Princess Caroline

Speaking of family dynasties, I wish none of George Herbert Walker Bush's children had sought public office.

What do you think G. W. Bush would have done with his life if he hadn't been born a Bush?

As for Caroline Kennedy, since I'm not a New Yorker, I don't really care.

Sorry for the double post above.

Let me add that Caroline Kennedy would make an excellent choice for female dog-catcher somewhere on the Upper West Side -- except for the conflict of interest involved.

quote: "I know I'm late weighing in on this, but let me say that Caroline Kennedy has no business being appointed to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat."

I agree. Caroline Kennedy's only qualification for this seat is her name, which is to say she is totally unqualified. If she wasn't a Kennedy she wouldn't even be considered for the seat. What's more Hillary Clinton should have never been elected to the Senate. Being first lady didn't qualify her for the job. She largely ran on her name, and in a state she didn't live in to boot.
Of course our current president would have never been elected governor of Texas, much less president of the United States without his name.

Political dynasties aren't exclusive to Democrats or Republicans. The growing number of them, however, is a bit disturbing. We are supposed to be a Republic after all. I don't see how it can be healthy for our system of government to have a number of families in both parties who are constantly given a pass to positions of power on the basis of their name and celebrity status.

rr

P.S. Where W would be today without his family name? He would have probably never gone to Ivy League schools and might not have been able to have avoided being sent to Vietnam. My guess is that he would have probably ended up as a small businessman who took a lot of risk and ultimately ran his business in the ground. But who knows?

P.P.S. I should have mentioned that voters have every right to elect whomever they want i.e. Hillary Clinton as New York senator and George W. Bush as governor of Texas. While they have that right, as a rule I don't think it is very wise to elect people based on their family name.

quote: "Oh please…lets stop comparing a seat in the Senate to the Vice Presidency. A Senator is just one among a hundred, whereas, a Vice President is a step away from being THE PRESIDENT. An incompetent president can do infinitely more damage than an incompetent senator. There’s no comparison."

Actually, unless the president dies in office (which is rare), the Vice President generally has less power than your average senator. Some men who accepted the Vice President such as Lyndon Baines Johnson and John N. Garner (FDR's first vice president) considered the vice presidency a step down from the Congress.

Also, I'm not sure the comparison was in terms of different political positions. I think it was about qualifications. Now I don't think Palin was qualified to be vice president. I don't really like her and hope she doesn't emerge as a candidate for the GOP nomination in 2012. But in all fairness she has served as both a mayor and a governor. That certainly makes her more qualified to be a senator than Caroline Kennedy, who only has her name. But will the same people (especially those on the left) who were very critical of Palin express skepticism to the idea that Kennedy should be a senator? Or will many of them gush about "Camlot" and think it is a grand idea instead? I'm guessing it will largely be the later.

It should be noted that the Kennedy presidency is overrated. JFK should get credit for what he did for civil rights. But he nearly got us into a nuclear war with the Soviets and got us deeper into Vietnam, though of course it was his successor that really fouled things up with that war. In short, "Camlot" is largely a myth.

All and all, people on both the right and the left sometimes fall for political figures based on their name or some celebrity or populist image that have. The results of this, however, generally aren't good. I would argue that this way of choosing our elected officials isn't healthy for our system of government.

rr

There's a wonderful Letter to the Editor in the NY Times this morning, asking whether, since Andrew Cuomo, David Patterson, Hillary Clinton, and now possibly Caroline Kennedy all ultimately owe their positions in New York to family connections, can't a state as big as New York find anyone who can achieve something on his or her own.

I agree with rr above, though I think Kennedy deserves much, much more blame for Vietnam than he tends to get and Johnson deserves much, much more credit for civil rights.

Kennedy only moved on civil rights once he had no choice not to, more than two years into his term, and only in the three or four months before he was killed.

What he spent most of his time in office doing was making a mess of foreign policy and setting the country on the road to the budget deficits we have had to endure much more often than not for more than a third of a century now.

That and conjugating the verb with gangster's girlfriends and pretty much any other carbon-based female life-form at hand -- all the while popping pills like a long-haul trucker, which in some sense he was, at least until he was shot.

