Log In | Register
JFXGILLIS
Correctly Political: Essays and Commentary
Articles Posted: 86; Links Seeded: 619
Member Since: 3/2007Last Seen: 2/09/2010
Member Since: 3/2007Last Seen: 2/09/2010
123 Comments
PrintCorrectly Political: I'm for Caroline! and Other Stentorial Ruminations
News Type: Event — Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:36 AM EST
President Kennedy and his daughter Caroline, 25 August 1963
Photograph by Cecil Stoughton, White House (large hi-res)
Kennedy family members depart the Capitol building, 24 November 1963
Qualification more than enough.
Alexander Hamilton's original plan called for lifetime appointments to the Senate determined by state-level electoral colleges.
Now that's the way to construct an Upper House of the legislature that works the way it's supposed to.
advertisement
The prospect of Caroline Kennedy's appointment to the Senate to replace Secretary of State Designate Hillary Clinton has created some weak (VERY weak) support and some lame (VERY lame) opposition. There are, in fact, good reasons to support the appointment and good reasons to oppose it, it's just that almost none of the punditry and other public comment has expressed it.
That is because almost none of the responses understand what the Senate was designed to accomplish.
Some of the opposition on the liberal/left, led by Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake and picked up by a few others, is at least ideologically consistent with the left-populist or Progressive (note the uppercase "P") view. I think it's wrong, but at any rate it's consistent. But the general mockery of many conservatives, is both wrong and inconsistent with an authentically conservative--I daresay Originalist--understanding of the American System.
In Politico, Republican stenographer, er, "reporter," Charles Mahtesian complains that:
The U.S. Senate could end up looking like an American version of the House of Lords . . . .
Well. DOH. That's the point of an Upper House in a legislature. While it is true that the Founders of our Republic and the Framers of our Constitution did not want to exactly replicate the British House of Lords, they certainly saw it as the model for the United States Senate with a few local adaptations. And I think it's fair to say that Alexander Hamilton pretty much DID want to replicate the Lords:
Give all power to the many, they will oppress the few. Give all power to the few, they will oppress the many. Both therefore ought to have power, that each may defend itself agst. the other. To the want of this check we owe our paper money, installment laws &c. To the proper adjustment of it the British owe the excellence of their Constitution. Their house of Lords is a most noble institution. Having nothing to hope for by a change, and a sufficient interest by means of their property, in being faithful to the national interest, they form a permanent barrier agst. every pernicious innovation, whether attempted on the part of the Crown or of the Commons.
James Madison was equally strong in his opinions of an Upper House and the style of person who should serve in such a body:
A people deliberating in a temperate moment, and with the experience of other nations before them, on the plan of Govt. most likely to secure their happiness, would first be aware, that those chargd. with the public happiness, might betray their trust. An obvious precaution agst. this danger wd. be to divide the trust between different bodies of men, who might watch & check each other. In this they wd. be governed by the same prudence which has prevailed in organizing the subordinate departments of Govt., where all business liable to abuses is made to pass thro' separate hands, the one being a check on the other. It wd. next occur to such a people, that they themselves were liable to temporary errors, thro' want of information as to their true interest, and that men chosen for a short term, & employed but a small portion of that in public affairs, might err from the same cause. This reflection wd. naturally suggest that the Govt. be so constituted, as that one of its branches might have an oppy. of acquiring a competent knowledge of the public interests Another reflection equally becoming a people on such an occasion, wd. be that they themselves, as well as a numerous body of Representatives, were liable to err also, from fickleness and passion. A necessary fence agst. this danger would be to select a portion of enlightened citizens, whose limited number, and firmness might seasonably interpose agst. impetuous councils..
The argument, then, that Caroline should run for election, or that having run for previous elective office is a qualification, is fundamentally nongermane. Officials trained and experienced in the House of Representatives learn both the necessity of immediate response to issues as they arise and then tend to to respond to the raw majoritarianism that rules that House of Congress (appropriately, I should add). But neither of those approaches is supposed to apply to the Senate. Having been a Member of the Lower House is actually closer to a disqualification than a qualification. The Senate is not supposed to be simply a glorified House of Representatives; that's especially true for this particular Senate seat, where neither of the two immediate predecessors, Pat Moynihan and Hillary Clinton, had ever held elective office before taking that New York Senate seat.
It's as if the quiet life Caroline has lived for the most part since her childhood is a bad thing. Nah uh. It's a good thing. Those are precisely the kinds of lives the Founders and Framers expected and desired prospective Senators to have lived. Does Caroline appear to possess a steady and settled personality? Of course. Does Caroline have a wide view of public issues? Of course. Examine the wide variety of issues involved in the winners of the JFK Library’s "Profiles in Courage" Awards, which she has administered since their inception (trivia: What Obama cabinet pick is on that list?). Is Caroline comfortable in the corridors of power? Of course. She's spent her entire life in and out of those corridors--and up and down those steps, as the photo above of her father's funeral demonstrates. Stop right here for a moment while I demolish this "dynasty" silliness.
There are, in fact, areas of public office where family-dynastic politics should be avoided. Municipal politics, for example, where family-dominated machines may grow increasingly corrupt or inefficient as bureaucratic custom becomes entrenched and decrepit. Quincy, Massachusetts, for example. Or take trade union politics. The recently deceased Ron Carey did a thousand times more for the Teamsters than the guy from a famous family who replaced him ever did. But the United States Senate is NOT one of those areas.
Family dynasties are an asset to the Senate. Senators are supposed to take the long view. They are supposed to think from fifty years in the past to fifty years in the future, and there's no better way to know that a Senator is taking the requisite long view than to know that that view in as imbued with family history as it is with public history. The Udall cousins, for instance, now hold two Senate seats, Colorado and New Mexico. But if there is an issue that almost by definition requires a long view, oh, say ..... the Environment .... is it not a very fine thing to know that two United States Senators were born of families that have been public officials of leading concern on the environment for two generations?
