Caroline Kennedy appointment to NY Senator?

[CatherineE]

Been following the story of Caroline Kennedy's (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jfks-daughter-says-she-will-run-for-clintons-senate-seat-1128216.html) recent interest in Hillary Clinton's vacated NY Senate seat. Caroline Kennedy's cousin, Kerry Kennedy, appeared on Today citing Caroline's credentials. Some 12 people are in contention for the position including Kerry Kennedy's ex-husband, Andrew Cuomo Jr., son of former NY guv Mario Cuomo.

On one hand, Caroline is new to holding political office herself. On the other hand, voters seemed to be tired of political dynasty families. Any thoughts on CK's possible appointment?

[JoeCiulla]

Been following the story of Caroline Kennedy's (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jfks-daughter-says-she-will-run-for-clintons-senate-seat-1128216.html) recent interest in Hillary Clinton's vacated NY Senate seat. Caroline Kennedy's cousin, Kerry Kennedy, appeared on Today citing Caroline's credentials. Some 12 people are in contention for the position including Kerry Kennedy's ex-husband, Andrew Cuomo Jr., son of former NY guv Mario Cuomo.

On one hand, Caroline is new to holding political office herself. On the other hand, voters seemed to be tired of political dynasty families. Any thoughts on CK's possible appointment?

If her last name wasn't Kennedy, I don't think she would ever have been considered. I have a hard time believing there is not someone better qualified.

[DarylB]

Or just maybe we need to rename the Senate, and just call it what it is, the House of Lords!!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Lchancellor.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lchancellor.jpg)

Hell, let's just put the whole damned government up for sale on EBay!

http://pics.ebaystatic.com/aw/pics/logos/logoEbay_x45.gif (http://www.ebay.com/)Welcome! Sign in (https://signin.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?SignIn) or register (https://scgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?RegisterEnterInfo).

[d4vendel]

I wrote Governor Paterson this morning via email and told him that I would be more than happy to move to New York if he wanted to make me the next Senator from New York. After all, I have just as many ties to New York as the outgoing Senator (none) and have held just a many elected offices as Caroline Kennedy (none). :|

[Brent]

I wrote Governor Paterson this morning via email and told him that I would be more than happy to move to New York if he wanted to make me the next Senator from New York. After all, I have just as many ties to New York as the outgoing Senator (none) and have held just a many elected offices as Caroline Kennedy (none). :|

Yeah, but did you bid on the Illinois seat? ;)

[Belle]

Not quite the resume of Sarah Palin, and plenty of people had grief with that.

[d4vendel]

Yeah, but did you bid on the Illinois seat? ;)

Due to all of the controversy surrounding it, eBay de-listed that item before I had a chance to bid on it. :)

[JoeCiulla]

Haven't heard any new news on a Kennedy appointment, here's another motivational poster which really fits the moment....

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t243/kid4rock/nepotism.jpg

[NewHillBilly]

From Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)

Sir Lancelot: Look, my liege!
[trumpets play a fanfare as the camera cuts briefly to the sight of a majestic castle]
King Arthur: [in awe] Camelot!
Sir Galahad: [in awe] Camelot!
Sir Lancelot: [in awe] Camelot!
Patsy: [derisively] It's only a model!
King Arthur: Shh!

Ironically the name Schlossberg translates to "Mountain Castle".

[francejamie]

Not quite the resume of Sarah Palin, and plenty of people had grief with that.

You do understand that Caroline Kennedy is trying to become the junior Senator for the state of New York, and Palin was running for Vice President of the United States, don't you?

[Belle]

Not quite the resume of Sarah Palin, and plenty of people had grief with that.

You do understand that Caroline Kennedy is trying to become the junior Senator for the state of New York, and Palin was running for Vice President of the United States, don't you?

Yes, I do.

What do you think of Kennedy having the seat?

[francejamie]

Not quite the resume of Sarah Palin, and plenty of people had grief with that.

You do understand that Caroline Kennedy is trying to become the junior Senator for the state of New York, and Palin was running for Vice President of the United States, don't you?

Yes, I do.

What do you think of Kennedy having the seat?


She'll be able to do the just as well as any other appointee.

