Is being rich & connected a good reason to get a free Senate seat?

[JackRiddler]

Poll question: Is being rich & connected a good reason to get a free Senate seat?

The celebrity-worshipping media's ongoing seizure of a Senate seat on behalf of Caroline Kennedy is an insult to the voters of New York. The nearest parallel that comes to mind is the way the media performed the same service of "bestowing inevitability" on behalf of Schwarzennegger (incidentally also a member of the Kennedy dynasty, by marriage).

This isn't to denigrate Caroline K., or for that matter her family. In terms of her intellect and commitment, I have the impression she is amply qualified to serve in the Senate -- as are many thousands of other New Yorkers.

That's the point: New York is home to a dozen Nobel Prize winners (most of them likely Democrats) who would never even conceivably get consideration for a Senate seat by appointment. They would have to run for it. So should Caroline Kennedy, if she wants it.

The only reason Kennedy has been raised as a possibility is because she was born rich and has a famous name, and thus was in a position to raise a lot of money for the party. This is a perverse reinvention of "pay-to-play" for hereditary aristocrats. (There's some fitting irony in there somewhere, as Blago of the humble roots and vulgar manners is forced out the door for being too explicit about business as usual.)

If Caroline Kennedy wants the seat, let her run at the next election. Someone who has never even been bothered enough to run for any seat shouldn't get an appointment because television calls her a star. I'm not the biggest fan of a Maloney or a Cuomo, but at least they worked to make political careers and thus do not represent a fuck-you to the world of those not born rich.

[marylanddem]

1. She deserves it. For being Caroline. And I mean that.

She is such a part of the idealistic fabric of this nation at its best - and our national consciousness - that her very presence in the Senate would improve the place.

[JackRiddler]

24. Thanks for illustrating "celebrity worship."

Not to mention national self-delusion.

[Maru Kitteh]

51. I'm beginning to believe we're pre-disposed as a species

to throw our allegiance to the one among us who does the best job of fluffing up their own dazzling plumage at just the right moment .........

[cali]

61. no kidding.

so discouraging.

[SOS]

94. It could be argued that the current holder of this seat

was also a beneficiary of "celebrity worship".
As a NYer, I am delighted that Clinton is going and that Kennedy might be arriving soon.

[JackRiddler]

111. Indications are that Kennedy is more progressive than Clinton, however...

my objection is to the process by which the media call the appointment. For the zillionth time: Clinton won it by vote, and Kennedy can go for the same if she wishes. But not like this. And now she's even campaigning publicly, which is unprecedented and kind of outrageous for an appointment. It's a not very subtle way of pressuring the governor.

[emilyg]

35. Oh please.

There are many more worthy people.

[anigbrowl]

40. I might agree if senate seats were term-limited.

But to be frank, I don't really agree with them being governors' gift to begin with.

[Howzit]

2. How many politicians do you know that are not rich and powerful?

How many of them want to change the status quo of elites ruling the masses?

[Wapsie B]

4. Good point.

If they're not rich and powerful when they start out they at least are well-connected with those who are.

[cali]

62. Well, all of my reps in Congress are now powerful of course, but

none of them are rich and none came from wealthy or connected families. And I actually know lots of pols in my state who are want to change the status quo.

Of course many argue that Vermont is representative of..... well, nothing.

[harun]

68. Especially Senators (n/t)

[stray cat]

3. How many professional career politicians make good senators?

[cali]

63. Quite a few. Think Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown

to begin with.

[amdezurik]

5. Grow.Up.

[onenote]

6. who do you think should get handed the seat then?

SOmeone is going to be appointed. Do you have some objective measure by which there is a clear and obvious person to pick? Or will you concede that these sorts of decisions are always more subjective than objective and therefore there is no more reason to demand that Caroline Kennedy run for the seat in two years than there is to demand that of any of the other potential appointees who won't get appointed.

[JackRiddler]

20. Resisting the corporate media's call is an excellent rule of thumb...

When a PR campaign is this obvious and gets this much traction with the corporate media, that should earn a veto up-front.

Otherwise I'd argue there are two valid standards:

1) Pick a politician who's actually gotten votes in a real election and thus has some form of democratic imprimatur.

2) Pick someone of absolutely extraordinary intellect, moral courage, achievement, and political integrity.

Caroline Kennedy fails on number one, obviously. It's possible she makes the top 10,000 New Yorkers on number two, or even better. If the selection should be opened up to anyone, then I daresay there are whole departments at Columbia and SUNY and CUNY that should get the call before her.

I'll go with Joseph Stiglitz as my example.

Hey, it's Patterson's call. That's the state constitution.

Therefore I wish the corporate whore media would shut the fuck up with their preemptive politicking on behalf of someone they only like because she fits their definition of a star.

[onenote]

28. is that your standard exclusively for the US Senate ?

