Why, It’s Like Replacing Chris Matthews with Keith Olbermann!
I think the most outrageous thing about Caroline Kennedy’s bid to become Senator of New York is that, as the New York Times recently explained:
She has not held a full-time job in years, has not run for even the lowliest office . . . Already, some columnists, bloggers and even potential colleagues in Congress have begun asking if she would be taken seriously if not for her surname.
How can someone like that possibly succeed . . . Hillary Clinton?
I like Charles Krauthammer’s reaction to this on FoxNews…
We should rename the Senate, the House of Lords, and make it hereditary.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/16/2008 @ 8:19 pm
Anyone with the name “Kennedy” will automatically appeal to a large number of people in New York, certainly the variety of limousine liberals throughout Manhattan — and people of the left in that part of the country overall — who generally desire only one thing from their politicians: that they be of the left, while their ethics, honesty and integrity (not to mention common sense) be damned.
Comment by Mark — 12/16/2008 @ 8:33 pm
Mark:
Could you explain why you feel Caroline Kennedy is unethical, dishonest and lacks integrity? Perhaps you could provide concrete evidence to support these claims.
Thanks in advance!
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/16/2008 @ 8:39 pm
Caroline and Hillary both wrote books. Hillary claimed to have billed a lot of hours at the Rose law firm. Caroline has done a lot of public service work as had Hillary. Hillary dodged snipers in Tuzla. Caroline dodged Uncle Teddy in Hyannisport.
I’m with Old Coot, I think, from the other thread though and insist that the new Democrat Palin Rules be applied here. Caroline has kids. She has to stay home. The job of Senator is more demanding than the job of Vice President. How could she possibly perform the job and take care of her kids at the same time? The new rules must apply.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/16/2008 @ 8:45 pm
Here is my favorite argument in favor of Caroline Kennedy (who is apparently no longer using the Schlossberg name at all?) that is being pushed on liberal blogs:
She is a double-Ivy graduate — Harvard College and Columbia Law — who has written books on Constitutional law!
Hmmm. I am thinking of a fellow they have derided as stupid for the last eight years who is also a double-Ivy graduate — Yale College and Harvard Business School. And, let’s face it, since the days of Uncle Jack no Kennedy has really written their own book. They simply hire some crackerjack researchers and writers to do it for them (viz. Ted Sorenson). Even if Caroline did write it all on her own, is there any doubt that the only reason a publisher gave her a contract is her famous lineage?
When liberals say someone is intelligent, they really just mean that the person subscribes to the views acceptable to the left-wing elite. How else would someone as stupidly oafish as Joe Biden ever be credited for bringing [cough, cough] gravitas to the Obama ticket.
Comment by JVW — 12/16/2008 @ 8:46 pm
I don’t think the fact that Palin had kids was what Democrats had against her. I think her policies were what they disagreed with. Now, if you want to talk about the centrists… I suppose that is possible that a small percentage of the centrist electorate felt that way.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/16/2008 @ 8:47 pm
“Could you explain why you feel Caroline Kennedy is unethical, dishonest and lacks integrity?”
tnj – Read Mark’s comment again idiot. He did not specifically say Caroline Kennedy had any issues.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/16/2008 @ 8:48 pm
The Caroline Cadre is already on top of the kids argument, daleyrocks. They quickly point out that two of her kids are already in college (18 and 20) and the other is 16 and on his way in a couple of years.
Comment by JVW — 12/16/2008 @ 8:48 pm
That is a mighty damning conjecture to post without any sort of proof.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/16/2008 @ 8:48 pm
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/16/2008 @ 8:48 pm
Then I guess we don’t have a problem with her after all.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/16/2008 @ 8:49 pm
“I don’t think the fact that Palin had kids was what Democrats had against her.”
rnj – You should have stopped with “I don’t think.” You need to revisit some of the early vicious articles and blog posts questioning her motherhood and even sex. Some very nonprogressive and sexist arguments were made against her, even by the radical feminists.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/16/2008 @ 8:51 pm
That is a mighty damning conjecture to post without any sort of proof.