[JoeCiulla]

Not quite the resume of Sarah Palin, and plenty of people had grief with that.

You do understand that Caroline Kennedy is trying to become the junior Senator for the state of New York, and Palin was running for Vice President of the United States, don't you?

Yes, I do.

What do you think of Kennedy having the seat?


She'll be able to do the just as well as any other appointee.

That doesn't say much for the talent pool in NY.

[Brent]

Not quite the resume of Sarah Palin, and plenty of people had grief with that.

You do understand that Caroline Kennedy is trying to become the junior Senator for the state of New York, and Palin was running for Vice President of the United States, don't you?

Yes, and going back to what David noted: Sarah Palin is an elected governor. Caroline Kennedy is an elected...oh, wait, she's not (maybe she was sophomore class president or something?).

[Brent]

She'll be able to do the just as well as any other appointee.

Even Bill Clinton? ;)

[chaboard]

Not quite the resume of Sarah Palin, and plenty of people had grief with that.

You do understand that Caroline Kennedy is trying to become the junior Senator for the state of New York, and Palin was running for Vice President of the United States, don't you?

Yes, and going back to what David noted: Sarah Palin is an elected governor. Caroline Kennedy is an elected...oh, wait, she's not (maybe she was sophomore class president or something?).

I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on the appointment of Kennedy - but I don't understand this particular objection. The law specifically requires appointment not election under these circumstances. And having been *previously* elected to something has never been a job requirement for a Senator - see both Liddy Dole and John Edwards for examples. For that matter EVERY Senator for the first half of our history as a country was appointed rather than elected and odds are a fair number of them had not held other elected office. For that matter see the Senator she would be replacing.

Plus it is just a very short term appointment and if appointed she will have to face the voters very soon.

My main problem with it is even though she appears to be bright and capable there really is no question that she would be considered if it weren't for her name. But then again, for better or worse THAT is also a long bipartisan tradition in American politics - Hillary, Liddy, Arnold and that moron in the White House now are all recent examples of people who never would've gtten close to their office without a famous name. And it goes all the way back to John Adams and his boy ;)

*Shrugs*

[MattD]

[quote=Brent;49835] My main problem with it is even though she appears to be bright and capable there really is no question that she would be considered if it weren't for her name. But then again, for better or worse THAT is also a long bipartisan tradition in American politics - Hillary, Liddy, Arnold and that moron in the White House now are all recent examples of people who never would've gtten close to their office without a famous name. And it goes all the way back to John Adams and his boy ;)

*Shrugs*

In fairness to Liddy Dole - She was a Sec of Transportation (Reagan) and Sec of Labor (Bush). She then ran the American Red Cross. In addition, she graduated from Duke and Harvard. That's a solid resume to run for US Senate...

[chaboard]

My main problem with it is even though she appears to be bright and capable there really is no question that she would be considered if it weren't for her name. But then again, for better or worse THAT is also a long bipartisan tradition in American politics - Hillary, Liddy, Arnold and that moron in the White House now are all recent examples of people who never would've gtten close to their office without a famous name. And it goes all the way back to John Adams and his boy ;)

*Shrugs*

In fairness to Liddy Dole - She was a Sec of Transportation (Reagan) and Sec of Labor (Bush). She then ran the American Red Cross. In addition, she graduated from Duke and Harvard. That's a solid resume to run for US Senate...

Yes. But it also reinforces my point -
the silliness of a "must have held elected office" criteria. If we feel ok putting key cabinet positions like Secretary Of State (Powell? Rice? Kissinger?) and the like in the hands of people who have never held elected office then why should it be a big deal to do the same with the person who will be 99th in seniority in the Senate? ;)

Of course the main problem with Liddy's initial resume to be a Senator from North Carolina (other than being on the side of evil, of course) is that it was a total fiction that she had anything to do with North Carolina. Much like Hillary and New York. ;)

[chaboard]

Yes. But it also reinforces my point -
the silliness of a "must have held elected office" criteria. If we feel ok putting key cabinet positions like Secretary Of State (Powell? Rice? Kissinger?) and the like in the hands of people who have never held elected office then why should it be a big deal to do the same with the person who will be 99th in seniority in the Senate? ;)

On the other hand...Dole, Powell, Rice & Kissinger were all massive failures a their appointed jobs!.