Ultimately, all this folderol over the possession of a particular United States Senate seat from New York is laughably ironic considering the history of New York's seats going back over two hundred years. First you got Rufus King. Good buddy of Alexander Hamilton and representative to both the Continental Congress and Federal Constitutional Convention from the Great Commonwealth of Massachusetts. But, unfortunately for King and his ally, after ratifying the Constitution, the state legislature in Massachusetts (The General Court, we quaintly call it) decided they'd had enough of King and refused to elect him to the United States Senate. So Hamilton had him take a stagecoach down Interstate 95 and had him elected from New York. Which reminds me of James Buckley, who, because of disunity among liberals and Democrats, split the defense and won the seat in the election in 1972 even though everyone knew he lived in Connecticut.
But my favorite is Roscoe Conkling. By a combination of circumstances both political and tragic, his protégé in the corrupt Albany Machine (Republican, the corrupt Democratic machine was Tammany Hall) Chester A. Arthur became, er, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!! Then, in what might be termed a "Blagovichian" maneuver, he appealed to his former creature for all kinds of patronage and other such goodies then in the gift of the President. However, in a maneuver that might be termed "Obamian," Arthur merely offered his appreciation for the mentoring and refused Conkling's demand to replace the Port Collector of New York with Conkling's preferred designee. But then, in a maneuver that we might term "Liebermanian" since the Senate at the times was evenly divided, Conkling decided to resign from the Senate, thereby throwing control to the Democrats, then return to Albany and have the legislature there re-elect him on his own sweet time while Arthur stewed over blocked legislation.
Ooops. The New York state legislature was evidently more scared of the President of the United States than a resigned United States Senator because they rejected Conkling and soon elected a loyal Republican to replace Conkling, ending his career as a corrupt politician--of course, that opened the door to his career as a corrupt corporate counsel for the Railroads, but that's another story.
Sheesh. To hear the whining, you'd think some "tradition" of ordinary succession to that seat had been violated. Huh? While the Class 3 New York seat (King and Conkling's) held by Charles Schumer has a relatively pedestrian recent history, the last time the Class 1 seat had an ordinary turnover was exactly fifty years ago when Kenneth Keating won it in 1958. After that, Robert F. Kennedy, from Massachusetts, first elected office; Charles Goodell, appointed to replace the assassinated RFK; James Buckley, from Connecticut, first elected office; D. Patrick Moynihan, first elected office; Hillary Clinton, from Illinois, Arkansas and Washington, D,C., first elected office. And folks are tut-tutting because Caroline Kennedy is under consideration for that seat?!?! Are you kidding me? Caroline would be continuing the tradition for that seat, not violating it.
Caroline Kennedy is classy, she has wide acquaintance with issues of public moment, she has as long a view of American politics as is possible for a 52-year-old to have, and she has the United States Senate in her bones. If anything, she's OVER-qualified for the Senate in the terms the Founders and Framers expected, not under-qualified as Joe Klein superficially argues.
Finally, although I'm something of lib/lefty/progressive type on most current political issues, I'm also something of an Originalist and "conservative" on issues of Constitutional structure. One of the worst blots on the Constitution is the XVIIth Amendment, a supposedly "progressive" measure that removed the election of Senators from state legislatures and made it a matter of popular will. It's been all downhill ever since.
But the current spate of Senate vacancies due to movement into the Cabinet of the incoming Administration offers up an opportunity to do an end-around on the XVIIth Amendment, especially with the Illinois vacancy which could conceivably not be filled until 2010 at the current rate. The Governors of each of the states with vacancies should request that their state legislatures recommend a single candidate to fill the vacancy, and agree that if the legislatures do so in a timely manner, to appoint that candidate. That's certainly a way out of the Illinois gridlock, and there's no reason why it wouldn't work in Colorado, Delaware and New York. Since the Democrats control at least one house in each those legislatures and all four governor's mansions, Democrats in the Senate shouldn't have to worry about their Senate majority being weakened.
At the very least, the Illinois Governor and state legislature should consider this idea since at the moment it appears to be the only way that seat will get filled at all. The Governor and legislative leaders agree to the deal publicly. Candidates announce, everyone takes a few days in Springfield for meetings and lobbying, maybe hearings. Then they pass a "Sense of the House" Resolution--legislative boilerplate with the whereases and therefores and "Be it hereby resolved that it is the sense of this house that [insert name here] be appopinted to fill the vacancy in the United States Senate for Illinois." Then the Governor makes the appointment and the new Senator takes office without the taint of Blagoyavich's criminal investigation.
If it works, maybe we could start a movement to get that monstrosity of an Amendment repealed. Join me, everyone, in this movement that has absolutely no chance of ever succeeding!
48 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- jfxgillis's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: Committees of Correspondence , DemGuys, Democrats, Down With Tin Horn Dictators, Election News, Gut Check America, Heated Debate, Historical Vine, Journalism on Newsvine, Journalism Review , Kennedy Vine, Left of Center, Naked Debate , New York City , NYTimes Forums Refugees, ObamaExpress, Open Source Intelligence, Political Analysis, Repeal The 17th Amendment, The Great American ReEducation, The Jacobin Club , To MSNBC, Tricuspidata, US News and Views
- Regions: none
 | The Banana Republic of New York | Pajamas Media | Sat Dec 20 | 0 |
- Public Discussion (123)
- Committees of Correspondence
- DemGuys
- Democrats
- Down With Tin Horn Dictators
- Election News
- Gut Check America
- Heated Debate
- Historical Vine
- Journalism on Newsvine
- Journalism Review
- Kennedy Vine
- Left of Center
- Naked Debate
- New York City
- NYTimes Forums Refugees
- ObamaExpress
- Open Source Intelligence
- Political Analysis
- Repeal The 17th Amendment
- The Great American ReEducation
- The Jacobin Club
- To MSNBC
- Tricuspidata
- US News and Views
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
297
38
10
{"commentId":4511503,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
Click on the link to the large version of the top photo.
