is the case now.

Kos is a peach, I like him, he's famous, he's media-savvy and all the rest, but he's full of shit on this one.

If people want to form an organization to alter State or Federal Constitutional mechanisms, that is also democracy, but it's not a weekend's work.

[Orsino]

36. Democracy once-removed.

When scum like Blagojevich, whom voters might want to throw out, can still appoint, the process looks less like democracy.

An appointment made by an elected official is second-best.

[saltpoint]

37. I get your point but the Constitution is clear.

If the people wish to amend the mechanisms by which they are governed, they may act in accordance with those wishes and seek amendments.

As things stand now, the republic is maintained by its mechanisms, whether we all like them or not.

I happened to think Richard Nixon was an unstable and undesirable soul long before the Watergate plumbers incident, but he defeated Humphrey narrowly and McGovern handily.

I didn't care for the outcome of either election, but that was the process by which the republic spoke.

So it is also with governors and appointments.

Paterson's appointing a replacement Senator is not the same as Blago raffling off a seat.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. Is the constitution clear on this issue?

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

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

That sentence in bold, if it even is a proper sentence, is anything but clear.

[saltpoint]

40. Given the range of states' individual provisions for said

appointments, yes, it is clear that each State shall have 2 Senators.

In New York, the governor appoints the replacement; a special election will be held in 2010; the seat is voted upon once more in 2012.

The appointee must adhere to U.S. Constitutional provisions of birthright and age provisions.

Yes, it is clear. You and I may not appoint the replacement unless you and I are governors. Skinner and Pete Seeger may not decide the special election should be exempted.

There is one interesting twist which is considered here:

http://yonkerstribune.typepad.com/yonkers_tribune/2008/12/-the-business-we-have-chosen-.html

excerpt:

- - - -

We also call attention to New York’s soon to be vacated United States Senate seat, now occupied by Secretary of State-designate Hillary Rodham Clinton, who succeeded the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 2001. The prospective candidates are acting with relative decorum, compared to Illinois. Nor would Governor Paterson hang a “For Sale” sign on the vacancy.

That is essential, because if Paterson were to be compelled to resign for any indiscretion, New York would have a real problem with the succession. The state has had no Lieutenant Governor since March 17, 2008, when Eliot Spitzer’s resignation (for sins unrelated to his official duties) took effect and Paterson replaced him.

Next in line for governor is the president pro tempore of the State Senate, currently Dean G. Skelos, a Republican from Long Island, who succeeded Joe Bruno in July. The Democrats will control the upper chamber in January, but their slim 32-30 majority, and the publicized defections by the so-called Gang of Three, make it possible that no president pro tempore will be elected when the Senate convenes in January, or that the Republicans will organize the Senate with help from some Democrats.

Under the New York State Constitution, the succession for governor would then proceed to the Speaker of the Assembly, Sheldon Silver. He has said he would decline the office were it offered to him, but he might could change his mind in the interest of the people of the State of New York. His accession would unite the power with the position. It could usher in a new era of state governance. There will no longer be three men in a room deciding public issues. One man will suffice.

- - - -

[No Elephants]

57. Blago has nothing to do with the NY appointment, though., Patterson is not Blago.

[S_E_Fudd]

9. As Benjamin Franklin said about John Adams...

"I am persuaded … that he means well for his Country, and is always an honest Man, often a Wise One, but sometimes and in some things, absolutely out of his senses"

When Kos goes off on ridiculous rants like this one, the same can be said of him

[LynneSin]

11. Wait - weren't the Adams also a dynasty

:rofl:

BTW, it is a great quote and I agree with you, just pointing out that it's about another dynasty family

[saltpoint]

13. Yes. Kos is vital and I respect him, but he does go on these

wild weekend binges of bitter judgment and hissy-fits from time to time.

His baseless dismissal of Dennis Kucinich a case in point.

[panader0]

10. Can't any New Yorker ask the guv to be considered?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. Of course, completely ignoring that this "democracy" thing put that law into place.