By your theory, Sarah Palin is more qualified to be appointed US Senator than Caroline Kennedy.

Should someone who has never been elected to an office be considered a qualified candidate for US Senate? What about for Governor or some other statewide position.

Consider Walter Mondale -- he was appointed to statewide office -- attorney general -- when he was just four years out of law school. It was because of who he knew, not his long record of legal accomplishment. (Mondale also got his senate seat through an appointment).

Or George Mitchell, who had run for statewide office and lost before he was appointed US Senator.Does running and losing make you more, or less, qualified than someone who has never run before?

As far as I'm concerned, the qualifications that I look for in a potential Democratic officeholder is (1) will they support the Democratic party agenda and (2) are they electable. If they meet those criteria, I consider what impact they are likely to have. Like HRC (who I supported in 2000 for the Senate, but not in 2008 for the presidency), she met the first two criteria, as did, potentially, other possible Democratic candidates. However, as fine a person as Nita Lowey might be, she would not have had the same impact as a first time senator as HRC because, simply put, she didn't have the name or the connections. As was the case with HRC, other senators will seek out Caroline Kennedy if she is in the Senate and look for her support on legislation and in campaigning. And when you are trying to build and maintain Democratic majorities, that is an important consideration.

[Captain Hilts]

33. Interesting!

[tom_paine]

75. Love to see someone feeling around like a mime inside a Bushie False Reality Bubble

Sorry to be so harsh, but quite frankly, if we are EVER to return to a condition of "government of, by and for the people" or even something remotely close to it (if such is still possible), then ceasing to be mesmerized like a bird in front of the snake of State Controlled Infoganda Cable TV nonsense.

THAT is what Jack is trying to tell you, and that is why your response reminds me of a mime doing the "trapped inside a box" routine.

We ALL have to stop thinking in "Cable TV Infoganda", which is what your post is speaking in.

Can you really think the month-long Palin State-Controlled Media Rehab, complete with all the sympathy a criminal could desire, indicates they hated her (I am speaking of the OWNERS here, not the compromised toadies we call journalists, with a few exceptions)? Or that single incidents netutralize the overall toadying trend? That's Incident-Based Thinking, a tyrant's wet dream for their subjects, not Scientific Thinking, analyzing long-term-trends and not making one incident stand in for all.

As to why I am not directly addressing your post's points. There is no point until you get out from the inside of the Bushie-Genertaed False rReality Bubble that infects us ALL whether we like it not.

It sounds good, but then, of course it does. It is the dominant national way of thinking, drilled into our binary-loving brains by the kind of repetion and seamless inevitability that 21st century (and late 20th century, for that matter) media saturation provides.

Which is a delivery systam for the atomic bombs of themind that have carpet-bombed and transformed our National Way of Thinking. (and have, as perhaps a desired side-effect, turned 35-40% of us Americans - the Loyal Bushie, now Palin Followers, into Nazi-like, weak-minded, perfect cultish drone authoritarian followers capable of acceopting any criminality or atrocity from their Masters)

Where people like US make the mistake is thinking, "it's only those idiots over there" who are effected because they are so extreme in their "affectation". But we are no more unaffected than a group of fish swimming in a poison pond, laughing at the ones with the green gills and going belly up.

"You think something like that might happen to us. I mean, this here pond-water we're breathing smells sort of funny.

"Nahhh. It's only those idiot Freeper Fish over there. Pay them no mind. We could NEVER be so stupid as them."

Sorry, if this is so harsh, but please try to think about what I am saying. Or national Conventional Wisdom, which your post speaks so very well, calmly and rationally, is insanity masquerading as reality.

The ONLY way any of us can be even slightly free of this Sloppy-Thinking national Mind that has descended over us like a shadow, is to constanly be self-aware of it, and defend against it?

Does this mean rejecting out of hand everything the M$M says? No, because that's Incident-Based Thinking, too.

I have tried to explain myself as best as possible. It is of no use to discuss your points because it's I don;t dsicuss inside the narrow framework of the Bushie False Reality Bubble, which, sadly, cricumscribes you post and points entirely.

Think about it. It is not what you are saying, per se, it is HOW you are saying it. Until you understand what I mean, discussion is pointless, I've found throughout the years.

Forget Caroline Kennedy. What I am saying is bigger than that.

Think about it, THEN reread what Jack is saying...

[Warpy]

7. Were her only qualification her political pedigree, I'd

be against the appointment. Were her achievements domestic or even in business, I'd be against it.

However, she is a politically active lawyer. She won't be manipulated by a staff of lawyers the way an unlearned person with a famous name generally is.

She's both eligible and qualified. Her famous last name shouldn't be held against her in this case.

[Saturday]

8. Don't try to make sense JackRiddler,

DU wants Caroline Kennedy so your opinion is not important to them.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackRiddler]

14. So now kowtowing to aristocrats is left wing?

And she is not being "considered." She is being forced in by way of a massive PR campaign.