Which part? The part that JFK and Ted Kennedy (and probably RFK too, if he wrote any books) hire ghostwriters? That ain’t hard to prove at all, and at this point only the most obsessive Kennedy-worshipers believe otherwise. I did admit that there is a possibility that Caroline wrote her law book herself, but I stand by my assertion that no publisher would be interested in it if not for the fact that she is a Kennedy and therefore has a built-in guarantee level of sales.
And it is laughable that you of all people would chide anyone for making supposedly unsubstantiated allegations.
Comment by JVW — 12/16/2008 @ 8:54 pm
“…a small percentage of the centrist electorate felt that way.’
Comment by liesntyranny — 12/16/2008 @ 8:47 pm
Wow, someone’s being nuanced.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/16/2008 @ 8:54 pm
Comment by JVW — 12/16/2008 @ 8:54 pm
If it is not hard to prove then I am excited to read your evidence supporting the claim.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/16/2008 @ 8:56 pm
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/16/2008 @ 8:51 pm
Any specific references?
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/16/2008 @ 8:57 pm
And…it starts again….and here I thought that high school teachers spent ALL their time grading papers, this being exam week and all.
As for JFK’s authorship of “Profiles in Courage,” well…it is pretty simple to check that out before posting that people assert things without proof. Such as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profiles_in_courage#Authorship_controversy
But this is nothing new. It just likes to argue. Which brings me back to its dream job:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/16/2008 @ 8:58 pm
One other:
http://volokh.com/posts/1147033480.shtml
Do your own research from now on, tnj. We aren’t the Sorensen to your JFK.
Comment by JVW — 12/16/2008 @ 8:59 pm
I just think we need to have proof for our assertions. I don’t think I could get away with posting something without backing it up, so why should you get that luxury?
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/16/2008 @ 8:58 pm
So I guess, in the case of one book, one of the Kennedys did have some help… according to wikipedia. I will have to keep in mind that wikipedia is a legitimate source; I have been told otherwise when I have posted links in support of my arguments.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/16/2008 @ 9:04 pm
tnj…punked again!
Comment by Another Drew — 12/16/2008 @ 9:06 pm
But JVW, what this troll think is as follows:
Most of the posters are Patterico are right of center. I’ll take a contradictory position, and that makes me brave and cool (at least electronically). I don’t need to look anything up. I’ll just claim the opposite stand from them, and stir everyone up so that folks start name calling. I’ll also threadjack with abandon. Boy howdy, I’m a powerful fellow, speaking Troof to Powder!
Doesn’t that sound about right?
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/16/2008 @ 9:06 pm
Sarah Palin was thrust upon the national scene and immediately blitzed with questions to test whether she was prepared or not for the job ahead of her. OK, that is the nature of running for the Vice Presidency. All we ask is that Caroline Kennedy [Schlossberg] be asked a similar litany of questions to see if she is up to being a U.S. Senator. After all, if she were running in a traditional election she would have to debate an opponent in advance. At the very least — and considering she is a brilliant Ivy-league graduate (twice!) — she ought to show us that she has a clue about the issues upon which she will be voting. The quiz can be divided into the following topics: Economics, the Military, the Federal Budget, Entitlements, Pakistan, Immigration, Iraq, Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, Trade, Mexico, and maybe some others. Real questions too, not just general “what do you think about. . .” sorts of queries. Let’s see how she comes out of that.
Comment by JVW — 12/16/2008 @ 9:06 pm
So I guess, in the case of one book, one of the Kennedys did have some help… according to wikipedia. I will have to keep in mind that wikipedia is a legitimate source; I have been told otherwise when I have posted links in support of my arguments.
Ignore my link, will you tnj? You lost this argument the moment you hit “Submit Comment,” but that’s par for the course with you.
Comment by JVW — 12/16/2008 @ 9:08 pm
Wow. Proving my point, even before I posted!
Which brings me back to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8gsaDdqGzA
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/16/2008 @ 9:08 pm
From the Volokh link, here’s another source discussing who wrote Profiles in Courage.
