Robert's Plant Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 (edited) We need a Kennedy spirit in politics. They emanate such hope, just like President Obama. Dont shoot her down. Edited December 18, 2008 by Robert's Plant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigstickbonzo Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 If Teddy is still kicking, she has nothing to worry about...unless she shows capacity for actually getting things done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rover Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Records show Caroline Kennedy failed to cast her vote many times since 1988 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2...failed_to_.html Records show Kennedy did not pull the lever for any of her fellow Democrats in city primary races for mayor in 1989, 1993 and 1997 and 2005, which Republicans went on to win three out of four times in the general election. She was also AWOL for the primary and general elections in 1994, when Sen. Daniel Moynihan was running for reelection to the seat Kennedy hopes to hold. Aides to Kennedy - who Thursday said she was running in part because this is no time to "sit out" - conceded Thursday night that at times the daughter of former President John F. Kennedy has done just that. Most of the time, she voted, aides said. A review by The News found that of the 38 contested elections since 1988, Kennedy skipped about half, almost all of them primaries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 It's either a Kennedy or a Cuomo. I'd prefer Caroline, I think she has a greater capacity for fundraising and shining some light on NY issues, just because of her name recognition. I know it's not a qualification and it shouldn't be, but it also shouldn't be a knock against her either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dawg Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 How mauch is Hillary's seat worth? It must be cheaper than an Illinois seat. Is that why she did not run in her home state. I am glad Caroline's carpet bagging cousin ( KKT) was defeated by a native of the Old Line State. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmie ray Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Resist Kennedy's aristocratic entitlement Every state in the union is entitled to representation in the Senate. Camelot is not a state. About time someone posted something about politics that made sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rover Posted December 29, 2008 Share Posted December 29, 2008 Caroline Kennedy tells the NY Daily News: "I wouldn't be beholden to anybody" --- 'You Know' . . . . http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2...ews_i_woul.html "I'm really coming into this as somebody who isn't, you know, part of the system, who obviously, you know, stands for the values of, you know, the Democratic Party," Kennedy told the Daily News Saturday during a wide-ranging interview. "I know how important it is to, you know, to be my own person. And, you know, and that would be obviously true with my relationship with the mayor." "Andrew is, you know, highly qualified for this job," she said. "He's doing a, you know, a great job as attorney general, and we've spoken throughout this process." "You know, I think, you know, we're sort of, uh, sharing some of this experience. And um, as I've said, he was a friend, a family member, and um so, and uh obviously, he's, you know, he's also had an impressive career in public office." "It's really, you know, it's not about just the Kennedy name," she said. "It's about my own work and what I've done with those values." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrum Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 I'd rather see this Kennedy. He's probably got a lot more common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock N' Rollin' Man Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 (edited) Caroline Kennedy tells the NY Daily News: "I wouldn't be beholden to anybody" --- 'You Know' . . . . http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2...ews_i_woul.html "I'm really coming into this as somebody who isn't, you know, part of the system, who obviously, you know, stands for the values of, you know, the Democratic Party," Kennedy told the Daily News Saturday during a wide-ranging interview. "I know how important it is to, you know, to be my own person. And, you know, and that would be obviously true with my relationship with the mayor." "Andrew is, you know, highly qualified for this job," she said. "He's doing a, you know, a great job as attorney general, and we've spoken throughout this process." "You know, I think, you know, we're sort of, uh, sharing some of this experience. And um, as I've said, he was a friend, a family member, and um so, and uh obviously, he's, you know, he's also had an impressive career in public office." "It's really, you know, it's not about just the Kennedy name," she said. "It's about my own work and what I've done with those values." I'm surprised no one here that is a liberal is making fun of how she talked like a teenager in the same way that they made fun of Sarah Palin's accent. She seems like a nice woman and has done some nice things in the past but I don't think she has any qualifications to be a senator nor has elaborated on why she does have the qualifications. Edited December 30, 2008 by Rock