I've begun an academic writing course themed on the 60's by having students read Kennedy's famous first inaugural address, which they are startled to find contains *nothing* about civil rights, but rather consists of sabre rattling that would bring a blush to Ronald Reagan ... not to mention George W. Bush, our most genuinely Kennedyesque post-Kennedy president (so far).

PS -- To see what happens to political dynasties in this country, it is interesting to read about the fortunes of America's first political dynasty, the Adams'. In my own home state of Ohio, we have had the Tafts for the past century. William Howard Taft was president; his son, Robert Taft, was a long-serving senator, known as Mr. Repubican; his son, also Robert Taft, was senator from Ohio when I was growing up, but not nearly as distinguished as his father; *his* son, also Robert Taft, recently completed two terms as governor of Ohio, with no further serious political prospects at the moment. I remember remarking to a friend that, if this general downward trajectory continues, in a couple generations the Tafts will be running for Hamilton County Auditor, and not much else.

Stupid comparison. Whatever one may think of them, at least George W. Bush and his brother Jeb submitted themselves to the voters

Nevertheless, I wish G.W. Bush had never run for public office. Fortunately, that Bush's Presidency seems to have doomed Jeb's chances.

Please name names, Rod, Rufus, et al. Who is pushing for Caroline Kennedy to be senator except Caroline and Ruth Marcus? No prominent left wing bloggers that I have read.

I'm no fan of the Kennedy's, but I can see no reason not to appoint her.

She's cute.

Kennedy's tend to have interesting disasters once they get into office so there is bound to be some entertaining news down the line.

The only qualification for Senator is the ability to get into office and raise enough money to stay there. Oh, and if a Senator manages to show up for a vote occasionally that is, of course, a plus.

Rod, while I continue to disagree with your phrasing, your latest point is mine as well: the powers that be (in this case, amongst NY Dems) are faced with the same choice(s) others have faced in the past. They can appoint a pretty face (in this case, literally as well as appealing to public sentiments) without necessarily showing a favoring hand to someone else, or they can tip that hand and show their favor to a Lowey, Maloney, etc. The powerful tend to avoid such decisions if they can, put them off if they can't, because their power is dependent on the good will of others. Appointing Kennedy would make them all mad, ironically a better outcome than giving fodder to an internal faction fight.

It's a damn beauty pageant.

But will the same people (especially those on the left) who were very critical of Palin express skepticism to the idea that Kennedy should be a senator?

Yes, we will. Caroline Kennedy should not be appointed, full stop.

I'm tired of unqualified people being in office, although at least Senators can simply not show up at work and not really cause any harm. (Whereas we've had a mostly absent president for eight years.)

Well, I don't think there's an equivalence here with the Bushes (or the Roosevelts or the Harrisons or the Clintons or the Adamses for that matter.) In all of those cases, the second and/or subsequent people with the known name at least had to get ELECTED. Which means, they had to something other than charity work between being born (or married) into the right name, and acquiring high office. They had to establish their own reputations -- obviously not independently of their names, but separate enough that people found them worth voting for. Whether Caroline Kennedy is capable of establishing that or not has not yet been demonstrated, whereas there are other women in New York public life who have established track records, and should not be cast aside for someone who really has nothing but a name behind her.

the last "Your Name" was me.

A worse case is in Delaware, where one of Biden’s political staffers is holding the seat for the return of Beau Biden in 2 years. The complicity of the Governor is disturbing. Why didn’t the Governor tell Biden to pound sand and appoint whomever she wants? Was a payment involved?

Now I hear that the person expected to replace Senator Salazar of Colorado is his brother.

Do any of these Dems place a value on merit? I guess not.

It's amazing to me that some people here say it doesn't matter to them who is the New York Senator since they are not from New York. Uhhhh...do you live in this country? Did you know that the U.S. Senate actually votes on matters of national concern?

Hello? HELLO!?

A laugh at the above post... Really?? Caroline Kennedy has accomplishments?? Seriously, she's a Manhattan socialite who has spent her time memorializing her parents and participating in the typical wealthy lady philanthropy charity acts. If you consider her accomplished, then every wealthy woman on the Upper West Side is equally accomplished.