Comment by DRJ — 12/16/2008 @ 9:10 pm
I absolutely agree, and I would be withholding my opinion of her until she has proved that she is prepared for the job.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/16/2008 @ 9:11 pm
It writes:
If only!
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/16/2008 @ 9:12 pm
Your link didn’t look legit, JVW.
Having said that, can we make the assumption that no Kennedy has ever written their own book, based on evidence of this one?
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/16/2008 @ 9:14 pm
Back to the Argument Room!
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/16/2008 @ 9:16 pm
truthnjustice #25,
Did you extend the same benefit of the doubt to Palin?
Comment by DRJ — 12/16/2008 @ 9:16 pm
Just to p*ss off tnj, and I am not going to provide any links, but his Harvard senior thesis, Why England Slept, which was turned into a book, was also alleged to have been ghost-written by one of Joe Kennedy’s paid hacks.
Teddy K. is listed under 43 entries at the Library of Congress, but some of them are sound recordings and not just books. A simple way to tell whether or not Teddy wrote the books credited to him is to read one of them, and if it is not full of “uh” and “ah” and “er” then we can safely conclude that he didn’t.
Comment by JVW — 12/16/2008 @ 9:17 pm
The Kennedys have written a lot of books, but the ghostwriter claims I’m familiar with involve the books written by JFK.
Comment by DRJ — 12/16/2008 @ 9:20 pm
I absolutely agree, and I would be withholding my opinion of her until she has proved that she is prepared for the job.
So then you agree she shouldn’t be selected if she’s not given a bunch of detailed questions? Or it’s okay if they select here but you’ll withhold your opinion as to whether she should have been selected?
Comment by Gerald A — 12/16/2008 @ 9:20 pm
A future career move for you know who:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJXoyf_Mx74&feature=related
Dare to dream. Dare to dream.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/16/2008 @ 9:20 pm
Your link didn’t look legit, JVW.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/16/2008 @ 9:14 pm
Of course, it would be too much trouble to actually follow it to find out (as the rest of us did), wouldn’t it?
Comment by Another Drew — 12/16/2008 @ 9:22 pm
I absolutely agree, and I would be withholding my opinion of her until she has proved that she is prepared for the job.
So you will consider her an illegitimate Senator if she does not answer these sort of questions before accepting the nomination, or am I going too far in putting words into your mouth? Maybe we should just have a civil service exam and the highest scorer can have the seat.
Having said that, can we make the assumption that no Kennedy has ever written their own book, based on evidence of this one?
OK, in the spirit of the holiday season I’ll cop to a little bit of hyperbole. I am sure that Mike Kennedy does his own writing.
Comment by JVW — 12/16/2008 @ 9:23 pm
I was already leaning towards Obama (probably irreversibly) when Palin was announced as the VP candidate. However, her positions on the issues did not match up to mine at all, so I felt even stronger about my decision once she was announced.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/16/2008 @ 9:23 pm
Hey, JVW…would that be like the guy who Teddy paid to take his Spanish Final at Harvard? Or when he ran away from the cops while drunk driving? I’m leaving out MJK….
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/16/2008 @ 9:25 pm
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/16/2008 @ 9:20 pm
If there is any actual, you know, talent involved, then our whiz-kid is not going to make it.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/16/2008 @ 9:25 pm
Could you explain why you feel Caroline Kennedy is unethical, dishonest and lacks integrity?
I’m not questioning her ethics or honesty, but I am questioning the ability of such people to place qualities of character against the backdrop of an embrace (if not adoration) of liberalism. However, I certainly do question the common sense of Caroline Kennedy and of most of those affiliated with the Democrat Party.
Moreover, there is saying that you can judge a person by the company he (or she) keeps. Or, better yet, extend that to the concept that a person can be rated by the quality of his or her judgment. Therefore, when I see Democrats like Caroline Kennedy doing back flips to rationalize away the flakiness and dishonesty of the current Senator from New York, Hillary “sniper-fire” Clinton, along with so many who are similar to her, including Hillary’s old man (ie, Mr “meaning-of-is-is”), I can’t help but think that most people like Caroline (ie, a person of the left) perceive a person’s basic integrity as of limited importance next to his or her feel-good (and simpleminded) ideology.