N' Rollin' Man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinky Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 I remember saying when Hillary became Sec. of State "The only thing that could possibly be worse than her in politics is a Kennedey". She does not have the qualifications or good enough political ideals to make the laws for America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert's Plant Posted January 16, 2009 Author Share Posted January 16, 2009 Sunday, December 21, 2008 Resist Kennedy's aristocratic entitlement by Charles Krauthammer "I don't know what Caroline Kennedy's qualifications are. Except that she has name recognition, but so does J-Lo." -- Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Right idea, wrong argument. The problem with Caroline Kennedy's presumption to Hillary Clinton's soon-to-be-vacated Senate seat is not lack of qualification or experience. The Senate houses lots of inexperienced rookies -- wealthy businessmen, sports stars, even the occasional actor. The problem is Kennedy's sense of entitlement. Given her rather modest achievements, she is trading entirely on pedigree. I hate to be a good government scold, but wasn't the American experiment a rather firm renunciation of government by pedigree? Yes, the Founders were not democrats. They believed in aristocracy. But their idea was government by natural -- not inherited -- aristocracy, an aristocracy of "virtue and talents," as Jefferson put it. And yes, of course, we have our own history of dynastic succession: Adamses and Harrisons, and in the last century, Roosevelts, Kennedys and Bushes. Recently, we've even branched out into Argentine-style marital transmission, as in the Doles and the Clintons. It's not the end of the world, but it is an accelerating trend that need not be encouraged. After all, we have already created another huge distortion in our politics: a plethora of plutocrats in the U.S. Senate, courtesy of our crazed campaign finance laws. If you're very very rich, you can buy your Senate seat by spending as much of your money as you want. Meanwhile, your poor plebeian opponent is running around groveling for the small contributions allowed by law. Hence the Corzines and the Kohls, who parachute into Congress seemingly out of nowhere. Having given this additional leg up to the rich, we should resist packing our legislatures with yet more privileged parachutists, the well-born. True, the Brits did it that way for centuries, but with characteristic honesty. They established a house of Parliament exclusively for highborn twits and ensconced them there for life. There they chatter away in supreme irrelevance deep into their dotage. Problem is that the U.S. Senate retains House of Commons powers even as it develops a House of Lords membership. Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Caroline Kennedy. She seems a fine person. She certainly has led the life of a worthy socialite helping all the right causes. But when the mayor of New York endorses her candidacy by offering, among other reasons, that "her uncle has been one of the best senators that we have had in an awful long time," we've reached the point of embarrassment. Nor is Ms. Kennedy alone in her sense of entitlement. Vice President-elect Joe Biden's Senate seat will now be filled by Edward Kaufman, a family retainer whom no one ever heard of until he was appointed. And no one will hear from after two years, at which time Kaufman will dutifully retire. He understands his responsibility: Keep the Delaware Senate seat warm for two years until Joe's son returns from Iraq to assume his father's mantle. This, of course, is the Kennedy way. In 1960, John Kennedy's Senate seat was given to his Harvard roommate, one Ben Smith II (priceless name). He stayed on for two years --until Teddy reached the constitutional age of 30 required to succeed his brother. In light of the pending dynastic disposition of the New York and Delaware Senate seats, the Illinois way is almost refreshing. At least Gov. Rod Blagojevich (allegedly) made Barack Obama's seat democratically open to all. Just register the highest bid, eBay style. Sadly, however, even this auction was not free of aristo-creep. On the evidence of the U.S. attorney's criminal complaint, a full one-third of those under consideration were pedigreed: Candidate No. 2 turns out to be the daughter of the speaker of the Illinois House; Candidate No. 5, the first-born son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. Caroline Kennedy, Beau Biden and Jesse Jackson Jr. could some day become great senators. But in a country where advantages of education, upbringing and wealth already make the playing field extraordinarily uneven, we should resist encouraging the one form of advantage the American Republic strove to abolish: title. No lords or ladies here. If Princess Caroline wants a seat in the Senate, let her do it by election. There's one in 2010. To do it now by appointment on the basis of bloodline is an offense to the most minimal republicanism. Every state in the union is entitled to representation in the Senate. Camelot is not a state. Camelot being a state of mind. Unless they saw a mirage. The Kennedy years were surely glamourous years but the only thing mystical about it being how many women the President actually bedded and how much he partied with goons. Meh that is not even mystical. The only thing Camelot connotes