[stillcool]

15. What's the massive PR campaign...

her statement that she is interested? I hope she isn't selected. I hope she moves to Mass and runs for her Uncle's seat.

[JackRiddler]

25. A fine idea.

Let her persuade the voters.

The funny thing is, if she doesn't get appointed but runs instead, I might vote for her. It's the spectacle of a corporate-media coronation that's so disgusting. The TV whores need to shut up and let the governor pick someone in peace.

[amdezurik]

18. what "massive campaign"?

pure hogwash and kerluffel. the only campaing I have seen has been massive quantities of trolls like yourself whining and moaning about her name even coming up.

[JackRiddler]

23. 6,107 Google News hits as of 7pm EST Dec. 15th 2008...

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=caroline+kennedy&btnG=Search+News

Today includes more than 1,000 news articles about her expressing a willingness. Golly.

That doesn't come from "people like me" "whining" about it.

It comes from a lockstep of the corporate media.

[amdezurik]

36. geezus duuuuuude

only 6,000 hits on google? LOL my freaking GRANDMOTHER gets 8-12,000 for gawds sake! I'll say it again maybe you will grasp it this time;

GROW.UP.

[JackRiddler]

38. For someone so mature, you could stand to be less ignorant.

Google Search and Google News are two radically different compilers, madam/sir. Someone completely ignorant of this should have been able to surmise as much just by reading my post. Why don't you show a child's curiousity, actually learn something today, and figure out the difference?

[natrat]

9. most of congress is corrupt-at least the kennedys appear not to be

more than enough reason
i trust very little,including most of the bs on this site-ted kennedy is one of the few who is beyond reproach
plenty of corrupt politicians, most of them actually, who have worked hard so that's not much of a litmus

[lostnotforgotten]

10. The Criticism Of Caroline Is That She Has No Track Record Of Raising Money

Also, will she be willing to do the hard work of serving Upstate NY versus the monied interests of NY City?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

12. She raised millions of dollars for the NYC Board of Ed. That's a good enough track record.

[lostnotforgotten]

22. Yes - But Will She Be able to Grovel For Political Survival Not Social Justice

eom

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

29. She'll be groveling money in order to represent me and the best interests of the people of my state.

She is also wealthy enough on her own, not to be bought. I like that very much.

[Karenina]

37. I concur.

The only motivation I can conceivably ascribe to her throwing her hat into the ring is to serve.

She is in a unique position to do so and Senator Schlossberg is the perfect moniker! May our core values survive. ;-)

[lostnotforgotten]

41. I Hail From Syracuse NY - I Worry That She Will Not Represent Upstate Citizens Well

eom

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

56. Why not?

[lostnotforgotten]

60. Simple - She Has No History In Upstate NY - Upstate Is Rural Not NY City Wealth

eom

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

73. Name me one NY Senator in recent history who had upstate NY experience?

You won't be able to.

As to wealthy NYC...you obviously never lived in NYC. I'm from Queens originally. Most of the population of NYC are middle class and lower.

[lostnotforgotten]

84. My Real Problem Here Is With DU Apologists Like Yourself

It seems when any initiative from the DLC intelligentsia is proffered that we see a host of apologists pandering for the initiative.

Remember 2 months ago when the Dem and Repug intelligentsia were pandering for the 700B TARP effort.

Those panderers were like cockroaches at DU.

My impression is that the Clintonistas are out in force to promote Caroline.

It just does not feel right as no discussion is allowed such as your vacuous questions suggest.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

85. Thank you for not answering my question and going into a diatribe. BTW.. I never supported Clinton.

And in fact, swore never to vote for her again after she voted for the IWR.

[lostnotforgotten]

93. I Did Answer You Question - I Don't See How An untested Politician Is A Good Thing

And, I am sick and tired of all the apologists that promote said untested politician just because the politician is part of a royal family.

For America to prosper we need new blood badly, not legacies that will never die - that includes the Clinton's.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

99. No, we were discussing funding. Personally, my pick for Senator would be Maurice

Hinchey. I am also realistic to know that he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.

[Retrograde]

91. Clinton showed up fairly regularly (at least in her first term)

She was one of the few I remember who had an inkling of where Western New York was, and what its problems were. Rust Belt, marginal employment opportunities, strong ties with Canada - yet another different aspect of the state.

Today's Times says Schlossberg's planning to visit upstate soon. Maybe she can learn something about the rest of the people she wants to represent (spending time in Queens or the less tony parts of Long Island wouldn't be a bad idea either).

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

108. The discussion was about experience in upstate prior to serving. A visit to upstate would be

enlightening to her. As to Caroline spending time in Queens and Long Island (I lived there for a few years as a kid)...I am sure that when she was fund raising for NYC schools, she managed to visit some areas in the boroughs. From what I saw of news items, she was rather hands on in her efforts. I also get the impression that she's very aware of the status quo. She is also on the board of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Educational Fund... inner city experience.