{"commentId":4511503,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
- 8 votes
#1 - Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:39 AM EST{"commentId":4513479,"authorDomain":"mysteryone1950"}
By repealing the Seventeenth Amendment you are not only repealing " When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such 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." You are also repealing "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years;"
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am17
Prior to this Amendment being ratified in 1913 the Senators were selected by each States Legislature.
In Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution it states regarding the Representatives: "When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies."
The 17th Amendment just mirrored what was in place for the House of Representatives when it decided to let the people directly elect Senators.
{"commentId":4513479,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"mysteryone1950"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":4513933,"authorDomain":"mysteryone1950"}
"17th Amendment
One of the most common critiques of the Framers is that the government that they created was, in many ways, undemocratic. There is little doubt of this, and it is so by design. The Electoral College, by which we choose our President, is one example. The appointment of judges is another. And the selection of Senators not by the people but by the state legislatures, is yet another. The Senatorial selection system eventually became fraught with problems, with consecutive state legislatures sending different Senators to Congress, forcing the Senate to work out who was the qualified candidate, or with the selection system being corrupted by bribery and corruption. In several states, the selection of Senators was left up to the people in referenda, where the legislature approved the people's choice and sent him or her to the Senate. Articles written by early 20th-century muckrakers also provided grist for the popular-election mill."
Do you want to go back to that?
{"commentId":4513933,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"mysteryone1950"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":4518366,"authorDomain":"neoconstant"}
Excellent piece, Jack. I for one am more offended by the first gushing pro-Caroline pieces than by the prospect of appointing her. I think the Senate ought to be made up of "Lords" as it were, and yes she does qualify as such. (I am, however, sick of Kennedy's in general. I think them overrated and a great deal more mediocre than their mythos would lead one to believe...but that's beside the point).
No, it was those initial commentators with their "fairy-tale princess" urgings, and the fact that Michael Moore had urged Kennedy during the campaign to put herself forward as O's VP choice that bothered me most.
Beyond that, I really don't see how it would matter if it were her or someone else. I'm with you on the "originalist" vein and tradition in politics is a good thing. The "long view" as you put it is something we cannot undervalue.
Beyond that, though, yes PLEASE let's do repeal the 17th. I'd like to get as far away from democracy in this Republic as possible--at least in those ways that we've dredged up since the Founding that actually do a great deal of harm by arming that vicious, emotional majority against whichever minority (usually rational people and steady leadership) may be the target of their animosity or fervor.
Bloody democracy is a dangerous thing. Burke said that nothing was more dangerous than pure democracy and I think he was right. The genius of our Founders was to balance democracy against steady institutions. Very interesting quotes from the Federalists up there, by the way. Thanks for those.
Cheers!
{"commentId":4518366,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"neoconstant"}
- 7 votes
{"commentId":4519037,"authorDomain":"incredulous"}
Good article, jfx, but "stentorial" is not a word (or is it?), and it's Daniel Patrick Moynihan your aiming for, not this other guy.
Your copy editor.
TIO
{"commentId":4519037,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"incredulous"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":4521239,"authorDomain":"neoconstant"}
there's about 30 people in the USA who I think should have the right to vote
That many? ;-)
I think you may be right. Certainly the level of "honest discourse" in the media today is virtually nil.
I would add to my above statement that another problem with the Kennedy pick is not so much her representing dynasties or aristocracy (at least with me) but the celebrity aspect of all of this. The American people seem woefully attached to that allure of the famous. I think it has adverse effects on our collective intellect (and spiritual well-being).
{"commentId":4521239,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"neoconstant"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":4521388,"authorDomain":"agio"}
"stentorial" is not a word (or is it?)
It certainly is; it means "loud" or "far-reaching." Or more precisely: like Stentor, a minor character in the Iliad, "whose voice was as powerful as fifty voices of other men."
{"commentId":4521388,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"agio"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":4521406,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
{"commentId":4521500,"authorDomain":"savannahborn"}
Thank you for the facinating and illuminating conversation. I had no idea we had this thought in common. I too am a republican small "r" (big R too, but nevermind, I've had second thoughts on that from time to time). I love to see your postings. They always challenge my thinking. I like that.
{"commentId":4521500,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"savannahborn"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":4521774,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
there's about 30 people in the USA who I think should have the right to voteThat many? ;-)
Yeah, I figured the point of all this was that Jack was ready to just anoint me supreme leader so I could get rid of taxes, let anyone marry anyone else who was stupid enough to say yes, and ban the Red Sox from every winning the World Series again, plus strip all Super Bowl victories from the Patriots since they are all still cheaters ;-)
but the celebrity aspect of all of this. The American people seem woefully attached to that allure of the famous. I think it has adverse effects on our collective intellect (and spiritual well-being).
Baring my becoming supreme leader, I say we go the opposite route. Let's only vote for celebrities, imagine the fun we'd have with Keanu Reeves as President, Paris Hilton as Speaker of the House and Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California, oh wait… I still look forward for the future New Jersey governorship of Bruce Springsteen.
{"commentId":4521774,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":4521968,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
Jack is entirely correct in his analysis of this situation. I was watching Peter King (not the idiot SI NFL writer but the Long Island GOP Congressman) harrumphing this morning on Scarborough about Ms. Kennedy's lack of qualifications for the office and laughed myself silly. I mean if a "porker" like Al D'Amato's qualified then certainly Ms. Kennedy is. That said, I find Ms. Kennedy generally vacuous but if that attribute were considered disqualifying, the Senate would largely be an empty chamber.
{"commentId":4521968,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
- 10 votes
{"commentId":4522411,"authorDomain":"agio"}
for some reason you almost never see that adjective applied to anything except the speaking style of a United States Senator.
That's true. Perhaps because they are one of the few professions who make their entire living based on speaking.