The people of New York and their representatives chose this method for replacing Senators. It's entirely disingenuous to suggest that democracy is being subverted because we're making a short-term replacement for an important position. I guess all federal appointments are contrary to democracy as well.

[galaxy21]

14. Yeah, but I think the governor is supposed to pick 'the best person possible'

Not who will give him the most money (Blago) or who comes from the best family.

[saltpoint]

16. There's no specific provision for limiting the Governor's choice, except

Constitutional provisions like minimum age, etc.

It doesn't matter if it's Barbara Streisand or a third-shift welder in Buffalo.

It's the Governor's call.

[galaxy21]

17. But you're admitting she's not the best person for the job?

Although, I find the idea he can appoint *anyone* funny.

Amy Winehouse for the senate!

[saltpoint]

18. The duty to appoint is both privilege and power,

even as it's a specific responsibility.

I like Paterson a lot and will honor his choice but strongly favor Kennedy for the appointment.

[Renew Deal]

54. Amy Winehouse is British

So she's no eligible,.

[saltpoint]

15. Strongly agree.

This should be an independent post.

[uberllama42]

20. Why shouldn't Kennedy be the caretaker senator?

She's reasonably well-qualified, so why shouldn't she seek that office? By Kos's logic, it would be improper for anyone to seek that post. Someone has to serve as the Senator from New York, and that person is going to have to call the governor of New York and throw their hat in the ring.

I agree that the idea of a political dynasty is odious, but it's not like Kennedy is grossly unqualified. Why shouldn't the governor appoint her if he thinks she's capable? And who's to say that anyone Paterson appoints isn't going to try to make that seat a lifetime gig?

[NashVegas]

21. Kos Still Hasn't Figured Out How Badly He and His Site Got Pwned

Or maybe he has and is pissed off about it.

[Moochy]

44. 'Pwned' used without any sense of irony

Yeah DU totally Fragged his site metrics, d00d! or something.... :puke:

[Barack_America]

22. Who will be the "caretaker"?

Who is this mythical gracious and kind-hearted person who will nobly step aside for democracy in two years? Who from the New York political machine would kos trust for such a role? Ironically, if that very same question were posed to me, my answer would be, "Caroline Kennedy".

IMO, his argument is bunk without identifying a person that could be trusted to babysit the Senate seat. It does come across as vindictive against Caroline Kennedy and the Kennedy name otherwise. Caroline has been active in the Democratic party and the political process, perhaps not active in the traditional partisan way, but active nonetheless (and I do hope that kos, of all people, would appreciate such experience; how else would he classify his own?). Would kos consider her a worthwhile candidate had her name always been Schlossberg?

[mmonk]

23. What's ridiculous is the fact the person who serves out the term

will be appointed and therefore pretending this isn't an attack is intellectually dishonest.

[AllentownJake]

31. They were so blinded by anger over the idea of this

that they didn't even bother to fact check their Carnahan spewing. The voters were told by the Govenor Jean would be appointed prior to the election so Jean was quasi-elected.

[AllentownJake]

26. Anyone appointed avoids the "democracy" thing for two years and the guy needs a fact checker

It was 2000 that Jean Carnahan took over for her husband because she voted against Ashcroft's confirmation to Attorney General after Ashcroft got beat by her dead husband. She was appointed because her husband ran the race and they thought originally she would be a caretaker senator and voters knew they were voting for her in 2000 not her dead husband.

[sohndrsmith]

27. I love kos, but what about the Constitution? The rules say this is cool....nt

[AllentownJake]

28. Guy totally got his facts wrong about Carnahan

"Kennedy might very well be a favorite of Democratic primary voters in a contested race (and current polls suggest that), but that would require her to run, and elections can expose candidate weaknesses not readily apparent before the harsh glare of the spotlight is trained on them. In 2002, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend lost her bid for the governorship of heavily Democratic Maryland despite entering the race with a 27-point lead in the polls. In 2004, Sen. Jean Carnahan lost the special election to the seat she was appointed to in 2002 after her husband was tragically killed in an airplane accident."

