Although I live in New York and used to be reasonably involved in politics here, the question of who David Paterson will appoint to the Senate is not one about which I have a strong opinion. I am confident that almost all the candidates who Paterson is seriously considering would almost certainly vote the same way on the major issues and all would start at the bottom of an institution where it takes some time to accrue real power-even for those with a famous last name. If you don't believe that, ask Hillary Clinton.
I do, however, appreciate the irony of Governor Paterson agonizing over a tough decision about who to appoint to a Senate seat which many thought would be his. Two and a half years ago, when Paterson agreed to serve as the running mate for then Democratic gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer, it was broadly believed in New York political circles that Paterson was giving up his position in the Democratic leadership of the New York State Senate to help Spitzer with the understanding that when Hillary Clinton left the Senate to go to the White House, Spitzer would appoint Paterson to Clinton's vacated Senate seat. Things didn't work out quite that way.
Now, of course, what began as a question over whether Paterson would pick one of a handful of qualified members of the House of Representatives, or the sitting Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, has given way to a livelier debate over the merits of Caroline Kennedy. Who would have thought that Andrew Cuomo would be the candidate with only the second most famous political father-and a distant second at that?
Kennedy's candidacy for the Senate raises the issue of what qualities we should look for when choosing a senator. It seems that simply the ability to rise up the ranks of Democratic Party politics in New York State should not be the preeminent qualification. These skills are certainly helpful with regard to legislative and political matters, but they should not be confused with the vision and judgment needed to be a great senator.
The most commonly used argument against Caroline Kennedy is that she hasn't earned it, which is another way of saying she hasn't worked her way up through the party structures. To this I would raise the question "So What?" Why should any voter care about whether or not a candidate has earned anything? Being appointed to the US Senate is not like receiving a scholarship to college or even a job promotion, although being a senator is a great job. In other words it is not a decision that should be based retrospectively on merit, but prospectively on what that candidate will do in the Senate, and the notion that great senators need to have years of experience in elected office should not be just taken at face value. If Paterson thinks Caroline Kennedy can do the most for New York and for our country than he should appoint her. Obviously, political considerations, a balanced ticket, future electability and the like are all important too, but nobody is saying Kennedy is a bad candidate because she will bring the party down in 2010.
The notion that it would somehow be unfair to appoint Kennedy because she has not toiled in the House of Representatives for a decade should not be one that ordinary voters take seriously because it has no bearing on us. That is in argument for the insiders. You don't hear it said too frequently that somebody would have been a great senator if only she had served three terms in the House first. The Senate lends itself quite well to on the job training, especially given that new senators start at the bottom of the seniority ladder.
While I generally prefer candidates who do not come from political families, it seems a little peculiar for New York political leadership to become sensitive to this issue now. We are a state whose governor is the son of a famous political leader, junior senator is the wife of a former president and attorney general is the son of a former governor. In this regard Caroline Kennedy would be nothing new, although her name would be even more famous than the Cuomos, Clintons and Patersons which populate the state's current leadership.
Caroline Kennedy would probably be a very good US Senator, but she is not the only candidate about whom that can be said. Nydia Velazquez and Carolyn Maloney, just to name two, are both hard working progressive women who would also serve our state well in the Senate. In this regard, Paterson has a tough choice, but he should make it based on who will be the best senator, not on some insider's game of who has paid what dues.
Steve Clemons: Obama and Ted Kennedy See Plans Foiled as Caroline Withdraws?
Caroline Kennedy may yet be a factor in American politics. Obama would love it for his own reasons -- and so would the powerful political franchise that Ted Kennedy helped build.
But perhaps all those people talking about the cost of reelection have a point. Perhaps only the very wealthy and people with relatives in government can win the senate seat in New York. Caroline Kennedy never raised money for anyone who wasn't a family member, and I doubt her friends would either.
The New York senate seat, may not be available to anyone but the wealthy. The best the common people can hope for is a relatively sympathetic plutocrat.
But I'm not giving them any of my time or money. If the senate is going to be bought by someone, they can buy it themselves.
But the Bush and Kennedy family deserve special mention. The power of dynastic political families is so great that Jeb Bush can rise up out of the ashes of his brother's Presidency and announce his intentions to run and already the Republican Party is "clearing the field" for him. Caroline Kennedy - in an act of awesome political power and bravado has "called in her intentions" to New York Governor Paterson, a neat trick that other legacy candidates might as well try in the future.
And she says that her children also would like to run, just as the next generation of the Bush family is already being groomed for their time to walk on stage. This country can't get enough of it.