{"commentId":4522411,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"agio"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4522450,"authorDomain":"savannahborn"}
ok... How is it you always manage to couch good ideas in such annoying terminology?
{"commentId":4522450,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"savannahborn"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":4522896,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}
Great, I don't have to read/watch/listen from ysota anymore about the Bush dynasty, the Kennedys' started a long time ago and also the Clintons. Chelsea and Jeb will be next.
{"commentId":4522896,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"a0ted"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":4523588,"authorDomain":"savannahborn"}
It's what makes you interesting to read...
It's a gift, I guess.
{"commentId":4523588,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"savannahborn"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":4528570,"authorDomain":"incredulous"}
agio #1.9, you may be thinking of the word "stentorian", but "stentorial" is not a word, (or is it?) and it's been written now too often for me to think it might have been a typo.
stentorial: well, maybe if we use it enough, someone will put it in a dictionary, and it will become a word, but we've already got a word for a man "whose voice was as powerful as fifty voices of other men."
The word is stentorian.
{"commentId":4528570,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"incredulous"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":4530438,"authorDomain":"rickace"}
Jack -
What I want is the Constitutional order restored by re-engaging the state legislatures in national/federal politics.
Would that have prevented Hillary Clinton from being elected to the Senate in my home state? If so I'd be inclined to support your position.
{"commentId":4530438,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"rickace"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":4544521,"authorDomain":"incredulous"}
jfx, ya still got one other occurrence of Patrick J. Moynihan to contend with when you get to it.
(and "stentorial" is close but still ain't a real word, but hey...and "ruminations" is cool, but I always think of cows whenever I see it... my problem, and it's a bad one, having to imagine cows going MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO )
{"commentId":4544521,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"incredulous"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":4544958,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
{"commentId":4936836,"authorDomain":"CL1"}
my dictionary says stentorian is an adjective, but if you want to pretend it's a noun and make-up stentorial - ok by me!
{"commentId":4936836,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"CL1"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4938733,"authorDomain":"CL1"}
Well, this article certainly has been an enlightenment for me on many levels. I enjoyed scrutinizing Alexander Hamilton's excerpts, but can't agree with an effective "check" system happening in modern day, do you? Before reading this, I was in full agreement with term limits, but now am speculating the effeciency of life-long appoitments and family dynasties - still not sure, but do understand the argument. Yes, I want Senators elected be State Legislators, and I loathe the media. Sounds like repealing the 17th is a good idea. Wow, what an education reading all of you New Yorkers. You have a level of patriotism that I haven't experienced and is unremitting. My poli-sci knowledge is seriously lacking, so tried diligently to absorb what I could. Sure glad I found this and thanks for writing this, jfxgillis.
{"commentId":4938733,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"CL1"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4939074,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
{"commentId":4511764,"authorDomain":"genxsux"}
{"commentId":4512145,"authorDomain":"dviking12"}
Can anyone tell me what Caroline Kennedy stands for on the issues? Politico was able to get some answers, but they were too vague for my taste.
{"commentId":4512145,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"dviking12"}
- 3 votes
#3 - Sun Dec 21, 2008 10:27 AM EST{"commentId":4512198,"authorDomain":"nytimes-forum-refugees"}
She is intelligent and more qualified than Harry Reid.
And young.
{"commentId":4512198,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"nytimes-forum-refugees"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":4512256,"authorDomain":"dviking12"}
How so?
{"commentId":4512256,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"dviking12"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4512335,"authorDomain":"nytimes-forum-refugees"}
Gillis, I can overlook both your comments. I support her because I supported her father.
{"commentId":4512335,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"nytimes-forum-refugees"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":4512490,"authorDomain":"dviking12"}
Must've missed it while reading the funnies. Anyway, I'd just like something that will help me understand how good a senator she will be. Stances on college affordability (her support of public schools is a plus) and the environment are somethings that I would like to know.
{"commentId":4512490,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"dviking12"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4512882,"authorDomain":"dviking12"}
Ok. I'll take your word for it. I have now shifted my position from On-the-Fence Spectator to Weak-Supporter Spectator.
{"commentId":4512882,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"dviking12"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":4515988,"authorDomain":"caroaber"}
Yes, the photos are beautiful.
She is America's sweetheart, we appreciate her uncle's legacy (heck, we just re-named the Triborough Bridge the RFK Bridge, at a cost to taxpayers of over $4 million dollars), we still mourn John-John and we love her.
That doesn't mean she oughta be a shoo-in.
NY state is unique in its politics of ethnicity. How's a Hyannisport Yankee gonna sway the masses?
Caroline's championing of education would best be demonstrated by taking on the teachers' unions, and they are among the biggest lobbyists in Albany--and stalwart democrats. She cannot alienate her base. She came out this week in support of gay marriage, yet is from a prominent Catholic family and knows the Church is dead set against these unions.
NY taxpayers funded a new public school in Kiryas Joel which served only the children of that Orthodox Jewish community. Despite the separation of church and state, Governor Mario Cuomo and other politicians were all too eager to push this measure through. That was later rejected by the courts as a violation of the separations, yet less than a generation later this community got a new pork project--a women's hospital and health clinic. It, too, was taxpayer funded, yet only serves this religious group's members. That hospital opened this year, and is viewed by many as a "thank you" present from Hillary Clinton for the block votes she got from this community.
Now, politics is rough and tumble, and it's not as though we've never seen quid pro quo before. But Ms. Kennedy is not an established or elected politician, and others have been waiting in line.
Like Rep. Jose Serrano. Like Buffalo's mayor. Like an upstate politician (Kirsten Gillibrand comes to mind). Why should Ms. Kennedy jump to the front of the line?
{"commentId":4515988,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"caroaber"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":4516419,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
{"commentId":4519110,"authorDomain":"incredulous"}
What's missing from the intellectual discussion about her qualifications, her name, whether the Senate is a house of "lords" and not "people", and what her generally liberal leanings suggest about specific positions she might hold is whether she can actually do a job that requires leadership chops and toughness. Can she cut it as a senator? Does she have what it takes? I have no idea.