Comment by Mark — 12/16/2008 @ 9:26 pm
Ha! Clever!
I am just trying to get a feel of how I am to support my assertions.
And illegitimate? What is the precident for the replacement of a senator?
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/16/2008 @ 9:27 pm
Comment by Mark — 12/16/2008 @ 9:26 pm
I respect that reasoning, but I would suggest that liberalism is not a disease or something to be dreaded.
Liberals come in all different shapes and sizes (and ideologies), just like conservatives.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/16/2008 @ 9:29 pm
Comment by liesntyranny — 12/16/2008 @ 9:27 pm
Why do you ask us when you are the self-anointed authority on all things?
Comment by Another Drew — 12/16/2008 @ 9:30 pm
Um…let’s see, spelling aside. The Constitution of the United States of America?
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/16/2008 @ 9:31 pm
AD- That is not a very constructive post. Can we continue the conversation?
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/16/2008 @ 9:31 pm
I’m wanting (as the new grammar goes) to see Caroline accept the passing of the Yankees’ cap from Hillary. New Yorkers so deserve her.
Comment by PC14 — 12/16/2008 @ 9:31 pm
truthnjustice #36,
You don’t have to vote for someone to give them the benefit of the doubt. So did you?
Comment by DRJ — 12/16/2008 @ 9:32 pm
And illegitimate? What is the precident for the replacement of a senator?
The governor of that state appoints a crony from the same party, often one who wouldn’t be able to get elected on his or her own, but who will stand a really good chance of winning as an incumbent.
Appointing Caroline Kennedy would not be a radical departure from precedent, but it would put to lie any claims the Democrats had of being “agents of change” or bringing about “a new politics.” It would be the same old cronyism with brand-new faces.
Comment by JVW — 12/16/2008 @ 9:32 pm
Enough with the threadjacker. He has papers to grade, after all.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/16/2008 @ 9:33 pm
I’m wanting (as the new grammar goes) to see Caroline accept the passing of the Yankees’ cap from Hillary. New Yorkers so deserve her.
Well, if this were to literally happen the good people of Boston would have to start hating at least one Kennedy.
Comment by JVW — 12/16/2008 @ 9:34 pm
Well, other than my disagreement with her positions, I have to admit that once I saw her taking questions in interviews I was concerned about her ability to think on her feet. I think that is requisite for the POTUS.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/16/2008 @ 9:35 pm
I have to admit that once I saw her taking questions in interviews I was concerned about her ability to think on her feet. I think that is requisite for the POTUS.
Does it count if all you can do is bulls**t on your feet like Joe Biden?
Comment by JVW — 12/16/2008 @ 9:36 pm
We are still talking about Caroline Kennedy, EB.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/16/2008 @ 9:36 pm
And, by the way, as we saw, Obama isn’t particularly eloquent without his trusty teleprompter.
Comment by JVW — 12/16/2008 @ 9:37 pm
How else would someone as stupidly oafish as Joe Biden
What I found laughable were all the liberals who’d deride the nature of Sarah Palin while conveniently sidestepping something as fundamentally idiotic as Biden’s claim that FDR not only was in the White House in 1929, but that he gave his speeches (if not fireside chats) on television.
I recall one well-known woman libber who penned an anti-Palin op-ed piece (in the LA Times) that pretty much focused on the politics of McCain’s running mate — her conservative views — and dispensed with everything else. I can accept that. What I can’t accept is when liberals pretend that their likes and dislikes — and way of judging and rating politicians in particular — are predicated on everything and anything other than ideology.
Comment by Mark — 12/16/2008 @ 9:38 pm
JVW- Your hostility is noted.