Although I would love to see Maurice Hinchey get the nod (and he never will), I think Caroline would be a very good fit. She has brains, experience in management, a heart. She will be able to raise a war chest 2010 to combat possible high profile repukes running for the seat... ie Giuliani, Bloomberg. And she is wealthy enough not to be bought by special interests.

[SoCalDem]

13. Apparently..n/t

[Wickerman]

16. Were that 1/4 of our present senators be as accomplished as Ms. Kennedy

Give me an intelligent, thoughtful humanitarian over a career pol any day. She's shown she can fundraise and she can draw a crowd. She has more practical experience and accomplishment than most elected officials. You can do a what if scenario with any pol and say they aren't qualified because they leapfrogged some imagined expectation. Likewise, history is filled with good pols who did just that due to some other unique quality. Caroline has those unique qualities.

[cali]

65. So you'd prefer Caroline Kennedy over that grimy career pol, Bernie Sanders?

You're the one that said it.

I'll take Bernie and Pat over Kennedy every day of the week. Thankfully, I've got them.

[Wickerman]

74. Now Cali, don't let selctive reading get in the way of what my post actually said

I gather you missed the qualifiers of 1/4 of, most, etc. and, of course, I did not mention Bernie Sanders by name, so in fact, I am NOT the one who said it. Very weak argument, bordering on sad, actually.

[BlooInBloo]

17. No, but nor is it a reason NOT to get a Senate seat...

But I fully understand I'm in the middle of a typical DU-hate-the-rich-fest, so I won't stand in y'all's way.

[Cha]

48. I hate the person not how much or little money

they have. I couldn't care less if Caroline has a lot of money but I do know I've been appreciating her since her early endorsement of Obama and the excellent judgment she's has shown.

[Iggo]

19. Yes it is.

[leftofthedial]

21. It seems to have worked for pretty much every member of the Senate

since the 70's anyway.

[cali]

66. bull. Bernie. Pat. Sherrod Brown.

and yes, there are others.

[leftofthedial]

88. You do understand the meaning of the phrase "pretty much," I assume?

2 or 3% would be covered by that phrase.



(Not to mention that even those you name are members of an elite class.)

[notesdev]

26. Hasn't political aristocracy done enough damage?

This isn't a popularity contest, this is a seat where we will put one of the people who will be making decisions about the future course of our country.

I suggest that the only proper person to name to the seat is the woman Hillary pushed aside when she moved to New York.

[onenote]

30. Nita Lowey is a fine COngresswoman. And she would be a one term senator

Lowey is 71 years old and will be 73 on election day 2010. She'd be 79 at the end of her first full term and almost certainly wouldn't serve past that point.

She's a fine member of Congress, but it would be extremely short sighted to put someone in that seat who has little to no chance of holding it for multiple terms.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

57. She doesn't want it.

[CTyankee]

86. Well, Caroline has always been popular, through no choice of her own.

Yet her time had not come since she was a Democratand no amount of personal popularity would change that. With Obama's ascendancy, her talents have been utilized and she has been welcomed to a place at the table.

This is an appointment to fill out the term of a resigning senator. She will have a chance to show her abilities for a couple of years. After that, she will have to run and go through all of the rigors of a campaign.

I see no reason not to give her the chance to prove herself with the people of NY and a lot of reasons to give her the chance. It's not like it's a lifetime appointment...

[dysfunctional press]

27. apparently so. isn't that why the senate was created in the first place?

:shrug:

[JackRiddler]

32. You're forgetting, the others had to actually buy the votes.

;)

[KoKo]

31. I can kind of get upset about the Caroline/Legacy/Entitlement Thingy...

But, the more I see the more I want folks from the Arts and Other walks of life to have a BIG VOICE in our Senate.

I would go for her if I still lived in New York. I believe she will fight for ARTS & Educatin Funding.

But, you need to know, she would only be ba "Junior Senator" without much power. I loved Sheldon Whitehouse until he got on the "Judiciary Commmittee" and was "taught" how to CAVE!

She is a "Fresh Voice" to shake things up....and given the Whores in the Senate...it could be a good thing that I would be willing to take a chance on...even though it would seem it's only her "Legacy" that has given her the ability to even be considered as a viable candidate.

:shrug: I'd go with her for 7 years...

[onethatcares]

34. my reasoning: the ruling class, the mofos think they're the ruling class

gaud dammmmmit, it is time to stop this shit or we'll be forever yakking about it. Vote out, Vote your heart, but two terms it's time to get out of the "public service" arena.