as I see it is King Arthur and his knights if you know what I mean. I think it was such an inappropriate metaphor for the period of 1960 to 1963. But of course it quenches America's thirst for royalty. I do think despite of the late President's sheenanegans and those of his own wife's, Kennedy had a vision, a vision imbibed in his children by his wife. And I think Caroline as she capitalizes on her pedigree to get in Office also capitalizes on that pedigree to continue her father's unfinished work. Call it a test drive if you will, to see if she should run after being a stand-in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigstickbonzo Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 If there's a Kennedy who belongs in public office, its Bobby Jr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Sunday, December 21, 2008 Resist Kennedy's aristocratic entitlement by Charles Krauthammer "I don't know what Caroline Kennedy's qualifications are. Except that she has name recognition, but so does J-Lo." -- Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Right idea, wrong argument. The problem with Caroline Kennedy's presumption to Hillary Clinton's soon-to-be-vacated Senate seat is not lack of qualification or experience. The Senate houses lots of inexperienced rookies -- wealthy businessmen, sports stars, even the occasional actor. The problem is Kennedy's sense of entitlement. Given her rather modest achievements, she is trading entirely on pedigree. I hate to be a good government scold, but wasn't the American experiment a rather firm renunciation of government by pedigree? Yes, the Founders were not democrats. They believed in aristocracy. But their idea was government by natural -- not inherited -- aristocracy, an aristocracy of "virtue and talents," as Jefferson put it. And yes, of course, we have our own history of dynastic succession: Adamses and Harrisons, and in the last century, Roosevelts, Kennedys and Bushes. Recently, we've even branched out into Argentine-style marital transmission, as in the Doles and the Clintons. It's not the end of the world, but it is an accelerating trend that need not be encouraged. After all, we have already created another huge distortion in our politics: a plethora of plutocrats in the U.S. Senate, courtesy of our crazed campaign finance laws. If you're very very rich, you can buy your Senate seat by spending as much of your money as you want. Meanwhile, your poor plebeian opponent is running around groveling for the small contributions allowed by law. Hence the Corzines and the Kohls, who parachute into Congress seemingly out of nowhere. Having given this additional leg up to the rich, we should resist packing our legislatures with yet more privileged parachutists, the well-born. True, the Brits did it that way for centuries, but with characteristic honesty. They established a house of Parliament exclusively for highborn twits and ensconced them there for life. There they chatter away in supreme irrelevance deep into their dotage. Problem is that the U.S. Senate retains House of Commons powers even as it develops a House of Lords membership. Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Caroline Kennedy. She seems a fine person. She certainly has led the life of a worthy socialite helping all the right causes. But when the mayor of New York endorses her candidacy by offering, among other reasons, that "her uncle has been one of the best senators that we have had in an awful long time," we've reached the point of embarrassment. Nor is Ms. Kennedy alone in her sense of entitlement. Vice President-elect Joe Biden's Senate seat will now be filled by Edward Kaufman, a family retainer whom no one ever heard of until he was appointed. And no one will hear from after two years, at which time Kaufman will dutifully retire. He understands his responsibility: Keep the Delaware Senate seat warm for two years until Joe's son returns from Iraq to assume his father's mantle. This, of course, is the Kennedy way. In 1960, John Kennedy's Senate seat was given to his Harvard roommate, one Ben Smith II (priceless name). He stayed on for two years --until Teddy reached the constitutional age of 30 required to succeed his brother. In light of the pending dynastic disposition of the New York and Delaware Senate seats, the Illinois way is almost refreshing. At least Gov. Rod Blagojevich (allegedly) made Barack Obama's seat democratically open to all. Just register the highest bid, eBay style. Sadly, however, even this auction was not free of aristo-creep. On the evidence of the U.S. attorney's criminal complaint, a full one-third of those under consideration were pedigreed: Candidate No. 2 turns out to be the daughter of the speaker of the Illinois House; Candidate No. 5, the first-born son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. Caroline Kennedy, Beau Biden and Jesse Jackson Jr. could some day become great senators. But in a country where advantages of education, upbringing and wealth already make the playing field extraordinarily uneven, we should resist encouraging the one form of advantage the American Republic strove to abolish: title. No lords or ladies here. If Princess Caroline wants a seat in the Senate, let her do it by election. There's one in 2010. To do it now by appointment on the basis of bloodline is an offense to the most minimal republicanism. Every state in the union is entitled to representation