I disagree with your assessment of Biden.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/16/2008 @ 9:38 pm
Comment by Mark — 12/16/2008 @ 9:38 pm
I think that comment is interesting. I don’t think that those on the left are alone in their thought processes. The opinions I read on here about Democratic candidates often are not based on their positions.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/16/2008 @ 9:41 pm
What I found laughable were all the liberals who’d deride the nature of Sarah Palin while conveniently sidestepping something as fundamentally idiotic as Biden’s claim that FDR not only was in the White House in 1929, but that he gave his speeches (if not fireside chats) on television.
Frankly the one I thought was worst of all was Biden’s invitation to all of us to go to Katie’s Diner in Wilmington and see how real middle-class American’s live. It is Biden at his most unctuous and hammy: all “look at me, I’m just an ordinary guy who lives among the people, not a Washington, DC insider of 30+ years with a grandiose sense of entitlement.” As we all know, it turns out that Katie’s closed 15 years ago, so it is simply Joe Biden at his phoniest. This should have been the object of weeks worth of derision among the media, had they not been so busy trying to find out if Governor Palin had overstepped her bounds in trying to have a drunken, kid-tasering cop fired.
[tnj,this is why I call Biden "stupidly oafish," and I don't apologize for my "hostility," as you put it.]
Comment by JVW — 12/16/2008 @ 9:45 pm
I wasn’t asking you to apologize for your hostility, JVW.
I agree. I think our politicians, who can be on the road for months and months at a time, should be able to name every restaurant at which they have had a meal for the past 10 years.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/16/2008 @ 9:49 pm
…or magazines/newspapers they have read.
Sorry guys, that one just slipped.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/16/2008 @ 9:50 pm
I agree. I think our politicians, who can be on the road for months and months at a time, should be able to name every restaurant at which they have had a meal for the past 10 years.
I don’t. But I also don’t think they should be waxing poetic (in present tense) about a restaurant that closed 15 years ago, and telling us we ought to go dine there with him. I also don’t think they ought to be telling tales about Saturday afternoons at the Home Depot in Wilmington when none of the workers there recall ever having seen him there.
Comment by JVW — 12/16/2008 @ 9:51 pm
58- Now, that is monumentally stupid. You are truly an ignoranimus; plus, being a maroon.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/16/2008 @ 9:53 pm
Besides, tnj, it’s his alleged hometown. You know, which he claims to go home to every night when his tough day as a Senator is over. How do you get that wrong unless you are a serial bulls**tter to begin with?
Ah, but look, we are off-topic again.
Comment by JVW — 12/16/2008 @ 9:54 pm
Again, that wasn’t constructive. ‘Oh’ for two, AD.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/16/2008 @ 9:55 pm
I’m revolted and disgusted by the prospect of Her Royal Kennedyness, Princess Caroline Kennedy von Schlossberg, of the Duchy of Bloomingdale’s, occupying an erstwhile elected position in a Democracy through appointment by an unelected Governor, especially when there are so many women in New York with sound governmental experience to choose from, like Carol Bellamy, Elizabeth Holtzman, as well as even more famous and glamorous women New Yorkers, like Jocelyn Wildenstein.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 12/16/2008 @ 9:55 pm
I love how we aren’t supposed to say “Schlossberg” any longer. Apparently the Kennedy family learned from Kathleen Kennedy Townsend what happens when you muddle-up the family name with an additional married last-name. It’s a one-way ticket to political obscurity. If we are to go by the latest news stories, Caroline apparently is back to being just Caroline Kennedy.
I am right about this, correct? She didn’t suddenly get a divorce on us? That would be so. . . so. . . Kennedy of her.
Comment by JVW — 12/16/2008 @ 9:59 pm
“Any specific references?”
tnj – Sorry, stepped away. Google something like “Sarah Palin should stay home with her kids” and you will be amazed at the choices.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/16/2008 @ 10:01 pm
Comment by liesntyranny — 12/16/2008 @ 9:55 pm
Quite the contrary, I consider my comments to be very constructive and erudite in their disdain for your pseudo-intellectualism.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/16/2008 @ 10:01 pm
Comment by JVW — 12/16/2008 @ 9:59 pm
Actually, wouldn’t it be proper to address her as Caroline Kennedy ne von Schlossberg?
