Caroline Kennedy has never held an elected position (nor has RFK jr). Thus, she has even less expereince than Palin.
Caroline Kennedy has not just been sitting around the house. She is active in a lot of causes especially having to do with education in NYC. Bloomberg gave her a glowing recommendation. She is connected.
What’s with the C. Kennedy / Palin comparison? A Senate seat doesn’t put you a heartbeat away from the most powerful leadership position in the free world.
A lot of “inexperienced” people have been appointed to fill out Senate terms. Some of them turned out pretty good.
Fran Drescher’s “voice” is schtick – she’s capable of talking like a normal human being, and would presumably do so if she held public office.
No, we fell for that once with Governor Goldthwait.
Not saying that Kennedy hasn’t done anything, but has she really done that much? Enough to qualify to be in the U.S. Senate, a group of 100 serving 300 millions Americans?
Bottom line to me is if her name is Caroline Jones, the closest she’d get to that seat is the 3:15 tour on Tuesday that I’ll go on.
At least she’s been living in New York the last couple of decades, unlike, say, the current incumbent of the office.
Nitpick: What David Paterson will do is appoint someone. What we’re doing here, is nominating names for that appointment.
So what? We voted for Clinton. If we want her to be our Senator, what business is it of anyone else?
Most recent developments:
- Upstate NY Rep Louise Slaughter has endorsed Kennedy.
- She’s actively campaigning for it now
- She’s hired an insider to help her
I wonder how much difference that actually makes. I’m not surprised she wants the job, but it’s still Paterson’s choice. Depends partly on the public response, I guess.
But… if Ms. Clinton takes the cabinet post… she won’t have the job anymore.
Recent Slate article on why Caroline Kennedy would be a bad choice for Senator.
Of course, she’s a Kennedy! Don’t you idiot proles know that a kennedy always does the best for you?
Why should there be any argument? Don’t you want to restore camelot? Look at Sen. Ted Kennedy-he is always busy, doing what’s best for you…ungratefull villeins!:smack:
Caroline Kennedy has not done enough that she deserves to be handed a free Senate seat without campaigning. I think it smacks of name entitlement, and I think if her name were Jenna Bush, the Dems would have a fit.
Alas, I don’t find that article very convincing.
And I wanted to be convinced.
The writer, in all honesty and integrity, admits he’s got personal reasons for disliking the idea of Caroline Kennedy in a position of official power. I respect him for that, greatly. It’s not easy to admit to something that will undermine his own position.
In spite of that, it seems to me that his article failed to raise any glaring flags to my mind about why Caroline Kennedy would be a poor Senator.
What’s worse, in my mind, is that it’s insufficient to simply say, “So-and-so is a bad choice.” Caroline Kennedy is not, and never will be, a choice that would make me ecstatically happy. Absent any other candidate being named - it is insufficient to say “she shouldn’t be NY’s next Senator.” There comes a point where a positive choice must be made: Not who shouldn’t be our next Senator, but who will be our next Senator?
I’d prefer, myself, to see Andrew Cuomo in the seat. Even with that preference stated, I’m not going to howl if Caroline Kennedy is named to the seat. I still haven’t seen any other name suggested for that seat with any seriousness. Absent a better candidate, I do see the choice as being either Andrew Cuomo or Caroline Kennedy, or someone from the State Legislature.
And I’d crawl naked over hot razor blades to avoid rewarding any of the incompetent hacks in the State Legislature.
ETA: Diogenes the Cynic, I agree with you - I just find her to be better than any of the candidates I’ve heard bruited about, aside from Andrew Cuomo.
Too bad it’d be declasse for DAVID A. PATERSON to nominate himself.
How about Koch? or Dinkins?
AIUI, the problem with the idea of Paterson nominating himself is that there’s no provision in the State Constitution to allow for replacing the Lt. Governor. When Spitzer stepped down, ISTR hearing that nothing can be allowed to happen to Paterson, because after him there is no constitutional provision to fill the Governor’s seat, and the Legislature takes over.
You can see why I think this would be a bad idea.
A couple of years ago someone brought up the idea of amending the Constitution to allow for ballot referenda, and the State Assembly Speaker, Sheldon Silver, was quoted as saying there’s no need for the Constitution to be changed - we already have the Legislature to get the voter’s views acted upon. I don’t believe anyone in the state government would be willing to risk what might happen if the Constitution is opened up for amendment/rewriting. They might find a number of unpalatable measures added. (Like, say, confiscating 1% of a Legislator’s pay* for every day that the budget is late beyond the April 1 deadline…)
*In the interests of fairness and symmetry I’d also fine the Governor the same amount of his/her base salary. But not the Lt. Governor.
Heard said by some talking head - one of the requirements for the appointed Senator is the ability to raise big money quickly for the next election.
She can do that.
Frankly, I just wish he’d appoint the position already and end the speculation. If Caroline gets it, I think New Yorkers will be pleased by the job she does and she will easily win re-election. If they’re not, they can just throw her ass out in two years. That’s what would happen with anyone else he appoints. If she does a great job she could easily run for president in 8-12 years. Maybe that’s what the freepers are scared of. In intelligence, grace, knowledge and about a million other things, she sure shows up Palin.
Edit to add, it just came to me that maybe he can’t appoint the position until Hillary formally resigns. Anyone know if that’s true?
2nd edit to add, yep, her ability to raise money would be second to none. Another thing the freepers should be freaked out about.
He would accomplish nothing positive by doing so. I believe he’s promised to consider minority group members and people with a connection to upstate New York in filling the post, and if the names Kennedy as soon as she tosses her hat in the ring, the message would be, “Hey, I didn’t mean it.” (Further, I think his ‘minority’ consideration is particularly expected to focus on a Latin candidate- given the highly publicized murder of an immigrant over the weekend, he’d really be playing with fire if he didn’t appear to at least give a Latino some real consideration.)
Which would not be what Paterson or the NY Democrats want.
Paterson can verbally promise the job to anybody he wants, in public if he likes. But there’s nothing to appoint anybody to until she quits, which she won’t do until she’s confirmed, which won’t be for more than a month.