Caroline Kennedy for US Senate? Royalty Continues in the Colonies

Hi, This is danny. It's coooooool andsimply superb.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Danny
Uk Horse betting

Mark, you've raised an excellent point. There definitely are political "dynasties," and name recognition still goes a long ways. Of course, this is true not just in politics, but in many areas. Having the last name "Ford" used to be pretty good if you were interested in the car business, for example.

Good to see you posting again.

It's only half a story. Take Bush, GM of the Rangers and well known in business circles in Texas he easily could of made a run. Now would he of won? Name recognition is only part of it. Kennedy wouldn't have a chance if she wasn't so active in New York.

Bush had run for office before in 1978 for the U.S. Congress. Why should anyone be allowed to have the U.S. as their first elected office without every having run for office before or served as an elected official before. It is sort of like the Democrta having the Rockefellers, Corzine, Cantawell, and Kohl purchase their seats in the Senate.

Though I do like Caroline Kennedy, I agree that its dangerous to elect people based on their political pedigree rather than knowledge, ability and experience. Hillary turned out to be ok for NY, and Eleanor Roosevelt made an admirable UN ambassador, but GW certainly has been an unholy disaster, and Joseph Kennedy III was not the best Washington has ever seen either. They CAN be defeated, however. Mark Shriver was defeated for Congress by Chris Van Hollen in Maryland, who by all accts is bright, ambitious, knowledgeable and hard-working.

I'm actually more worried about celebrity Chris Matthews running against Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, because then I won't be able to watch him talk over guests on Hardball, LOL!

kritt:
I don't argue that the heirs of dynasties can't be defeated. GWBush was in 1978, for example. His father was in in his 1980 run for the GOP presidential nomination. Ted Kennedy lost in his bid for the Dem nomination for president that same year. Romney lost. Gore lost. But would these folks get their parties' nominations apart from the fact that previous generations built up contacts, sources of money, and cache? I don't think so. Having those names is no guarantee of election. But unless you simply blow it--like the most recent Bob Taft during his tenure as governor here in Ohio or the Roosevelt children did--there are dynasties within the parties.

And as to your point about Matthews, I disagree. He would not be a "celebrity" candidate. I think that his background makes him a qualified candidate for the Senate: former Peace Corps volunteer, former aide to Speaker Tip O'Neill, one-time speech writer for President Jimmy Carter, author, analyst of US politics and American character, and obviously, familiar with the issues. Matthews may be a sexist and that bothers me. But I think that his credentials are more eminent than most of the people who run for the US Senate.

Thanks for your comments.

sd:
GWBush did run for Congress in 1978. But I don't see that as being in any way germane to whether he should have run for Texas governor in 1994 or the presidency in 2000. The 1978 run didn't make him any more or less qualified to seek higher offices.

And I don't think it essential for someone to have run for or served in some other office to run for things like governor or US Senator.

It seems to me that if a person has been a leader in their professions and communities for sustained periods of their life, there's a good chance that they have what it takes to be a governor, for example. In fact, one of the tragedies of US politics, it seems to me, is that we've forgotten the Cincinnatus model, the one to which our first and greatest president, the GWashington, adhered. Washington did not spend his entire life in politics and after rendering service to his country, retired to Mount Vernon. I believe that US government would be better off if we drew from a larger pool of capable people to serve in major offices. All around us there are strong leaders, civic minded, and knowledgeable of public affairs who could do great jobs as mayors, governors, cabinet members, other administrators, and even presidents, though they've never spent a day in elected office: college presidents, business executives and entrepreneurs, union leaders, social service executives, and even rabbis, priests, imams, or pastors sensing calls to different vocational pursuits.

Senators, I think, should people who know how to think and ask questions, in addition to having a record of public engagement, along with a basic understanding of how the Constitution works. One blogger, I don't remember who, one who advocates Caroline Kennedy's appointment to the Senate, said, rightly I think, that to serve as a Senator, you need fewer obvious "political" qualifications than for any other major office.

Now, I don't think that people with zero political experience should run for president. It seems to me that the candidacies of people like Ross Perot, Alan Keyes, and Steve Forbes, for example, were silly wastes of time and voter attention.

But I don't think that service in "lower" offices should be seen as necessary for service in places like governorships or senate seats.

EE:
Some would call GWBush's record as GM of the Rangers a disaster. By their lights, he was installed in that position by his father's friends after he failed in the oil business. He then got Texas to put up the money to build the stadium in Arlington, probably because his father was president and otherwise made one mistake after another in that role. Years ago, Life magazine published a short story about an auto company executive turned president, whose every resume stop was a disaster followed by his being kicked upstairs.