[tabbycat31]

39. Andrew Cuomo also wants the seat

and could be considered Caroline's biggest rival. He's the son of former NY governor Mario Cuomo. So it could be between two legacy candidates (and if Chelsea Clinton were 30, I wouldn't be surprised to see her name in the mix too).

[JackRiddler]

44. Cuomo has actually run for office and received a majority of the votes.

Big difference.

Again, I see two valid standards for an appointment:

1) prior democratic legitimation by vote (elected to some other office first)

2) great personal achievement (in which case Kennedy's good but there are literally thousands who are better)

Again, no money and name, no candidacy for Kennedy. That's what it comes down to. What is this democracy worth?

[mmonk]

42. I think a non celebrity native New Yorker should have the seat like

Hillary Clinton.

[TexasObserver]

43. Senator Caroline Kennedy!

sounds great

Just like Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Robert F. Kennedy sounded good.

[JackRiddler]

45. Take her in Texas then.

[TexasObserver]

46. She wants New York, not Texas, and it sounds as if New York wants her.

Not counting a few cranky people, that is.

[JackRiddler]

49. Yes, a lot of New Yorkers also worship royalty...

But plenty don't. Anyway, you have nothing of substance to say here, so bye!

[TexasObserver]

52. Another inane comment from one given to such.

I'm not aware of any royalty being involved. Perhaps you have sources everyone else doesn't.

[iamthebandfanman]

77. baaaah baaaaah

good thing we dont let majority rule in the insane asylum eh ?

[Cha]

47. When I think of Caroline Kennedy

I don't think of her as being rich and well connected.

It's all in the perception I guess. To me she is a tireless worker for what she believes in and had the good judgment to endorse Obama early in the NYT editorial..

"A President Like My Father"

<snip>



We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.

Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html

[ShortnFiery]

50. Well put. Thanks for describing the situation in a clear and concise way.

:hi: :thumbsup:

[Rowdyboy]

53. The governor makes the choice, not you or me....if he picks Caroline....

she'll do a kick-ass job. Actually, most any New York Democrat will do a kick-ass job.

Whoever the guv picks has the inside track for the senate in 2010 but she would also go a long way toward helping him win re-election as governor. What other Democrat would possibly run stronger?

Is she a celebrity? Of course! Has she "earned" the seat? Of course not. Would she make a good senator? Most likely. Will she get it? Who the hell knows.

But I sort of hope so. Just to finally see John Kennedy's legacy fulfilled.

[JackRiddler]

55. The governor makes the choice, yes -- not a fawning media campaign

Yet there it is; the mindlessly star-fucking corporate media have given her the "aura of inevitability," or at any rate several thousand tons worth of free PR and attendant pressure on the governor to conform.

[alarimer]

54. We hardly have an egalitarian system.

Congress is corrupted by money and both corporate parties are identical in that respect. I believe they should choose someone who has at least held public office before.

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. if it was ONLY a matter of principle, looks, charisma and style shouldn't be a part of the equation

either. But, unfortunately they are in the real world. My goodness, according to multiple studies, looks, charisma and style even effect which children parents give the most positive attention to.

So if the issue is purely a matter of principle - family legacy, fame, "star quality" and such certainly shouldn't have any more influence on the selection process than shallow, superficial qualities such as looks, charisma and style.

But unfortunately that is currently how politics operates in the real world. Perhaps some day when the human species is more socially evolved, this will change. But for the time being, all these shallow, superficial qualities do matter.

I think it is fair to say that Caroline sounds like, at least so far, that she will be one of he most progressive member of the United States Senate, likely slightly to the left of Sen. Clinton. And if the point is to advance the most progressive possible agenda that is actually plausible under current conditions as they actually do exist in the real world - as opposed to only espousing ideals that hopefully some day will exist in a better world in the future, we are stuck with doing whatever is currently possible to advance the most progressive possible agenda under current conditions - even accepting the cold reality of the role superficial issues play in effecting the outcome of the political process.

So, if the charismatic, good looking, stylish and famous star from a powerful and wealthy family in the form of Caroline is an effective instrument in advancing the most progressive agenda that current conditions will allow - then so be it.

"By ANY means necessary."

[sohndrsmith]

59. So politicians only have merit if elected? Seems like the governor of NY might not

meet such standards (double that they are - as I think I've just pointed out, perhaps)?

So - let's see... do we have no problem if one is appointed by default - without competition, due to the downfall of one's predecessor (Mr. Spitzer? - not sure if I spelled that correctly...).

Did you argue against Paterson because he assumed the position of governor of NY state? Should he have been elected? He didn't have name recognition, certainly. He was just the next in line.

That makes more sense than - what, exactly?

I'm not saying it does or doesn't. I'm just saying - let's be consistent here. If the complaint is that there is an appointment rather than an election, and an unfair advantage that someone is * using * for personal benefit, then let's argue that. But if it doesn't sit well that this Senate seat is being issued or decided upon by appointment, then it would make sense that anyone with such an argument would take issue with the the one given the power to make such a decision, considering the fact that he was not elected to serve as governor of NY, but became such by... what - default?