[MattD]

My main problem with it is even though she appears to be bright and capable there really is no question that she would be considered if it weren't for her name. But then again, for better or worse THAT is also a long bipartisan tradition in American politics - Hillary, Liddy, Arnold and that moron in the White House now are all recent examples of people who never would've gtten close to their office without a famous name. And it goes all the way back to John Adams and his boy ;)

*Shrugs*

In fairness to Liddy Dole - She was a Sec of Transportation (Reagan) and Sec of Labor (Bush). She then ran the American Red Cross. In addition, she graduated from Duke and Harvard. That's a solid resume to run for US Senate...

Yes. But it also reinforces my point -
the silliness of a "must have held elected office" criteria....

Actually, in your first quote you say your MAIN point was the people would not have been considered if not for there name... not the point of "must have held elected office. ;-)

[DarylB]

Not quite the resume of Sarah Palin, and plenty of people had grief with that.

You do understand that Caroline Kennedy is trying to become the junior Senator for the state of New York, and Palin was running for Vice President of the United States, don't you?

Yes, and going back to what David noted: Sarah Palin is an elected governor. Caroline Kennedy is an elected...oh, wait, she's not (maybe she was sophomore class president or something?).

Caroline Kennedy's ONLY qualification is her inherited money. EVERYBODY who is born into money does philanthropy, as they generally have nothing else to do in life...Lord knows they don't have to work for a living, and are totally disconnected from the rest of us and life in general by that simple fact. Unless we are now a monarchy, with the divine right of kings as our latest manifestation (or should I say infestation?), little Caroline needs to stay the hell away from the making of decisions that affect only normal people. Personally, I'm fed up with ALL of these "Simple Life" Paris Hilton, Let them eat cakes types, who just want to feel some sense of self importane at our expense. We're not pets, and this is no a pet store. To Caroline, I say go get a Bishon,

[chaboard]

My main problem with it is even though she appears to be bright and capable there really is no question that she would be considered if it weren't for her name. But then again, for better or worse THAT is also a long bipartisan tradition in American politics - Hillary, Liddy, Arnold and that moron in the White House now are all recent examples of people who never would've gtten close to their office without a famous name. And it goes all the way back to John Adams and his boy ;)

*Shrugs*

In fairness to Liddy Dole - She was a Sec of Transportation (Reagan) and Sec of Labor (Bush). She then ran the American Red Cross. In addition, she graduated from Duke and Harvard. That's a solid resume to run for US Senate...

Yes. But it also reinforces my point -
the silliness of a "must have held elected office" criteria....

Actually, in your first quote you say your MAIN point was the people would not have been considered if not for there name... not the point of "must have held elected office. ;-)

Not quite - I said that was my personal MAIN PROBLEM with a Kennedy selection. My MAIN POINT in posting at all was to take issue with Brent's implication that having held elective office before would be a minimal qualification. ;)

I'm more interested in what happens to e Colorado seat, how long the Illinois seat will be vacant and when Franken will finally be get the official victory he voters gave him in November, though.

[chaboard]

Caroline Kennedy's ONLY qualification is her inherited money. EVERYBODY who is born into money does philanthropy, as they generally have nothing else to do in life...Lord knows they don't have to work for a living, and are totally disconnected from the rest of us and life in general by that simple fact. Unless we are now a monarchy, with the divine right of kings as our latest manifestation (or should I say infestation?), little Caroline needs to stay the hell away from the making of decisions that affect only normal people. Personally, I'm fed up with ALL of these "Simple Life" Paris Hilton, Let them eat cakes types, who just want to feel some sense of self importane at our expense. We're not pets, and this is no a pet store. To Caroline, I say go get a Bishon,

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you vote for George "Born On Third Base and Thought He Hit A Triple" W. Bush TWICE?

Your hyopcrisy and lack of principle is - as usual - duly noted. As is my stupidity for once again clicking to see the post from a user on ignore.