in the Senate. Camelot is not a state. i love Krauthammer he is a very fair guy when it comes to politics. I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperDave Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 The reports are in that Caroline will withdraw her name for consideration for the senate seat left by Hillary. CNN reports. I heard that as well. She's doing it for personal reasons the report says. Obama probably promised her a job of some sort. Maybe an ambassador somewhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) Oh how I wish for the day that the Kennedy family stops being involved in American politics. What a joy it bring me Edited January 22, 2009 by wanna be drummer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperDave Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Oh how I wish for the day that the Kennedy family stops being involved in American politics. What a joy it bring me Probably won't be anytime soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 We need another Kennedy like we need another Bush. Camelot was a myth. If god cheated on his wife, than god is a douche. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Oh how I wish for the day that the Kennedy family stops being involved in American politics. What a joy it bring me Care to explain why? Not looking for an argument, just that I've read literally dozens of books on the various members who have pursued political office and personal lives aside, what have they done (or not done) politically that would warrant that type of comment? Looking over at my bookshelf I see 20 books on Jack and Bobby alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Care to explain why? Not looking for an argument, just that I've read literally dozens of books on the various members who have pursued political office and personal lives aside, what have they done (or not done) politically that would warrant that type of comment? Looking over at my bookshelf I see 20 books on Jack and Bobby alone. Bobby I have no problem with. I've simply never cared for John's presidency (highly overrated) and Ted was always too liberal for me. I just don't like their thinking politically for the most part. I don't wish them ill or anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Bobby I have no problem with. I've simply never cared for John's presidency (highly overrated) and Ted was always too liberal for me. I just don't like their thinking politically for the most part. I don't wish them ill or anything How about the fact Ted just had surgery to remove a tumor from his brain. Is 76 years old and still wants to be a senator after what 40years. Time to let the dream die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Bobby I have no problem with. I've simply never cared for John's presidency (highly overrated) and Ted was always too liberal for me. I just don't like their thinking politically for the most part. I don't wish them ill or anything I agree that Jack's presidency was overrated, more because of how he died than anything else. However I can understand to a point why people do it. He was young, there was a lot he wanted to accomplish (most of which Johnson got pushed through) and it was so sudden and random. I think that he was a good President, with the potential to be great. Bobby.....I think of both deaths, his was the one that hurt the most. The more I read of him and what he wanted to accomplish and how sorely needed it was.....the more I find his death a slap in the face. Ted is very liberal, I think a little more to the left than I am, but I don't know of anything politically he's done that I disagree with. It's his personal life that causes me to dislike him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 How about the fact Ted just had surgery to remove a tumor from his brain. Is 76 years old and still wants to be a senator after what 40years. First of all, the tumor is inoperable. He's had chemo and radiation treatments, but that's all they can do. Secondly, if he still feels mentally and physically capable to carry out his duties and the people of Massachusetts haven't seen fit to question his ability to serve, why should he be derided for that? He, along with his brothers, gave their lives to public service. He'll die in that Senate seat and if that's what he wants, then so be it. We've had people in elected office longer than 40 years, go complain about them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I guess i shouldn't complain about other people politicians. MY STATE OF ILLINOIS elected Blago and Obama. Two people who spent the last three years trying to get a better job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) You're actually comparing Blagojevich and Obama? Why not compare a turd to a diamond while you're at it. Obama became President through hard work, determination and a sheer will to succeed. Nothing corrupt or untoward in that. Blagojevich is a scheming little piece of shit that no one in MY home state can stand, Democrat or Republican. He's going to be impeached. That's never happened before. That's how horrible he is. To deride someone for striving to the highest office in the country is just ridiculous, even for you. Edited January 22, 2009 by Electrophile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Caroline Kennedy dropped out of being considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.