It's a debate worth pursuing unless/until someone comes up with a really good rationale that knocks it down forthwith. : )
I'm entirely confident that this may happen moments after I post this... and that's good. Means people are thinking.

[JackRiddler]

81. Please correct yourself: The governor of New York was elected...

for exactly the position he occupies. The Lt. Governor serves to replace the Governor if the latter should prove unable to serve. Just as the Vice-President is an elected position.

[JCMach1]

64. Don't like it, but it's the best way to keep the Senate seat out of Ghouliani's hands in 2 years

She is BY FAR the lesser evil in that. She is picked, Ghouliani doesn't even try to run.

[quaker bill]

67. How do most of them get there?

being rich and connected are the critical qualifications in most cases. Working one's way up the ladder can work, but does not necessarily produce a better candidate or more effective legislator. Take Tom Feeney for instance.

[cali]

70. Tom Feeney's in the U.S. Senate? Who knew?

Sure there are U.S. Senators who got there by being rich and connected, but many of them did not. And do we really want to encourage that trend, particularly through appointment?

I prefer the way my Senators (and rep) got to Washington: They worked for it. I'll take Bernie, Pat and Peter over the wealthiest and most connected Senators, any day.

[JVS]

69. What the hell else do you think Western Democracy is about?

[mmonk]

71. Where are these poor and righteous saints that should get the free seat

(free to whomever is appointed) that are so much better than the empty worthless rich vessel exploiting her name for fame and fortune and who definitely is not qualified due to her name and wealth and therefore is a bad person?

[JackRiddler]

82. Strawman

Never said, implied or meant C.K. is a bad person.

In fact, not that it's relevant to my point, but she seems to be a very good person.

[tom_paine]

72. Extremely saddeded to see 58% of DUers for this State-Controlled Media bullshit.

If we didn't like it in the service of the Bushie-Nazi Side, how can we turn around and gush all over it when it is ostensibly there for "our" side.

Sadly, I am more and mre coming to the idea that, with about 20 or 30 out of 545 (435 House, 100 Senate, 1 Emperor, and at least 5 of the 9 Supremes are Political Appointees masquerading as Wise Judges) actually representing the American people wersus the other 515.

I keep hoping Obama is going to join that small but distinguished choir.

58% of DUers. :puke:

It's true. We human beings, all of us including me an you, are foolish creatures who learn NOTHING, even when the lesson is 28 years worth of shit-swallowing.

STILL not enough. Not for 58% of DUers, and that means 99% of the Real World.

Sad. Pathetic. :puke:

[iamthebandfanman]

76. this thread proves only one thing

that a lot of us were right about all the sheeple that are now on DU.

no no, its not whats best for the people... its whatever our party leaders like, dontcha know.

[Darth_Kitten]

80. It proves that a lot of people need to get the stars out of their eyes.......

n/t

[LanternWaste]

78. that's all the reason I need...

She's been an American citizen for more than nine years, is a resident of the state, and is thirty years or older-- to me, that's all the reason I need (well, that and she's a Democrat...). Everything else is conjecture, personal opinion, and bias.

:)

[iamthebandfanman]

79. having a name and being wealthy brought us the Bush family

so you tell me?

[shadowknows69]

83. I can't answer the poll because I think she'll probably make a fine Senator

But I'd like to again register a complaint about the celebrity aspect of a NY senate seat and the assumption that we can't seem to find a NYer that has been in service to his/her state for their entire careers. Hillary pulled it off pretty much the same way but at least she had to win an election.

I'm in a pretty republican section of upstate NY so it's no surprise that I couldn't find five people at the time that wanted Clinton to be our Senator and I'm sure that's the prevailing sentiment up here about Kennedy. Upstate loves Hillary now because she helped pump a shitload of military money up this way and she always goes through the BS dance at base closing time with McHugh, making themselves look like heroes for "saving" Fort Drum, which is in absolutely no danger of closing in any time of war as it's probably the most deployed light infantry division in the Army and they just built a massive airport there which can accomodate any sized aircraft.

Anyhoo my two cents in a nutshell is I'll be happy with Caroline but unless she's going to use us as a stepping stone to bigger things like Hillary planned to all along then I feel she'll probably be our Senator for a long time, thus once again dashing my hopes of getting the job. Well that and I have several storage units of skeletons that could be used against me in the court of public opinion. B-)

[suston96]

87. Caroline Kennedy is a "celebrity"? Really?

Oh, yeah. daughter of a US President who was a famous celebrity for - uh, having his head blown off.....?

Niece of a US Senator from New York who was a famous celebrity, uh for having his head blown away....?