[johnshaw]

C. Kennedy has lived in NYC for a number of years. Regardless of what I think of her qualifications and experience, I have one objection. Western and Upstate (as in Rochester, Syracuse, etc. should have a senator. Although Hillary Clinton did not live in Western or Northern NY, she did prove that she could learn the problems and concerns of that area. (That area is mostly rural, agricultural, and forested).

After having spend several decades in Upstate New York (Rochester area) I think that they should have a senator who understands that part of the state (perhaps even knows what a cow looks like).

[d4vendel]

NEW YORK – Caroline Kennedy, who is seeking to fill Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate seat, has not voted in a number of elections, including at least one race for the very job she's seeking.
The Democrat registered at her current address on Manhattan's Upper East Side in 1988. According to city Board of Elections records, she missed several Democratic mayoral primaries — typically important contests in left-leaning New York City — in 1989, 1993, 1997 and 2005. Republicans went on to win three out of four of those races in the general election.

Entire article here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081219/ap_on_el_se/kennedy_voting)



I at least expect a Representative of the people to take the time to participate in the entire process...

[chaboard]

I at least expect a Representative of the people to take the time to participate in the entire process...

Which surely explains why you proudly claimed here that you were going to cast your Presidential vote for a man who showed up for his job in the Senate and voted exactly ONCE from March through November. And that once was only as part of a badly backfired publicity stunt. Participation in the process, indeed!

There sure are a lot of double standards surfacing on this thread.

(And yes, I'd rather have my elected - and appointed - officials interested enough to vote, too. but seems to me the obligation to bother to vote is infinitely greater IN the Senate than when trying to figure out who gets there).

[DarylB]

NEW YORK – Caroline Kennedy, who is seeking to fill Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate seat, has not voted in a number of elections, including at least one race for the very job she's seeking.
The Democrat registered at her current address on Manhattan's Upper East Side in 1988. According to city Board of Elections records, she missed several Democratic mayoral primaries — typically important contests in left-leaning New York City — in 1989, 1993, 1997 and 2005. Republicans went on to win three out of four of those races in the general election.

Entire article here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081219/ap_on_el_se/kennedy_voting)

I at least expect a Representative of the people to take the time to participate in the entire process...



I for one am appalled that there is ANY support for her AT ALL. Not only has she not voted, which is a relatively minor consideration as compared to her absolute and total lack of preparation to LEAD. We have hundreds if not thousands who are better prepared right here in Cary (take for example our recent IOPL graduates). I would even say that Harold Weinbrecht would make a better Senator than she would, just by having at least served in an elected office for some time, and gotten some experience in government. She has never served in the military, she has never sponsored legislation, she has never been responsible for a single decision in her life beyond her lunch selection, and those are likely done for her as well.

Doesn't the subject of leadership, at some point come up, in seeking to fill a leadership position? Does anyone in this discussion even have the faintest clue as to what the qualities are that constitute LEADERSHIP? I seem to recall that as being a major subject heading when I was commissioned and served as an officer in the Air Force, and it was mentioned along the way, I'm pretty sure, when I took those numerous courses at Air War College.

[Brent]

NEW YORK – Caroline Kennedy, who is seeking to fill Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate seat, has not voted in a number of elections, including at least one race for the very job she's seeking.
The Democrat registered at her current address on Manhattan's Upper East Side in 1988. According to city Board of Elections records, she missed several Democratic mayoral primaries — typically important contests in left-leaning New York City — in 1989, 1993, 1997 and 2005. Republicans went on to win three out of four of those races in the general election.

Entire article here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081219/ap_on_el_se/kennedy_voting)



I at least expect a Representative of the people to take the time to participate in the entire process...



I expect that this will pretty much put an end to whatever chances Ms. Kennedy might have had at being appointed.

[DarylB]

Equally qualified?http://ts2.images.live.com/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=198070112061&id=4ddf6c7cdcf3f78f0dcfe1296c2de8e6 (http://search.live.com/images/results.aspx?q=Paris+Hilton+image&FORM=ZZIR5#focal=44f0531a2b511e8b3d761269dc7dd513&furl=http://www.oceleb.com/img/paris-hilton/paris-hilton-44.jpg)
http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Caroline_Kennedy.PNG/165px-Caroline_Kennedy.PNG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caroline_Kennedy.PNG)

[d4vendel]

I at least expect a Representative of the people to take the time to participate in the entire process...