Name recognition is only one part of the dynastic tradition in US politics. It's also about accumulated contacts, sources of money, and cache within a specific political party. It doesn't always translate into election. But it's a huge advantage in securing nominations and appointments to vacant offices.

Caroline Kennedy may not be appointed to the Senate by Governor Paterson. But being a Kennedy means that, at the very least, he must talk with her about the seat.

Thanks for all of your comments.

Mark

I want to correct one thing in my previous comments.

I don't think it's necessary for a candidate for president to have served in elective political office. If a person has served in high governmental office, say as a Cabinet officer, I think that they may have sufficient experience to warrant a presidential run.

In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower ran for president without having held elective political office. But the major general had spent thirty years in and around Washington and world politics, working as a liaison from the Army to Congress, an aide to General Pershing, General Marshall, and General MacArthur, and effectively and diplomatically leading the Allied forces in defeating the Nazis during World War 2. All of this, along with Eisenhower's character and personality made him more than sufficient for the presidency. I count him as one of our four best presidents ever.

Mark

Mark Bush didn't fail in the oil business. First his dads "friends" had nothing to do with his oil business and after he sold his company for million plus he put together a deal to purchase the team from his dads friend, which had more to do with him getting investors to pony up 89 mil than any friendship. Bush was managing partner and general manager and Rangers got Nolan Ryan and had there first winning season in three years with record attendance. At that point his lobbying for a new stadium was successful in that Arlington put it to a vote and it passed 2 to 1 so to say it was because of his dad is just weak. The Rangers were in first place when the Baseball strike occurred before he was elected. Sounds like he did ok to me. People can dislike Bush and thats fine but that everything about him has to be horrible is just silly and dishonest.

That should probably be an iffier proposition than it is in light of Clinton’s problem with the emoluments clause of the US Constitution.

Wow. Just wow.

Here you are again, unthinkingly passing along knuckleheaded wingnut taking points.

Even other self-identified conservatives have debunked this one:

Excuse me, I thought the Emoluments Clause prevents congressmen from creating a job or hiking a salary and then taking that job.

Apparently, the Journal believes it prevents a congressman or senator from joining an administration.

Henry Clay might disagree.

Clinton Derangement Syndrome is alive and well in many of the usual places.

The traditional answer to this problem is called the Saxbe Fix, even though it predates the Nixon Administration.

Maybe you ought to consider using Google in the future, instead of just taking Ann Althouse's word for it.

To believe that you can step into government at the highest levels without any previous experience is why the government is so messed up right now. Unless you have worked in Congress, you will not understand the planning, programming, and budgeting cycles. You will not understand ways and means and you not understand the limits on government.

Having a rank amatuer in goverment because of family relations gives her staff all of the power. Ted Kennedy is going to all but will his seat to a family member. Does the U.S. really need to Kennedy's who have never worked a real job in their life in the U.S. Senate?

If you want to pick out someone to appoint, please find someone who attend a public university and whose children attend public schools. That person would have much more knowledge on what needs to be done than the prep school, Ivy league isolated elitisit that a Kennedy would be.

sd- so only the status quo for you, huh?

ee:
I like Bush okay. But his resume could suggest to some that he wasn't qualified to be president. And, from everything I've read, he was no success in the oil business and his father's friends did offer him the GM position as a sort of golden parachute.

GS:
Please read the Constitution. I know that Bill Saxbe and Lloyd Bentsen, among others, got into the Cabinet despite the emoluments clause. But just because the Constitution was ignored in past instances doesn't mean that it should be now.

sd:
As I said in my original post, Kennedy may be qualified for the Senate. She is clearly a studious person, an author, and one who has done a lot for the New York school system. But I don't think that anyone who's a member of political royalty--whether it's a Bush, a Clinton, a Kennedy, a Gore, a Romney, a Taft, a Lodge, an Adams, a Roosevelt, a Rockefeller, or whatever--should be given special treatment.

Increasingly, family businesses are turning to outside succession consultants to help with their generational handoffs. They're doing so in recognition of the fact that often businesses die once the successor generation takes over day to day operations. They may know the notes, but they rarely feel the music. There's a lesson in there for anyone who thinks that just because a child grew up in an atmosphere in which politics was a prime passion, it makes them more likely to be effective in politics themselves. Genes can't ensure that.

Again, thank you for your thoughtful and thought-provoking comments. And so what if we disagree on some things? As the old saying puts it, "If two people agree on everything, at least one of them is irrelevant."

Mark

MJ,

I pretty much agree with everything you've said here. In the end what counts, though, is competence and (Though this case is an appointment.) how the people feel about it. I think that most people in New York will be pretty happy with Caroline (Kennedy) Schlossberg in office. When the next election comes if she decides to run they will have the chance to express their will.