{"commentId":4519110,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"incredulous"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":4521684,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
{"commentId":4521867,"authorDomain":"caltha-palustris"}
Incredulous,
Kennedy's have never been afraid of honest, hard work and public service - at least from my perceptions. I think she can. She's been groomed since childhood for public service and stateswomanship.
But that's not my argument on why I don't like Jack's argument about the stuffiness of gentry entitlements of the Senate-past model of House of Lords (ahem and gentle Ladys).
I'd like to see her work to earnestly gain the public's support if Governor Paterson does in fact appoint her. My advice to her:
"Now, Caroline, if you really want this job badly enough, than show your New York public your real motivations for asking for the privilege to serve them as a potential elected public servant - your cousins Joseph Patrick and Patrick Joseph have been lackluster and melodramatic, in private, and public life - at least by some accounts - in the House of Representatives. "And, you best get crackin', dear" to woo your constituents with your genuine charm and intelligence."
{"commentId":4521867,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"caltha-palustris"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":4523015,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}
PE O inspired Caroline and her daughters, Caroline is the niece of the US Senator that backed him and anyway, our low IQ Congress will be honored to have a lady that is sophisticated and gives the impression to be simple.
{"commentId":4523015,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"a0ted"}
- 7 votes
{"commentId":4530628,"authorDomain":"rickace"}
(heck, we just re-named the Triborough Bridge the RFK Bridge, at a cost to taxpayers of over $4 million dollars)
Someone should tell Google Maps.
As a native of the NYC area, I never liked the idea of renaming places and roadways that were already well-known by their previous names just because some famous person died. I was eight years old when President Kennedy was killed in Dallas. My parents and I cried when we watched the nation pay its last respects to him on our black and white television set. We didn't need Idlewild Airport renamed to remind us of the president we lost.
Then there's the Major Deegan Expressway. Does anyone even know who Major Deegan was or what he did to merit an artery in his name?
And what were they thinking when they renamed the West Side Highway after Joe Dimaggio of all people? He was just a @!$%#ing baseball player who got laid by Marilyn Monroe and pitched Mr. Coffee machines on TV. So what? Jeepers.
I make an exception though for renaming the Interboro Parkway after Jackie Robinson. Far more than famous, his debut with the Brooklyn Dodgers shattered the color barrier in major league baseball, paving the way to black Americans and white Americans playing together on the same field. It serves New Yorkers well to be reminded of his contribution to our great nation.
RFK was no Jackie Robinson. To me at least, the Triborough Bridge will always be the Triborough Bridge.
{"commentId":4530628,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"rickace"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":4643350,"authorDomain":"caroaber"}
It's funny you say that. I don't mind the Interborough being re-dedicated for Jackie Robinson, either.
But I do think JFK International Airport sounds better than Idlewild.
The Federal Courthouse on Pearl St. in NYC has already been named after D.P. Moynihan. I reckon Abe Beame may be next in line for something...
{"commentId":4643350,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"caroaber"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4644608,"authorDomain":"rickace"}
But I do think JFK International Airport sounds better than Idlewild.
When I was a boy my father worked for the National Weather Service as a forecaster. His office was on the grounds of Idlewild International Airport. Sometimes he'd bring me to work with him on the third shift when the supervisors weren't around.
So I associate Idlewild with fond memories.
{"commentId":4644608,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"rickace"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4513522,"authorDomain":"mysteryone1950"}
Give her a shot for two years. If she doesn't work out, let the voters vote her out.
{"commentId":4513522,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"mysteryone1950"}
- 4 votes
#4 - Sun Dec 21, 2008 1:43 PM EST{"commentId":4515254,"authorDomain":"jazzman646"}
gillis,
All I'll say is that Caroline is just as "qualified" maybe more than Hillary was, since Hillary wasn't qualified at all.
So no big deal to me. Hopefully when there's an election for that seat, Giuliani will decide to run and win it.
{"commentId":4515254,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"jazzman646"}
- 8 votes
#6 - Sun Dec 21, 2008 5:17 PM EST{"commentId":4515286,"authorDomain":"sdquinn"}
The difference being that Hillary won an election for her seat. Campaign + WH experience = experience.
I'm a center-left Democrat who's uncomfortable giving a precious Senate seat to someone who's lacking in political experience when there's better candidates (namely Carolyn Maloney) around. My $0.02.
{"commentId":4515286,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"sdquinn"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":4515611,"authorDomain":"Boothby"}
I'll give her a spot ahead of Fran Drescher, but otherwise she's toward the very bottom of the list of likely suspects. Maloney, Gillibrand, Brown or Cuomo all actually have records to justify the appointment.
{"commentId":4515611,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"Boothby"}
- 8 votes
{"commentId":4515657,"authorDomain":"sdquinn"}
I'll agree there.
{"commentId":4515657,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"sdquinn"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":4515784,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
{"commentId":4515859,"authorDomain":"Boothby"}
But they've actually been elected to something, a birth certificate isn't a pedigree, nor is it license to office.
In fact the constitution specifically forbids titles of nobility:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
If they wanted the Senate run like a house of lords they'd have left that bit out.
{"commentId":4515859,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"Boothby"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":4516270,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
{"commentId":4516355,"authorDomain":"Boothby"}
Excellent, then lets have term limits, I'm all for them!
I'm still seeing nothing but a last name in her favor.
{"commentId":4516355,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"Boothby"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":4516471,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
{"commentId":4516549,"authorDomain":"Boothby"}
I could care less if she's a liberal democrat, a conservative republican or extraterrestrial libertarian, political party affiliation only matters to partisan creatures or apologists. I don't even have a real problem with career politicians, as long as there is progression in their career. Start in a city council, get elected mayor, maybe a gig in the state legislature, move on to congress. I just don't want to see professional seat polishers ride out their lives in congress like Thurmond or Byrd. That's why I'd like to see term limits, partly so we don't have to wait for juries to end political careers like Stevens or Jefferson.