Oh, wait - one more: niece of another Kennedy uncle - big brother of the two mentioned above - who is famous for being shot down and killed in WW II over the English channel.....

And lastly, sister of another celebrity - her younger brother - who died tragically in a plane accident over Cape Cod waters.

Nah! That kind of celebrity we don't need or want to hear about. That kind of celebrity doesn't qualify anyone for anything.

If only she was educated or had some other talents that really count.

[PVnRT]

89. She's qualified because a number of her family have died?

[suston96]

90. Swoosh! Right over your head. She is a celebrity, indeed. Unfortunately....

....mostly for the reasons I listed.

As to her "qualifications" to be a US Senator? Read the US Constitution. It will list the minimums for the job and her resume will indicate the rest.

For starters, try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Kennedy

[Romulox]

92. I meet those qualifications, AND my dad is dead. Do you think I have a shot at the appointment?

No? I wonder why not? What could be the difference between me and Caroline Kennedy? :shrug:

[suston96]

95. The difference between you and Caroline Kennedy? I don't know you well enough to say....

...but what comes to mind, temporarily, mind you, is the widest and deepest chasm at the Grand Canyon.

What qualified Barack Obama to be nominated over Hillary Clinton? Certainly wasn't senate experience or any other experience for that matter.

It was his time. It's Caroline Kennedy's time to complete the public service her famous uncles and her famous father could not.

[Romulox]

96. It's sad that you don't have the courage to state the obvious: I'm not a Kennedy. nt

[suston96]

100. State the obvious? I am not a Kennedy? What does that mean? nt

[JackRiddler]

103. Swoosh! Right over your head!

[PVnRT]

104. Obama was chosen by voters, not a governor. Swoosh!

"It was his time. It's Caroline Kennedy's time to complete the public service her famous uncles and her famous father could not.

So, again, it comes down to the fact that she's a Kennedy and "deserves" it because of her last name and her dead relatives. Gotcha. Should we start tracking down the Clay, Adams, Stevenson and Roosevelt descendants, too? Maybe they'd like to be in the Senate as well, and they "should" be there as well, right?

[suston96]

106. As long as she is constitutionally eligible AND the Governor appoints her......

....she can run in 2 years and have the voters in NY State "appoint" her.

Meanwhile, what do the NY state voters say? You know, the people in NY? Any polls?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/12/ny-senate_is_caroline_the_peop.html?hpid=sec-politics

NY-Senate: Is Caroline the People's Choice?

Even as the buzz continues to grow over the possibility of Caroline Kennedy being named by New York Gov. David Paterson to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton, two new polls show the public somewhat divided on who they would like to see in the Senate.

A new Marist College survey shows Kennedy and state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo as the frontrunners -- each garnering 25 percent support from the 503 registered voters surveyed on Monday. No other candidate scored in double digits.

Among self-identified Democrats, Kennedy was the choice of 31 percent while Cuomo was the preferred option for 21 percent; the numbers were reversed among Republicans with 34 percent choosing Cuomo and 21 percent naming Kennedy.

A Public Policy Polling survey, which conducts automated interviews, put Kennedy as the clear frontrunner for the job with 44 percent while Cuomo trailed with 23 percent.

Take both of these polls with a grain of salt. At this point, they are nothing more than tests of name identification. Both Kennedy and Cuomo carry VERY famous last names in terms of New York (and national) politics, so it shouldn't be surprising that the duo are at the front of the pack for an appointment. Members of Congress like Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand or Steve Israel -- who are far less well known statewide -- if better known might be significantly more appealing to New York voters.

And, always remember that, ultimately, the appointment of the next senator from New York is in the hands of just one man: Paterson.

One more thing...Hillary tells people to knock it off about Caroline....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7986108&mesg_id=7986108

[PVnRT]

109. Wow, quoting fail

"Take both of these polls with a grain of salt. At this point, they are nothing more than tests of name identification. Both Kennedy and Cuomo carry VERY famous last names in terms of New York (and national) politics, so it shouldn't be surprising that the duo are at the front of the pack for an appointment."

Taken right out of the text box you put up.

In other words, the people of New York are going on name recognition. And, frankly, from that poll, it looks like Cuomo has more crossover appeal, so if the point is to win an election in two years, he should be appointed, right?

Of course, using your logic, Hillary should have been the Democratic nominee, because all of the early polls had her in the lead. And she wasn't telling everyone to STFU - she was referring to a subset of her former supporters (if they did support her) who are going above and beyond rude. Nice try, though, telling me to stop having an opinion because someone Important said so.

[suston96]

110. Put all the salt you want on it...Those are the polls and there will be more.

And golleee...voters going by name recognition? In this country? Are they stupid, or what?

Check the lists in those polls. Cuomo and Kennedy lead by many points and Caroline leads all of them.