If you think that Bush was unqualified, the Carolina Kennedy is massively unqualified. She did not write two books, she co-authored two books where the other person was the real writers. She sits on a boards of charitable organizations. That is not what it takes to learn the government. She never attended a public school in her life and her children have never been inside a public school. Ms. Kennedy thinks so little of public schools that none of her relatives have ever attended public schools.

She is an elitist who needs to be kept far away from government. If she wants to be a senator, how about running for the office before she becomes an incumbent. Is there not one qualified Congressman, state senator, etc from NY who should ten times the job that an unqualified elitst could do? Are all of the politicians in NY so incompetent that an amatuer with the correct family is the best alterantive?

Mark- I never said that Matthews wasn't qualified-- I think that he definitely is. I said that I would miss his show which I try to watch every day.

He is definitely a sexist- and as a former Hillary supporter-- it bothers me as well, since he skewered her regularly during the primaries. Also, he seems to enjoy the sound of his own voice a little too much and often doesn't have the patience to listen to his guests--not sure how that would go over in the Senate. What he does have going for him is a passion for politics, a great wit, and a sharp analytical ability to cut through the spin and hype.

If I lived in Pa- I would probably vote for him- I like Specter but think that having a Senate full of 80 year olds is not the way to meet today's challenges.

SD- If you object to elitists, did you vote against Bush 41 and 43? What about John McCain?

We should be looking for knowledge on the issues, willingness to work hard and intelligence, not just pedigree or years in elected office. Cheney spent his entire life in elected office-- and he has been an unmitigated disaster running a shadow government that was at cross purposes to public policy.

I would love it if a few women would weigh in on this discussion.

Mark

kritt:
Sorry for misunderstanding your earlier comments.

Mark

kritt,

If knowledge on the issues really meant anything to you, you would be posting to keep the second and third generations of Kennedys as far away from the government as possible. Where has Ms. Kennedy displayed knowledge of economic, energy, foreign policy, environmental issues. Her knowledge of environmental issues is limited to telling her servants to recycle. Not a huge amount of knowledge on issues that affect most Americans.

I am sure that Ms. Kennedy has lots of knowledge on how to handle herself in high society and what gown to wear for a charity ball. I doubt she would have any knowledge on getting up going to work, paying bills, and balancing a budget.

It is humjorous that President-Elect Obama is not even in office and the progressive posters are beginning to resumble Rush LImbuagh from 2001.

Sigh.

Mark-- At least one woman has!

SD- You are unfairly stereotyping Caroline Kennedy--who is much more knowledgeable about issues than Sarah Palin, and you never responded to my comment about both Bushes, who despite W.'s corn pone accent and PR shots clearing brush, were clearly elitists. Your ludicrous comment about Rush Limbaugh does not dignify an answer from progressive posters so I will ignore it.

Some politicians who were not elitists like Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter had failed presidencies.

Ms. Ritter

EE-

Yes we ALL would have been better off if Bush stayed in Texas with the Rangers-- he was in his element there. In Washington, he was clearly out of his comfort zone and could not meet the enormous challenges of the job. IMO, he often clung stubbornly to ideology instead of looking for solutions that met the problems the nation faced. Bush surrounded himself with yes men and toadies- who kowtowed instead of giving him solid advice. If he never heard opposing views and couldn't admit mistakes or be flexible- how could he succeed?

Also, he was way too partisan to unite the country-- which led directly to Obama's victory.

kritt,

The U.S. has had elites in charge of public schools for decades and it has been a tremendous failure. Gerald Ford was an elitist (children in private schools, lived in DC instead of in his district). Besides, Ford never actually won the office. Ronald Reagan was less of an elitist than Ford.

Of course the Bush's were failures because they were elitist who listen to elitist advisors instead of paying attention to pricinple. It is hard to say that GW Bush was a doctrine conservative while he expanded government and added five trillion to the national debt. GW Bush is a good example of an elitist who tries to do too much with the federal government and fails while doing it (the same can be said for Nixon).

C. Kennedy would be in the same line. Someone who avoid all negative impacts of failed government policies while trying to added more layers to government policies. C. Kennedy would support open borders and unlimited immigration because her children and grand children never have to compete for jobs. C. Kennedy would support emptying jaiils and depolicing because her family is protected by private security. C. Kennedy wold support social engineering in the public schools because none of her family will ever attend public schools. C. Kennedy would support expanding quotas and affirmative action because it will not affect her family. C. Kennedy would support more federal regulation of the economy and having the federal government decide winners and losers because her famiily has already won.