My mind is made up, always has been, I like term limits and direct election of Senators. I also like to see legislative appointments for something besides how good the appointee's father looked in a picture or how cute they were as kids.
{"commentId":4516549,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"Boothby"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":4516784,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
{"commentId":4516861,"authorDomain":"Boothby"}
Is that cool or what?
More like "or what?" Like I said, I really don't care how good she or her relatives look in a picture. If that was a criteria we'd be discussing another of your favorite photo subjects and this thread would be Alyssa Milano for Senate ;)
{"commentId":4516861,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"Boothby"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":4516950,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
{"commentId":4517105,"authorDomain":"Boothby"}
Hehehehe active is good, not asking for a gimmie seat is better, and better a friend of Boxer than Pelosi or Feinstein.
{"commentId":4517105,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"Boothby"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":4522090,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
I could easily see myself getting "behind" a Milano candidacy. ;>)
{"commentId":4522090,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":4523085,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}
I rather to see Caroline Kennedy than any others of the clan.
Robert Kennedy Jr, the enviromentalist that uses a huge SUV, the US Senator et al that don't want windmills in front of their property because spoils the view.
The son of the US Senator Kennedy that was or whatever an addict and was going to "vote" at 2:00 a.m.
{"commentId":4523085,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"a0ted"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":4535512,"authorDomain":"rickace"}
The difference being that Hillary won an election for her seat. Campaign + WH experience = experience.
And then she had the chutzpah to go AWOL and campaign to further her political career while still drawing a handsome government salary.
I'm a center-left Democrat who's uncomfortable giving a precious Senate seat to someone who's lacking in political experience when there's better candidates (namely Carolyn Maloney) around.
I'm a native New Yorker who's uncomfortable giving a Senate seat to someone who puts her own interests before mine. Hopefully the electorate has learned its lesson about carpetbaggers, and votes in a New Yorker to represent New York.
Carolyn Maloney > Caroline
Fran Drescher > Caroline
Jerry Seinfeld > Caroline
Howard Stern > Caroline
{"commentId":4535512,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"rickace"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":4536017,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}
rick.
I believe that Caroline will be better than Hillary, why? Because she is interested in raising funds for schools in the past and I think that she will put the finger in education. Hillary was a transplant and with her own ambitions. Caroline doesn't need the money.
Anyway, rick, money is what's going to buy the seat of a U.S. Senator :(
{"commentId":4536017,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"a0ted"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":4544147,"authorDomain":"rickace"}
det -
Caroline is pro-choice so the liberals will likely fawn all over her like they did for Hillary.
I'm moving out of New York next year so it really doesn't matter all that much.
{"commentId":4544147,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"rickace"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":4545862,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}
I did not know that Caroline was pro-choice. I am surprised because her Mom lost a couple of babies. I never liked to live in the North.
{"commentId":4545862,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"a0ted"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4516148,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
Wow Jack, I think I agree with you on this. I'm all for repealing the 17th. We are a nation of 50 states, but as of now, our states have zero say in the federal government. I think that one of the main reasons that the federal government has grown so large in both size and power is because they states currently hold zero leverage over the federal government. The federal government gets to do whatever it wants, and if someone has a problem with it, then they need to take to another branch of the federal government, the federal court system. By placing the appointment of Senators back in the hands of the States, we can hope to restore some semblance of federalism again.
{"commentId":4516148,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
- 5 votes
#7 - Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:27 PM EST{"commentId":4516231,"authorDomain":"Boothby"}
I'd rather see the states assert their rights under the 10th Amendment.
{"commentId":4516231,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"Boothby"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":4518386,"authorDomain":"neoconstant"}
To me it's not really about the size, per say, of the Federal Government--but how best to limit it whatever the size. What does it do well? Is it accountable?
I certainly don't believe in privatizing the public sector off into little pieces and then thinking somehow we've left big government behind.
{"commentId":4518386,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"neoconstant"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":4519159,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
I'd rather see the states assert their rights under the 10th Amendment.
How? The Supreme Court, a branch of the federal government, has take monopoly control over the interpretation of the Constitution, including the 10th Amendment.
{"commentId":4519159,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":4521793,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
Very funny.
{"commentId":4521793,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":4516490,"authorDomain":"caltha-palustris"}
Jack,
Two words that only matter these days " in contests between our modern day political factions" - "DEEP @!$%#ING POCKETS!" Same as it ever was.
Also, your argument isn't really all that clever. And, I daresay mine is much shorter, sweeter and to the point. Of course Hamilton wanted a Monarchy, he mistrusted the masses.
The Dems need to be careful for what they wish for: Caroline had best carry that seat come the election cycles.
That's my summation and the source of my angst regarding the potential for her appointment by Governor Paterson.
BTW: I REFUSE to vote for Lautenberg because he was the best the Dems could offer to replace Torricelli (ironic that somebody on Wall Street "madeoff" with his better judgement, too! Even the American elitist gentry can be had).
{"commentId":4516490,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"caltha-palustris"}
- 5 votes
#8 - Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:14 PM EST{"commentId":4516656,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
{"commentId":4516885,"authorDomain":"Boothby"}
I predict that if she ends up in that seat she'll have no problem whatsoever defending it, and it's not just the deep pockets. The Kennedys--I speak of them as an "institution" as much as as a "family"
The same formula that brought us W, the scion of a long political line, she's just trying to bypass the whole elected on her own thing.
{"commentId":4516885,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"Boothby"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":4517465,"authorDomain":"caltha-palustris"}
No. You may not. Monarchists are a dying breed - just ask Queen E2 (I especially like Jon Stewart's take on Canada's Provinces in Peril) and King Albert- who only gets to rule in Belgium when Parliaments walks off the job. Looks a bit messy, don't you think?