Which surely explains why you proudly claimed here that you were going to cast your Presidential vote for a man who showed up for his job in the Senate and voted exactly ONCE from March through November. And that once was only as part of a badly backfired publicity stunt. Participation in the process, indeed!

There sure are a lot of double standards surfacing on this thread.

(And yes, I'd rather have my elected - and appointed - officials interested enough to vote, too. but seems to me the obligation to bother to vote is infinitely greater IN the Senate than when trying to figure out who gets there).

Sure, because I put no weight on a person's 23 years of Military service or 22 years of service as a U.S. Senator. :lol:

Better that I cast a vote for someone who is best known for voting "present" during his three terms in the Illinois Senate and missed a lot of votes in the U.S. Senate during his Presidential campaign too? Hypocrisy for sure! :tard:

[bobo]

Yes. But it also reinforces my point -
the silliness of a "must have held elected office" criteria. If we feel ok putting key cabinet positions like Secretary Of State (Powell? Rice? Kissinger?) and the like in the hands of people who have never held elected office then why should it be a big deal to do the same with the person who will be 99th in seniority in the Senate? ;)

On the other hand...Dole, Powell, Rice & Kissinger were all massive failures a their appointed jobs!.

Says who, you?

[chaboard]

Yes. But it also reinforces my point -
the silliness of a "must have held elected office" criteria. If we feel ok putting key cabinet positions like Secretary Of State (Powell? Rice? Kissinger?) and the like in the hands of people who have never held elected office then why should it be a big deal to do the same with the person who will be 99th in seniority in the Senate? ;)

On the other hand...Dole, Powell, Rice & Kissinger were all massive failures a their appointed jobs!.

Says who, you?

No, the pink unicorn who posts here every other Tuesday. Sheesh.

Me...and the reality of the results of their actions. A dasm near unblemished
record of massive, massive failure all around.

[chaboard]

Sure, because I put no weight on a person's 23 years of Military service or 22 years of service as a U.S. Senator. :lol:


Well let's put aside the fact that his military service is notable mainly for crashing FIVE planes, being involved (and perhaps culpable) in an incident that killed a bunch of US soldiers and getting himself captured by a bunch of civilian peasants on foot. And let's put aside the fact that the second most (I'll give him McCain-Feingold as first , even though he later showed utter contempt for campaign finance laws in his own races) memorable aspect of his Senate career was getting called out and dressed down by the Senate Ethics committee for is role in helping a criminal shake down taxpayers.

Yeah, we'll ignore all that and pretend for the sake of argument that he really DID have admirable records in the military and Senate.

Seems to me that unless I'm badly mistaken on your voting history you just DOUBLED DOWN with an even BIGGER double standard! (Like I said, this thread just keeps exposing them!!! You can't make this **** up!). To get out of being held to your *own* standard regarding "participation" you just argued that *your* standard can be trumped by a more important - in your eyes - standard consisting of an exemplary service record and a lengthy and admirable carer of service in the Senate. So, enquiring minds want to know......when an honest-to-God war *hero* with a 20+ year Senate career (untainted by ethics problems, to boot!) was running in 2004 did you apply *your own 2008 standard*? Or did you do yet another super reverse double standard with a twist to justify voting for the re-electon of worst President in the history of the United States? ;)

The judges are awaiting your response. Please don't forget you get extra points if your next double standard includes extraordinary degree of difficulty elements - go for it!

Or you could try just being honest. Your distaste for Caroline has nothing to do with her voting record and your support for McCain had nothing to do with his (clearly sub-Kerry ) record in the military and Senate....both are based on ideology and party and everything else is just you trying to rationalize to yourself and us.

[d4vendel]

Oh. I forgot. It is all about Bush. Always. No matter what the subject.

What the heck are people here going to talk about on January 21st?

McCain's service means nothing to you and Kerry was a "war hero?!?!!??!?"

For the record, I like Caroline Kennedy as a person, so your assumption is, as usual, wildly off-base.