The only thing he got rigt on Carnahan was her huband having a plane crash. I expect better from KOs espicially since her winning is what gave us John Ashcroft.



Mr. Carnahan was running in 2000 for a Senate seat from Missouri against incumbent John Ashcroft. Only three weeks before election day, he was killed in a plane crash (along with his son, Randy Carnahan, who piloted the plane, and Chris Sifford, a campaign advisor). Due to the short time before the election, Missouri election law did not allow his name to be removed from the ballot. Acting Governor Roger B. Wilson announced that he would appoint Jean Carnahan if her husband were to win the election posthumously.

The unusual circumstances made it a strange race. Out of respect, John Ashcroft suspended his campaign during the mourning period for Mel Carnahan. Jean Carnahan did not actively campaign, but she did accept Gov. Wilson's offer and filmed one campaign commercial. It had been a close race, and Mel Carnahan wound up posthumously winning the election by a slim margin — only 48,000 votes out of 2.36 million cast (51-48%) — and Mrs. Carnahan was appointed to the Senate in 2001. Though she had been politically active for her entire adult life, she had never held public office. Under Missouri law, she would only serve until a special election could be held in 2002.

In 2002, Jean Carnahan ran as an incumbent for a full term, but was defeated in a close race by Republican James Talent; the margin was only 22,000 votes, 49.8%–48.6%.

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

[saltpoint]

32. Excellent point.

[Starry Messenger]

38. Thanks Jake.

Excellent post.

[sohndrsmith]

29. have we ever had a caretaker Governor? I sure as heck hope not.

I think Paterson is a far cry better than the nitwit who was destroying the integrity of the office before him... I remember that... some people said, "who?" some people said, "yay!", some people said "he's okay as an 'interim' until we have a * real * election and elect a * real * governor..."

No. He's the real governor, and I think he's done a darn good job in light of having to scramble to right the ship that was left half-capsized... he's a bonafide, real live governor, he's not a half governor, a pseudo governor, a mini-governor... and I find it hard to imagine that anyone - especially him - would consider his appointment to be a Kelly Services/Manpower Senator, mini-Senator or quasi-Senator... he is better than that and so is anyone he appoints. So far he's shown far better judgment than his predecessor, I see no reason to doubt him now.

[Beacool]

33. Will wonders never cease!!!!

I actually agree with something coming out of KOS!!!

People are romanticizing Caroline, the Camelot aura and her family name are making some people all mushy over seeing her as senator.

I particularly agree with this phrase:

Patterson should appoint a caretaker senator for the next two years, and let the voters make their decision in 2010. If Kennedy wants to enter the scrum at that time, all the power to her. But to deliver what might be a lifetime appointment to a Senate seat based on a phone call is offensive on too many different levels.

Exactly, we still live in what passes for a democracy, let the voters decide whether Caroline is a suitable senator for NY.

[AllentownJake]

35. What's to stop the caretaker

from running in 2010? Seriously?

The guys historical examples beside from being factually innacurate were also irrelevant...it was a poorly written and researched blog.

[Beacool]

43. I would prefer in that position someone with more experience.

Like Caroline Maloney, for example. I don't dislike Caroline, but if she wants a senate seat then she should run like everyone else. She has never had to prove herself politically and I don't see why she's more deserving of the position than some other New Yorker. Hillary at least worked her butt off to win the trust and respect of the voters. NY is a difficult state in which to run for office and she was able to win in upstate NY, a feat for any Democrat. So, I'm not against Caroline running for any office, I'm just against giving her a US senate seat based not on her accomplishments, but on her family name and for having endorsed the PE. It's not democratic.

[LynneSin]

41. Yes by forcing her to run 2 very expensive election campaigns in 4 years

How quickly we forget that little nugget.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. Kos is a Kennedy hater . He's not really a progressive/liberal

Need more? He also hates Kennedys and is not really a liberal/progressive.