I imagine each has begged the question: "Can't y'all just get along?!?"
Now you know just as well as the next schlub, repealing a Constitutional Amendment is just as likely as getting a new one passed. "It ain't gonna happen, my friend."
To Mrs. Bouvier- Kennedy-Schlossberg's credit: she understands all too well the partnerships in public administration - public, private and non-profit; would most definitely be a protector of the Constitution and privacy rights of Americans; and selects other well-educated, high-on-the-societal-pecking-order-scribes.
Oh and did I mention "deep freaking pockets!".
But, the modern-day populists would have a field day with the notion of an institution/family argument. We're just too jaded for that nonsense, now; that and "snap decision makers and short attention spans". We also love a good drama, soap opera, gossip infested, scandal ridden political contest.
"There's an army of them out there, groping blindly, toiling in the darkness, waiting... For what? For a soap opera! For the incandescent, brilliant, palpitating talents to light up their miserable, impoverished, dull, and worthless lives. "
She'll need to, as John Houseman espoused, gain her political capital the old fashioned way, and take a cue from QEI's successful progresses to woo her subjects. Just sayin...
I've already mentioned this elsewhere - if I were an Upstate New Yorker - I might be a tad outraged by this Democratic political maneuver.
BTW: Two points. First: Maloney has earned a shot, and WOWEE - just look at her creds...and accomplishments as legislator. Loved her televised performances before the banking and automotive executive panels. Priceless!!
Second: If I recall correctly from reading Hamilton biographies (Chernow; Ellis; and Randall) the gentry of Hamilton's day blacklisted him, and by all accounts apparently this was something of a thorn in his side - and played against his own aspirations to be King. Besides rumor has it he supposedly freed "we the slaves" from all that jazz with his visions of industrialism, silk mills and redistribution of the Wealth of Nations.
P.S. The national review links are dead links.
{"commentId":4517465,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"caltha-palustris"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":4517494,"authorDomain":"caltha-palustris"}
typo correction: Parliaments walk off the job.
{"commentId":4517494,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"caltha-palustris"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":4518535,"authorDomain":"caltha-palustris"}
Jack,
Well, I'll have to defer to your political analysis on Upstate voters (I suppose I'm drawing that conclusion based upon the constant tussle between Albany and NYC - where is Philipe's erudite opinion on all things political both Upstate and down?)- and you're right about NYC - I think I counted three votes for Caroline (and one of these included RFK,Jr??). However, I was astounded that Spitzer received any votes...check out this random question thrown out to the listening public.
{"commentId":4518535,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"caltha-palustris"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":4517016,"authorDomain":"greenpagan"}
Schlosberg has my vote.
====
{"commentId":4517016,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"greenpagan"}
- 5 votes
#9 - Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:24 PM EST{"commentId":4521884,"authorDomain":"rachaelmm"}
Just a bit of nit-picking; she never took her husband's name. She's just Kennedy, not Schlossberg.
{"commentId":4521884,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"rachaelmm"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":4527595,"authorDomain":"caroaber"}
She used his name for years and only recently reverted back to Kennedy once her children grew into maturity.
{"commentId":4527595,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"caroaber"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4528558,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}
Uncle Ted convinced Caroline after Mrs. Kennedy- Onasis died that she needed to take the torch after her father, I think. Her name was never linked to any big scandal and loved enough to carry the USA.
We don't know about her personal and sentimental life, the kids are grown and the lovable John John died in another tragic manner. I thought that after her endorsement of Obama that she could be our V.P. elect, an Ambassadorship, important enough to move overseas.
This was a political and profitable deal for both. One brings the name and the other took the endorsement in exchange for the loan of prestige and validation of an unknown candidate/nominee and winner of the Presidency.
{"commentId":4528558,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"a0ted"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":4517761,"authorDomain":"gedanken"}
We have fifty years of data points with Ms. Kennedy. We can extrapolate with high degree of confidence the issues she will support and advance. She will be my new senator.
Caroline Kennedy has become America's daughter. America will protect her and help her.
{"commentId":4517761,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"gedanken"}
- 5 votes
#10 - Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:15 PM EST{"commentId":4518114,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
{"commentId":4518401,"authorDomain":"gedanken"}
How come everyone else is as best sceptical if not downright hostile?
She does not look confortable being in the middle of the mass media frenzy. The hyenas always attack when they perceive weakness and innocency.
By 2010 she will be more confortable and the hyenas will run along.
{"commentId":4518401,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"gedanken"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":4523156,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}
I support Caroline because anyway it will be the same vote than Hillary (if confirmed).
I am salivating of watching the "confirmation" questions from Box and Kerry like:
""""Senator Clinton, are you going to change the furniture in the State Department and which colors for the drapes do you prefer?"""
{"commentId":4523156,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"a0ted"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":4518296,"authorDomain":"jack-jack-69"}
I just hope she drives better than uncle Ted.
{"commentId":4518296,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"jack-jack-69"}
- 4 votes
#11 - Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:36 AM EST{"commentId":4523165,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}
For sure Caroline will not drive through the same bridge.
{"commentId":4523165,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"a0ted"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":4518731,"authorDomain":"Roybean"}
I think your "originist" thinking is in keeping with an accusation often made, I think accurately, that The Left is actually disdainful of the electorate, and would avoid any election if it could. That would be seen in the tendecy to use the courts to make law, where elected legislatures don't work satisfactorily.
By claiming originst, and repealing amendments, you at least do not deny that in regard to the Senate.
But the amendment came about because of...what? Corruptive influences? Still there, as we can see in Illinois, but every stage that brings the selection to larger elected bodies, makes corruption involve more people, which is at least a limiting factor in the corrupton potential. In New York, the same powers that will probablly appoint Kennedy directly, would be the ones who would appoint her legislatively. In other words, the NY legislature could do without its members, for all practical purposes. So, no, there were reasons the process was changed. Not the least, that we elect them, and then cannot blame anyone else.