[verges]

97. Is being rich & connected a good reason to get a free Senate seat?

No. Nor should it be a disqualifier. She has the right to seek the job. So do most of the citizens on NY. Have any of these Nobel Laureates called the Governor and thrown their hat into the ring for consideration? If you want a job, you have to ask. Governor Paterson will decide based on who asks (as well as other criteria).

[JackRiddler]

98. Were any of these Nobel Laureates...

declared the inevitable choice by thousands of items in the corporate media before they "threw their hat into the ring"? Because surely you've noticed that the PR campaign for Kennedy preceded her "candidacy." Where did it come from? (I don't pretend to know.) Shouldn't we care who or what is influencing public perceptions and discourse in this way?

The point here is that once again, reality ("electability," "viability," etc.) is being defined for all of us by corporate media producers. It's absurd and probably unprecedented that Patterson's choice has been turned into a national media issue with the attendant pressures this involves.

And since when is it normal that the would-be appointee announces it publicly? She's not running in an election! Such arrogance can only come from those who think of themselves as aristocracy.

[verges]

107. To a degree, I agree with you.

However, she has a right to pursue the job. And the feeling I'm getting here at DU (not from you specifically) is that she has no right to even pursue it because she is a Kennedy (dynasties and all that.)

She is qualified. So are others. She has the same rights as anyone else, and if she chooses to pursue a Senate seat, then she can do so.

[louis c]

101. If experience in elected office was a requirement to serve

We would never have had a Senator Robert Kennedy, Hillary Clinton or a President Obama.

Caroline Kennedy will make a great Senator.

[JackRiddler]

102. You are misrepresenting my point... totally.

Experience in elected office should obviously not be a requirement to run for an office. In fact, it obviously could not be, or no one could ever run for an office. And of course I said nothing of the sort, not even remotely. You are pulling this strawman out of your own hat.

We are not talking about an election.

We are talking about an extraordinary appointment to what is otherwise an elected office.

Normally, such appointments go to people who actually received votes from at least some voters in the past. That's not a requirement, but it is how things are usually done.

If, however, the criteria for appointment are to be expanded to include people who "will make a great Senator," then there are at least 10,000 of those in New York state.

So why Kennedy?

I don't think you are stupid. You know that Kennedy wouldn't conceivably be in discussion if not for her name, her family money and her status as a fundraiser for Democrats. You can see that Kennedy is being promoted by a massive corporate media campaign that has given her the bogus "inevitability" and "electability" blessings.

With the above, I hope at least after 100 posts we can establish the easiest, most self-evident and basic parameters of this case.

And my question has been, roughly:

Why do you want the corporate media and their idea of what makes a good dynastic soap opera defining reality for you? In this case, I shall express my preference for the smoke-lit backrooms of political fixers who, at the very least, include actual elected representatives of the people.

Thank you.

[louis c]

105. I'm not disagreeing with you

Who should get that seat is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, Caroline Kennedy would bring a commitment of public service to the office. She has toiled, behind the scenes, for years. She has put her celebrity to good use in raising money for New York City schools. She has ducked the lime light until recently, when she came to the support of Barack Obama. So far, she's shown she has the ability to support the correct side of issues. In 2010, when the election comes up, her name recognition, connection to the current President and her ability to raise untainted money are pluses for her, the same way Hillary had those traits. I supported Hillary in the Dem Primary in my home state. I knocked on doors in New Hampshire for Barack in the General. The battle is over and a new fight is on the horizon. It is time to pull together as Americans and Democrats and, in my opinion, a clean cut, Mature, highly educated, smart, devoted daughter of a great President is just what we need in the Senate supporting our causes. You may think otherwise and I respect your opinion. I will support who ever the Governor appoints. I always keep in mind who our political enemies are, are they are rarely fellow Democrats.

[hfojvt]

112. I loved Rachel's line

"If we are gonna stick with a name as our criteria for Senator, then we may as well end the charade and just call the Senate the "House of Lords"." (paraphrased)

[JackRiddler]

113. Great idea, if it had about the same power as the House of Lords!

[JackRiddler]

114. Today's observation:

The very fact that Kennedy publicly announced her "candidacy" as though this were an election would, in all history until now, be understood as an attempt to strong-arm the governor and constitute an immediate disqualification.

Of course, the media and Kennedy cheerleaders in the party are trying to make it look like a popular groundswell.

It's unfortunate that this will end with widespread cynicism about the process and, likely, a resounding Republican victory in the 2010 Senatorial election.

[aikoaiko]

115. Being rich and connected can be useful Senatorial characteristics.

If these qualities help her constituents and the party, then so be it.

[JackRiddler]

116. Good. Let's dispense with the democratic and constitutional illusions then.

As in the post above: Call it the House of Lords and be done with all this rabble.

[aikoaiko]

117. I don't get your point -- this seat is an appointment

If Caroline Kenendy Schlossberg runs for election when its time then the people can vote for her or not.