[cali]

47. oh nonsense. you know better than that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. cali - I was joking

I simply copied the phrases you expected someone would post and posted them as per your prediction. I thought the way I followed up on you saying those things and "more" would get said would be a sure tip off - since all I came up with for more was reversing the order of the initial wards.

Sometimes my humor gets pretty subtle, I admit it. Sorry for taking you in, but it's just as well I got to clear that up now :)

[Hansel]

46. Sorry Kos, but I don't agree. Like you care, but...

Gov. Patterson was voted into his previous position and the voters understood that he could someday assume this type of responsibility. So the voters have already spoken.

The Kennedy's so-called "American Royalty" comes primarily from their public service to the middle and lower class, and to a democratic America as a whole. They don't get it from manipulating oil prices and holding hands with despots. That get it from doing exactly what it is she is trying to do here.

No family has done more for the average American than the Kennedy family. So I, for one, being a former New Yorker would welcome Caroline coming to Minnesota to replace the last senator to transport from New York--sleaze-ball Norm Coleman. Former fellow New Yorkers, please feel free to send her.

Caroline has spent the past year campaigning with Obama and has made it clear where she stands on the issues. I think she knows it is hard work. But it is harder for some than others. Caroline has gained a certain amount of respect and good will that most other politicians don't have. That will be an advantage. The GOP is going to have to tread very carefully in smearing Caroline, because they would be smearing a person that most people think of fondly and with respect. Caroline is connected, making it easier to fund raise, and Caroline has had unique experiences that no other politician has had in the tragic murders of her father and uncle while they served in public office. Despite that, she is willing to serve in the same capacity in order to carry on their work.

Caroline Kennedy is not Kathleen Kennedy Townsend or Jean Carnahan. The comparison is laughable and sounds desperate. As far as fighting the Republican smear machine, we have a president-elect who has proven that the old adage that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar might have some credence after all. She will use this model and she will win. She will have the backing of former New York senator Hillary Clinton (just as Obama did) and of Obama himself.

Caroline Kennedy has spent her entire adult life serving the public interest. She might not have done it publicly, but she has done it. Any person in the State of New York has the right to toss their hat into the ring. And any that do will do so "by simply ringing up the governor" because that's the way it is done. Gov. Patterson will make the decision of who he thinks is the best candidate. Kos's somewhat condescending implication that Caroline, as a New York citizen, doesn't have that right to go for it because she comes from a successful political family sounds a bit undemocratic to me. But that's just me.

[Alexander]

49. For Christ's sake, there will be an election in 2010.

It's not like she's being installed as Senator-for-life.

If she does a bad job, New Yorkers can vote her out.

Avoiding democracy my ass.

[Cha]

52. I know..it sounds like

repuke demagoguery.

[No Elephants]

58. AND 2012. The appointee will have to run twice in four years. Brutal.

[Alexander]

60. Yep. So this is actually more democratic than most Senate seats

seeing as how normally Senators have to wait 6 years to run again.

I think some bitter Clinton supporters are afraid Caroline Kennedy will be a great Senator and will coast to re-election.

[SwampG8r]

62. bingo

they are afraid she will be shown up by caroline so they are trying to prevent the possibility of comparison

[No Elephants]

66. I have no clue why Clinton supporters would oppose Caroline. The issues in Hillary's run

for that seat seem to me to be very similar to those involved in Caroline's run--two smart well educated women who were known mostly because of a family member. Both lawyers. If anything, Caroline has done more on her own (and more successfully) than Hillary had when Hillary ran for the seat. And, yes, Hillary ran, but it is not Caroline's fault that the special election is two years from now and not now. And Caroline is a true blue Dem too. Sigh.

[Alexander]

68. It seems like Hillary Clinton herself is now supporting Caroline Kennedy.

That's a good sign.