Do you really think that it was INTENDED, or assumed, by founders, that the States would send a Senator from some other state?
On the other hand, the idea what a State is, has changed a lot, as far as the concept of States Rights being related to many existing State's interests..or paticular interests. Probably one of the few remaining is that we provide our own Congressperson. With just that much, and not much more...self respect left, that out of forty million inhabitants, we can come up with one. Otherwise, the State is a way to tax, but otherwise does not serve many unique State interests the way the did...or the way they might have had to. Or thought they had to, originally.
Note 1) I would love to see a Kennedy running against a Kennedy, in Massachusets, just to see the Kennedy-philes implode.
Note 2) Why doesn't she run for the Kennedy seat in Mass, currently occupied by Kennedy, Ted? She satisfies the Kennedy part of the requirement. So which other Kennedy is in the way of that? Or, to put it another way, which Kennedy would have a harder time in NY, but still easily win in Mass?
Note 3) Would a good Chicago politician be moving Hillary out of the way to complete the player to be named later deal?
{"commentId":4518731,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"Roybean"}
- 5 votes
#12 - Mon Dec 22, 2008 2:06 AM EST{"commentId":4521931,"authorDomain":"rachaelmm"}
Nicely done, Jack. I'm annoyed by the "no qualifications" argument. It's not like she's lived under a rock for the past 50 years. She's a behind-the-scenes kind of person. I like that about her.
{"commentId":4521931,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"rachaelmm"}
- 7 votes
#14 - Mon Dec 22, 2008 11:39 AM EST{"commentId":4523255,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}
If Blago wanted to be the US Senator for Illinois, no qualifications are needed today if a "skilful" politician is looking for a vacancy in our government and find the right person or persons with money regardless of the background.
{"commentId":4523255,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"a0ted"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":4524260,"authorDomain":"SharnCedar"}
{"commentId":4537035,"authorDomain":"Roybean"}
The six year Senate terms supply the difference in buffering against the immediacy of any issue, compared to the requirement of all House members to run every two years. Only a third of the Senate is up for election every two years.
No law passes without the approval of a majority of the smaller body with the six year terms.
But if it is the "quality" of the Senator today who fails to provide sufficient insulation from non-existant threats made great, it is certainly an unproven assumption that today a better person will be produced by state legislatures, even if you thought Douglas was a better Senator than Lincoln might have been in 1858.
"Hailed as victor in the great political contest in Illinois - upon the extended newspaper reports of which, the absorbed eyes of the entire nation, for months, had greedily fed - Douglas was received with much ostentation and immense enthusiasm at St. Louis, Memphis, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington. Like the "Truimphs" decreed by Rome, in her grandest days, to the greatest of her victorious heroes, Douglas's return was a series of magnificient popular ovations."
(Even if he did lose the popular vote, to Lincoln, in 1858)
Douglas Vindicated 1858
John A. Logan
{"commentId":4537035,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"Roybean"}
- 3 votes
#17 - Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:12 PM EST{"commentId":4555155,"authorDomain":"brienamb"}
Caroline Kennedy is classy, she has wide acquaintance with issues of public moment, she has as long a view of American politics as is possible for a 52-year-old to have, and she has the United States Senate in her bones. If anything, she's OVER-qualified for the Senate in the terms the Founders and Framers expected...
JFXGILLIS, I couldn't agree with you more on the above statement, hurray for that rational. I think she would be terrific, and popular, more so than Hillary, and even more than her own mother.
{"commentId":4555155,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"brienamb"}
- 2 votes
#18 - Fri Dec 26, 2008 4:27 AM EST{"commentId":4557236,"authorDomain":"fembird3"}
predicts a really interesting presidential race in 2012....
{"commentId":4557236,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"fembird3"}
- 2 votes
#19 - Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:19 PM EST{"commentId":4585268,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}
Jack - great article and discussion as usual (sorry I'm late to your party---as usual). I'm watching Caroline ready herself for this appointment (because I believe she's got it hands down and that yes once in she'll keep the seat for as long as she wants it)....and I find myself -yes me the charming conservative---mourning once again the tragic early death of her brother John John. It is he who I would have seen readying himself to step into this job, not Caroline. I also find myself wondering if she truly really wants this job (which of course she is just as qualified for as the next guy)---because yes she seems to have rather enjoyed living a quiet life despite her famous name all of these years---and I don't see her as being comfortable stepping into the spotlight not now, not ever. And so that begs the question why now? And I answer because it is now that Uncle Ted is entering the twilight of his career. We have to have a Kennedy in the Senate---isn't that a law somewhere? I dunno if she truly wants the job--and if she doesn't---if she's doing this more out of some sense of family obligation ---then I dunno if that best serves the interests of the people however capable she and her staff may be.
{"commentId":4585268,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"lisaed"}
- 6 votes
#20 - Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:03 PM EST{"commentId":4586038,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}
Jack---yes but an A+ endorsement does not necessarily translate to an A+ senator. Her endorsement (along with Uncle Ted's) was as I heard in the year in reveiw sunday shows this weekend a turning point in the obama campaign at a time when Obama very much needed that tremendous boost from within the dem party. I think Caroline will do just fine (as any liberal dem could do--tee hee) in the senate. I just question if she will actually like the job. We'll see. On a separate note---in discussing the power of a family dynasty name in generating campaign funds---and in the name of small-d democracy (and the warped power of the electorate that occurs thanks to the media)---I'm still very annoyed with obama for putting the proverbial nail in the coffin of public finance.
{"commentId":4586038,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"lisaed"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":4599973,"authorDomain":"rickace"}
Jack -
Being a Senator is FUN!! (or so I've heard)
Oodles of power and attention, no accountability to anyone, fat salary you can raise at will ...
That's the dream job. Of course it's fun!
{"commentId":4599973,"threadId":"450612","contentId":"2233952","authorDomain":"rickace"}
- 4 votes
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"450612","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2010 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