Here is my New Years resolution. You obviously write for nothing but the shock value. If you are writing what you really believe, you are not a person I want to know. Either way, I'll no longer take your bait.

[chaboard]

Here is my New Years resolution. You obviously write for nothing but the shock value. If you are writing what you really believe, you are not a person I want to know. Either way, I'll no longer take your bait.

Whatever. I'm comfortable that any rational neutral party reading this entire exchange will notice that I directly addressed your point each time and did so fairly attacking your actual stated positions. And such a person will also notice that in response you not only attempted to change the subject in every single response you also tried to ascribe to me derogatory positions that i do not hold.

For example, I never said McCain's service means "nothing" to me and in fact I said nothing that an even remotely be logically interpreted that way. That sir - and I use that term very loosely, obviously - is a LIE that you made up out of whole cloth. Because you'd rather LIE about my position than try to honestly defend your own when it's questioned. It's a habit you've consistently displayed.

For the record, I value and honor the sacrifice and willingness to serve of EVERY one who has served in the military regardless of the motive, circumstance or results of said service. The act of service in itself and on its own is something we should - and I do - honor, respect and value. And in McCain's case I *also* greatly admire and honor the personal courage he displayed through his captivity. But of course none of that precludes looking at the actual fact that his actual record of accomplishment in his military service was a nearly unblemished display of tragic incompetence and failure. One can simultaneously honor the service and sacrifice and bravery without trying to pretend that the actual result was massive failure.

I find it illuminating that YOU brought up his military record as a reason to vote for him but then YOU seem to think that actually discussing the basic FACTS - and make no mistake about it, I only listed verifiable facts, I did not advance a personal opinion - of that service constitutes "shock value". If you weren't prepared to defend the results of his military service then why the hell did YOU bring it up as a qualification justifying your vote?

You, sir - are simply easily shocked. You live in a comfortable little cocoon where all sorts of artificial rules exist to make sure you never have to be confronted with uncomfortable facts or actually THINK about your positions.

When the death of Jesse Helms prompts an examination of his life you run screaming from facing the truth and hide behind the skirts of some bizarre social convention about speaking ill of the dead (while simultaneously personally attacking me AND my mother - apparently speaking ill if the *living* is just fine and dandy, yessiree bob!).

When asked to reconcile you own statement that you voted for McCain in part due to his military service with some bare facts about said service (and again, let's be clear here....it is not an OPINION or a VIEW of mine that he crashed five planes. Nor that he was captured by unarmed civilians on foot. Those are simple statements of fact about his record) you go into a conniption fit and accuse me of trying to "shock" you.

I think it's sad that you consider bare statements of basic facts about what YOU named as a qualification for PotUS to be "shock value". I think it's even sadder that you would willingly wall yourself off from someone and call them "a person I do not want to know" as a reflexive reaction to avoid facing those facts. It is a spectacular example of intentionally burying your head in the sand because facing the world as it is makes you uncomfortable.

So whatever Dave. If you value your cocoon that much then you can ignore me when I challenge your unthinking platitudes. But just to be clear I'm still not gonna let your BS pass unchallenged, whether you're watching or not. You continue to post unthinking crap and try to sell us blatant double standards and I'll continue to call you on it. Whether you wish to continue responding with your usual unprompted personal attacks or whether you decide instead to not "take the bait" is entirely up to you.

Ned Flanders is a great avatar for you, btw. My compliments on capturing your essence with that choice. Other than maybe Barney Fife I can't imagine a better fit.

Party on, Barney. Happy New Year.

[bobo]

Yes. But it also reinforces my point -
the silliness of a "must have held elected office" criteria. If we feel ok putting key cabinet positions like Secretary Of State (Powell? Rice? Kissinger?) and the like in the hands of people who have never held elected office then why should it be a big deal to do the same with the person who will be 99th in seniority in the Senate? ;)

On the other hand...Dole, Powell, Rice & Kissinger were all massive failures a their appointed jobs!.

Says who, you?

No, the pink unicorn who posts here every other Tuesday. Sheesh.

Me...and the reality of the results of their actions. A dasm near unblemished
record of massive, massive failure all around.