[mmonk]

50. My response at dkos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/16/11845/386/631/673642

[No Elephants]

59. Good, but Caroline was born in NY and has lived there for some time.

[mmonk]

67. I believe I labeled her as a New York City dweller.

The last time I checked, it was still in the state.

[AtomicKitten]

51. Good grief! The appointment IS the democratic process followed by elections in 2010 & 2012.

The appointment is, in fact, not life-long, and it is the prescribed constitutional remedy for this particular scenario. Oy.

Kos has a whole lotta drama going on over there. :eyes:

[No Elephants]

53. How do you know in advance that an appointee will be only a placeholder? And, even if you could

know, doesn't the State of NY deserve more than a placeholder for the next two years? If she does not do a good job, she will not get re-elected.

This article is unfair in that it implies that there is some way to get the seat now other than by calling the Governor and asking to be considered. Hello, that is what anyone interested in the seat has been doing, no matter what the surname.

[No Elephants]

61. In a democracy, your last name is irrelevant. It should not get you an office, but it should not

keep you from getting one either. Clinton did a good job for NY as Senator. Ted Kennedy has done an incredible job for Massachusetts as Senator. Bobby Kennedy did well for NY and was a fine AG. Gore was a fine Senator and VP and probably would have been a fine President. If someone is better qualified for the position, let's hear about her or him. But arguments based solely on her surname are ALL undemocratic, whether to support her bc of her last name or to oppose her bc of her last name. Sticking to her qualifications would be democratic. The KOS argument is not democratic.

[Blue_Tires]

63. for the record, KKT ran a textbook horrible race in 02

and all Erhlich needed to do was split the black vote, which was done easily...the only bright side that came from that was the Dems really started to re-evaluate how races are run and won (especially hotly contested ones against dirty slickster challengers) and between 02 and 04, they slowly phased out the old, outdated strategies...

[onenote]

64. kos' assumptions about whether CK would be elected are unsupported by history

There is no logic to kos' position. Really.

Someone is going to get that position without having to face the voters for it. The fact that someone may have faced voters for another position at another time is irrelevant.Not everyone who gets elected to a city council seat, or a seat in the state legislature, or even a seat in the House of Representatives is automatically a better choice for the US Senate than someone who has not previously faced the voters. If that was the case, then George Allen was a better choice for Virginia Senator than Jim Webb.

The real issue is who can provide the greatest benefits to the citizens of New York and to the Democratic party as appointed senator from NY. I think there is a very strong case that CK is that person. The Senate works on horsetrading and back scratching. And to be effective you need political capital. Most new senators don't have that much political capital. HRC was an exception and she immediately put that capital to work raising money for other candidates and garnering their support for her agenda. Same goes for Jim Webb, whose military credentials made him a sought after ally by many Democratic candidates who wanted to be associated with that aura. CK's endorsement of Obama is widely regarded as an important step in Obama's road to the candidacy and the white house and that fact will not be lost on other Senators who will want to associate themselves with CK and will be willing to work with her in ways that they would have little incentive to do if the appointed senator is some state senator that no one outside of upstate new york has ever heard of. Its a hard truth, but its a truth nonetheless.

And its not a lifetime appointment. Its for two years. History indicates that while elected incumbents have a high rate of success in seeking reelection, the results are not nearly as good for appointed senators. Since 1970 there have been 30 appointed senators and less than half ended up serving for a full term. 11 were defeated in the primary or general election and 7 chose not to run at all, sometimes because they could see the writing on the wall. Maybe Caroline will get elected to a full term. If so, it will be because the voters support her. How that is a problem is beyond me.

[Bucky]

70. So, (1) NY state should forfeit 2 years of seniority & (2) the law is undemocratic

The Kos poster makes it sound like there's a choice between appointing a Kennedy or having an election. The governor by law has the obligation to appoint someone. Why not appoint the person most likely to hit the senate floor with a higher than normal level of prestige and connectivity?

I expect that, if appointed, we'll see just how Ms Kennedy goes about the "icky" business of running for a full term.