Comment by Another Drew — 12/16/2008 @ 10:05 pm
I think the point of the thread was replacing one unqualified senator with another. If that’s what New York wants to do to itself with all its problems, I say let them go ahead. I don’t see how they can do worse than retaining Chuck Schumer while they’re at it, but I don’t live there anymore, so they get what they deserve.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/16/2008 @ 10:05 pm
I don’t see how they can do worse than retaining Chuck Schumer while they’re at it, but I don’t live there anymore, so they get what they deserve.
If you were talking about the governor I would heartily agree with you, but these bozos set policy for the entire country so we all need to worry.
Comment by JVW — 12/16/2008 @ 10:09 pm
Daley:
You are right, that was a bit sobering. I took the first two links and there was definitely some interesting reading. I got the impression that they were from opposite spectrums, though.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/16/2008 @ 10:13 pm
Caroline Kennedy has not held an elected office . . not even a humble one of girl scout troop leader. Why does she feel entitled? Because Daddy was president? She should start with something a bit more local . . . say mayor . . . and learn the ropes first. She might learn something useful.
Comment by JoeC — 12/16/2008 @ 10:21 pm
It is interesting to think about what that same statement may imply if you were to change ’she’ to ‘he’.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/16/2008 @ 10:30 pm
Yes, that is interesting!
. . .
. . .
. . .
What — uh, what does that mean, BTW?
Anything?
Comment by Icy Texan — 12/16/2008 @ 10:38 pm
It’s even more interesting for you to realize, just after you typed some more nonsense onto this esteemed blog, that Bush was elected twice, not appointed like Duchess Caroline wants to be. Got that? Bush was elected twice as President, and Governor of Texas, not elected to nothing but eager to be appointed, like Kennedy’s little rich girl.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 12/16/2008 @ 10:42 pm
Maybe Gov. Paterson should just appoint some elder statesman/woman to the position (Geraldine Ferraro or Mario Cuomo come to mind) with the understanding that they will step aside in 2010 and let the party nominate someone through the traditional method (i.e., union bosses and limousine liberals buy them the nomination).
Comment by JVW — 12/16/2008 @ 10:55 pm
The election of The President(snicker)Elect lowered the bar so much that Socks the cat could be appointed to replace Hillary.
Comment by nk — 12/17/2008 @ 4:35 am
I think it is only fair that Caroline be appointed to take the place of her uncle Teddy since he had no qualifications when he took the seat. I think his brother John said something about him needing a job. Barbara Boxer has been there for years and still has no qualifications. The basic fact underlying all this is that the Senator is usually a figurehead and the office is run by the staff. They tell him/her how to vote.
Small state Senators tend to be competent. Big state Senators tend to be fund raisers. Caroline swung the Democratic party establishment behind Obama by endorsing him early. Actually, I think the action was an anti-Clinton move by the “Kennedy wing” of the party so it is more than a little ironic to see Caroline replace Hillary in the seat.
Comment by Mike K — 12/17/2008 @ 6:49 am
Hillary Clinton was elected by the citizens of NY, twice. Caroline has never even ran for for any political office, let alone won.
At least appoint someone who has been elected and represented the interests of the citizens of NY in the past. There are plenty of viable candidates. Preferably select someone who has some actual achievements of some kind.
Comment by jk — 12/17/2008 @ 8:37 am
Ah, but Sweet Caroline has already asked for the seat, that alone makes her qualified – since all that preparation, organization and pleading adds up to some serious accomplishments for such a determined young lady! Is that not the narrative these days when it comes to the question of “experience?” Has she not already proven her worth by organizing all of those tea parties for the social elite in DC?
Comment by Dmac — 12/17/2008 @ 8:53 am
Kennedy – Just another example of an unqualified individual to seek a public position where experience and merit seems to mean very little. No wonder the current state of affairs is so bad. Even Hillary Clinton appears to be regarded as some sort of political veteran when the only reason she got into the senate was by being a former president’s wife. No experience, just a name. On top of that she’s a pathological liar. Unbelievable that she actually could have been president. Pathetic really.