Sounds like personal opinion to me. Personally, I thought Sen. Dole, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Powell, did a darn good job. Of course my position on that would be difficult to understand for someone who would eagerly jump to the defense of Rep. David Price, Speaker of the House Pelosi, and Bill Clinton. I guess the success and failure of someone is a judgement call that depends on the measuring stick being utilized and the individual doing the measuring.

[DarylB]

Yes. But it also reinforces my point -
the silliness of a "must have held elected office" criteria. If we feel ok putting key cabinet positions like Secretary Of State (Powell? Rice? Kissinger?) and the like in the hands of people who have never held elected office then why should it be a big deal to do the same with the person who will be 99th in seniority in the Senate? ;)

On the other hand...Dole, Powell, Rice & Kissinger were all massive failures a their appointed jobs!.

Says who, you?

No, the pink unicorn who posts here every other Tuesday. Sheesh.

Me...and the reality of the results of their actions. A dasm near unblemished
record of massive, massive failure all around.

Sounds like personal opinion to me. Personally, I thought Sen. Dole, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Powell, did a darn good job. Of course my position on that would be difficult to understand for someone who would eagerly jump to the defense of Rep. David Price, Speaker of the House Pelosi, and Bill Clinton. I guess the success and failure of someone is a judgement call that depends on the measuring stick being utilized and the individual doing the measuring.

Well Dave, if nothing else I'm impressed with your tenacity for attempting the impossible. Like trying to reason with a pet rock, but hey, good luck !!!!! :notworthy:

http://home.mindspring.com/%7Ebakerdl/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/gassed.jpg

As for Caroline Kennedy, let's all try to remember that our country was founded on the premise that leadership abilities aren't associated with DNA. We elect our leaders because it is a personal selection based on an individual abilities, not on dynastic rights of inheritance. Our forefathers fought to bring that concept to life, and it is up to us to either keep the premise alive, or let it die on our watch.

[chaboard]

Sounds like personal opinion to me. Personally, I thought Sen. Dole, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Powell, did a darn good job. Of course my position on that would be difficult to understand for someone who would eagerly jump to the defense of Rep. David Price, Speaker of the House Pelosi, and Bill Clinton. I guess the success and failure of someone is a judgement call that depends on the measuring stick being utilized and the individual doing the measuring.

Fair enough. But it's not just my personal opinion and your personal opinion we're talking about. A solid majority of Dole's employers last month expressed the opinion that she had failed enough to warrant relief from her duties. As for Powell - his major "accomplishment" as Sec State was the presentation where he lied and presented false evidence to the UN and thus helped lead us to war. A solid majority of Americans by a margin ranging between 3 to 1 and 4 to 1 now consider that war a mistake.

So I'll buy your contention that defining failure is always a opinion (funny how conservatives ALWAYS take refuge in the moral relativism so many of them abhor) but you can't get around the FACT that these two were massive failures at their jobs according to - wait for it-........majority opinion.

Your semantic distinction has no end effect other than to make you feel better, as far as I can see. So have at it. And feed your pink unicor a tasty apple. ;)

[DarylB]

Indeed, there comes a point where the idiotic just has to step aside to allow for more intelligent proposals.......



Senator: End Blagojevich-type appointments (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/25/senator-end-blagojevich-type-senate-appointments/)
Posted: 05:05 PM ET

From CNN's Ed Hornick (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnns-ed-hornick/)
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/06/25/art.feingold.gi.jpg Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold says he plans to introduce an amendment banning governors from appointing senators.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif

WASHINGTON (CNN) — First it was the uproar over the appointment by Illinois Gov. Roy Blagojevich of former state attorney general Roland Burris to fill President Barack Obama's remaining term in the Senate.
Then, New York Gov. David Paterson appointed Democratic Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand to the Senate seat now vacated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — creating a political circus over why Caroline Kennedy was given the cold shoulder.
Now, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, says, enough is enough.
On Sunday, Feingold, said he plans to introduce an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to end appointments to the Senate by governors. Feingold, who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, will advocate a special election instead.
“The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end," he said in a press release.

He added: "In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators. They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid-term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people."
Feingold plans to introduce the amendment this week.