What ini God's name does Caroline Kennedy even stand for??????? Does anybody really know? She's been a recluse out in the Hamptons for as long as I can remember. Why should she simply be placed into a positoin of this level without any vetting and process to see if she demonstrates the leadership skills and connection with th constituents. So far, she's put on a pretty pathetic performance being whisked around in her Denali SUV, ignoring questions, and demonstrating no passion, ideas, or connection with constituents. I as a New Yorker say, please David Patterson, though I can understand the position you are in, I hope you find the strength to make the right decision. In these times we don't need to experiment with unknown equations. There is a very talented pool of people having demonstrated and proven themselves to be strong advocates for the people of New York with the passion and political skills to go along with it. Carline Kennedy mumbles and says nothing. I say if she really has something to offer, let her demonstrate it in a real campaign in 2010 and in the meantime appoint someone who has demonstrated the qualities to step into the role temporarily. I hope they even change this process all together where there are no appointments and the process goes through the people, the way it should be.
"The New York Post's Page 6 has apparently learned that non other than Rudy Giuliani is in talks to replace Bill O'Reilly's radio show.
See, you don't need talent, morals (adultery, mob ties, corruption), or even a personality to score a gig on the bible belt network."
To a certain extent, I can agree with the OP that agonizing over what constitutes adequate "experience" is a waste of time. Everyone has different life experience. As it happens, the role of US Senator is very unlike almost any other job -- even other legislative positions. It is arguable that intelligence, vision, and demeanor are more important attributes for a Senator than are prior parliamentary experience, or even prior detailed knowledge of issues.
However, I think that meko, at 7:16PM 12/19/2008, captured the major objection appointing CK:
"No one with her resume would be considered if it weren't for her parents."
I believe this is true, and I suggest that those folks who support her appointment -- whether based on her undeniable accomplishments, or her hypothetical ability to inspire, or whatever -- ask themselves if they would be equally supportive of an equally well-connected woman with exactly the same life experience whose maiden name happened to be, say, Onassis. Or Schwartz.
However, I also think that
"If . . . her name was not Kennedy, she would not even be on the radar screen. "? Actually, if her name were not Kennedy she'd still be on the radar screen--only, not under attack by folks who don't see past a mere name to the citizen and what she can offer her state and our Party. Like her or not, problem solvers come in a wide variety of names and backgrounds.
2. Her books were basically written from clippings and were for the beginner-level reader.
If appointed, CKS will HAVE TO face the voters in 2010 and again in 2012, so there will be ample opportunity for her to face New York voters, who can select someone else if they want to as strongly as you seem to.
The Senate seat currently belongs to the people of New York THROUGH the action of their Governor, whom they elected to public office. If he fails to make an appointment, the value of having that seat is lost until the special election in 2010. If Mr. Paterson wants to remain governor, he has to consider what his constituents want and what best serves their interests.
Too many people claim to rationally oppose appointments in general when in reality they just dislike Caroline Kennedy. That just makes it tough for legitimate reformers to make their case--and for supporters of Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg to make ours.
We New Yorkers simply resent line jumpers and entitlement chazzers.
Why should she shove people out of the way, people who are better than she is?
He life has been very private and there is no way of objectively measuring her work. I've been on charity boards where heiresses were there for the name, and on ones where they did work too. There's no way for an outsider to know which happened.
No one with her resume would be considered if it weren't for her parents. This is a legacy appointment. An attempt at inheriting a senate seat. Cronyism.
the high minded liberal caring party but that in fact we endorse the the concept that our positions of power belong to the overpriledged and well connected.You wonder where Ted Keneddy's heart is. All these years supposedly working for the underprivileged but when it really counts
when push comes to shove he tries to jam Mrs. Schlossberg down our throats. Then we have Joe Biden, his chief of staff is going to baby sit his seat until his son completes his tour of duty in the Army. What do you say to those highly motivated young people who want to make public service a career. Remember work hard , play by the rules and you will succeed . Baloney. What trumps that is having access to a lot of money and/or having the right name and/or having a powerful patron.
The founders created this country with the idea that these notions would not be part of our nations political life. Shame on us. Mrs Schlossberg for Ambassador to Ireland or the Vatican.
walterba
Her achievements? She is an attorney, one of thousands in the state of New York, and unlike most of the rest, she's never practiced.
She's a co-author of some books, but how many authors (solo authors) are there in the state of New York.
Having raised money for charities is another criteria where there are hundreds of people who've done the same. I've worked on charities with heiresses. Some work hard, some are a name on the stationery.
She's a name, a brand. Appointing her is an act of nepotism and an insult to democracy, meritocracy and egalitarianism.
It's also one of the reasons the Democrats were so long dismissed as "East Coast elites." This Kennedy hurts the party in the long run by reminding talented people that there is no point in joining another party that is only there to provide positions for the sons and daughters of the plutocracy.