Comment by Fiscan — 12/17/2008 @ 9:09 am
Yay! We’re a banana republic!
Comment by Rob Crawford — 12/17/2008 @ 9:14 am
How much money do Caroline Kennedy and her husband Schlossberg have and what do they do? They must be massively loaded. Schlossberg seems to be very successful on his own. She brings the Joe Kennedy and Onassis fortunes into the mix. Any (non-google) links on the fortunes would be appreciated.
So now we have three Senate seats that need to be super turbo vetted in about 3 weeks, while the MSM is out on Christmas holiday. Nice.
Comment by Wesson — 12/17/2008 @ 9:43 am
Did Tmj really try to claim the title of a centrist?
Comment by JD — 12/17/2008 @ 10:07 am
Well, I think he said center-left.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/17/2008 @ 10:18 am
That alone is sufficient to do nothing but mock and scorn TMJ for all eternity.
Did you know that TMJ Syndrome gives people headaches? SHOCKA
Comment by JD — 12/17/2008 @ 10:22 am
Hillary, much as I dislike her, was a fairly good lawyer and she certainly is a good politician. Carolyn has nothing but her name. Like her father, she is determined to prove the Peter Principle.
Comment by Ken Hahn — 12/17/2008 @ 10:24 am
Ken – I do not want to come across snarky, but there is little to no evidence that Hillary was a fairly good lawyer.
Regardless, other than the family name, this one has got nothing. But to the Dems, lack of actual experience at anything is a feature, not a bug.
Taking it one step further, it is impossible for her to be worse than Chuck Schumer, who has been repeatedly elected, so putting it to the people for a vote is really a non-starter, and does not change much.
Comment by JD — 12/17/2008 @ 10:29 am
So get this: It might not be just Caroline Kennedy running for the family seat. These could be three of the Dems candidates in 2012 Senate races:
NY: Caroline Kennedy, running for the seat her uncle previously held
Del: Beau Biden, running for the seat his father previously held
Colo: John Salazar, running for the seat his brother previously held
I would love to be the RNC Senate Campaign person who gets to design ads against that.
Comment by JVW — 12/17/2008 @ 11:01 am
To the Dems, name and image is far more important than such silly little concepts like experience and competency.
Comment by JD — 12/17/2008 @ 11:05 am
That should be 2010 Senate races; I’m getting ahead of myself.
And not to be morose, but if something happens to Ted Kennedy between now and next election the Dems might be finding themselves running Joseph P. Kennedy III for that seat in 2010. Four seats of Dem nepotism!
Comment by JVW — 12/17/2008 @ 11:06 am
Caroline should be appointed Senator from Illinois:
–Her family can afford the fee.
–She has the same connection to Illinois that Hillary Clinton had to New York.
–Her father is widely believed to have been elected President by votes stolen in Illinois.
–The people of Illinois are used to the sons and daughters of politicians being appointed to office. What’s one more?
–Caroline is free of scandal and not a idiot…making her better than about 99% of Illinois politicians.
Comment by Mike — 12/17/2008 @ 11:58 am
OK, Mike, but only if Andrew Cuomo is then appointed Senator from NY. The Dems won’t let a nepotism opportunity go to waste.
Comment by JVW — 12/17/2008 @ 12:02 pm
[...] Quote of the Day Love this quote via Patterico: [...]
Pingback by Quote of the Day « Something should go here, maybe later. — 12/17/2008 @ 2:45 pm
After Ted Kennedy was elected as Massachusetts senator the first time, everybody (including the media) treated it as a big joke.
Will Rogers once commented that when he made a joke, it was only a joke. But when Congress made a joke, it was a law.
Comment by JM — 12/17/2008 @ 3:44 pm
He also said that he was not a member of any organized political party,
He was a Democrat!
Comment by Another Drew — 12/17/2008 @ 4:01 pm