Comparing her to Sarah Palin and deeming her more worthy is a real leap of logic. Sarah Palin is a working class kid whose parents didn't have enough money to send her to college; she had to lift herself up by her own bootstraps, so the fact that she became governor of Alaska really is a Horatio Alger success story. On the other hand, Caroline Kennedy had every advantage imaginable growing up due to her family's name.

quote: "1) Qualification must be based solely on past government service. This is a crock of bull. It is a complete catch-22, and no newcomer to public service would or should ever be elected using this criterion."

I agree with you here Franklin. In general, however, I would argue that those who are newcomers to politics and who seek a major office (governor, a seat in the House or Senate, the presidency) should have accomplished something substantial on their own. This could be in business, academia, the military, law, medicine, and so forth. I would be hesitant to vote for someone for a major office who had a very thin resumé and was simply running off their family name or their status as a celebrity of some sort.

I am also very skeptical about celebrities and entertainment figures who run for public. I find it remarkable that people care what they think or take them seriously on matters of public policy. Just because they can act or sing doesn't mean they have the foggiest idea about the issues or are in any way qualified for public office. And don't people realize that many people in the world of entertainment are really weird and/or have a host of personal problems? So no, Arnie wasn't qualified, nor was Reagan when he first entered politics. Neither is Al Franken today.

But Daniel is wrong. Caroline Kennedy isn't qualified to be a senator. She has a law degree, but beyond charity fund raising (which in and of itself is good), she really hasn't accomplished much on her own. Who cares if she is well spoken or has been on a television show such as "Meet the Press"? That's irrelevant. And she would have never even gotten on "Meet the Press" if her name wasn't Kennedy. I don't think Palin was ready to be vice president. But unlike Caroline Kennedy, at least she has some experience in a position of major responsibility i.e. governor of Alaska.

rr

Pentamom, you get no argument from me. You do prompt me to modify my cynical complaint: it's a bloody beauty pageant where all the contestants are aristocrats. If there was an effective emoticon that expressed painful amusement, I'd insert it here.

My connected point, though, is that this is all business as usual. My citation of Schwarzenegger was a step in that direction. Al Franken at least has some publication and academic creds (not that I'm arguing in his favor, mind you). Part of me wants to give many of them the benefit of the doubt, because they were/are merely playing into the game that already exists, and the eligible voters have provided a very long precedent that such candidates should have a reasonable expectation of success. As I recall, Clint Eastwood and Sonny Bono are also examples.

RR, that first part is to your point as well, if perhaps a bit obscurely. What is the proof that a newcomer is an effective office holder? The logical answer comes after the newcomer has held office. I agree with you about meritocracy and all that, but really, when has the US ever elected anyone on merit as the primary qualification, except by 20-20 hindsight, or at best in a re-election? Yeah, I'm being hyperbolic, but I really don't see much point in softening my cynicism for anyone, Dem, Rep or dogcatcher.

One more thing, pentamom: you echoed the "we shouldn't elect someone who hasn't previously been elected" meme, though of course what you actually wrote was "we shouldn't appoint..." Would you mind posting your POV on the difference in there? I confess, in my cynicism, that I'm lacking any generosity toward allowing for a difference. I don't mean to be argumentative in my grouchiness, I do wish for you to clarify beyond the obvious "because at least the people had a chance to cast their votes." By itself, winning an election is not a valid recommendation of any kind... in my cynically grouchy view. :-\

Thanks, rr. And my gratitude also for your cooperative view on the "business as usual" point. The whole process, with the long list of egregious failures, should be rubbed in the electorate's collective faces. Our society's memory if too short, and needs refreshing, as it were.

Eisenhower is a problematic example to cite, though I point that out knowing it's picking nits in this context. ;-) His public service was extreme and exemplary, and he was one of the few exceptions to my cynical rendition of US political/electoral history. His was the ideal standard. We are served well by people who are on the same track, albeit unable to come close to his accomplishments.

Those of us who have long since come to drowse on cue when the unhappy Kulturkampfers whose bonfires of the Kennedies backdate to the pre-1970 Arlington House Right suffer their ritual Quiddicktion fits, have C21 reasons all our own for preferring not to pinch a Carolinian inch, let alone walk a mile in her Jack Ruby slippers, for a Camelot. She'd be far better in a weekly sitcom version of herself in DC - titled, of course, Caroline in the Senate, with Mark Shields as a miniaturised good-government Gazoo hovering dourly just over her shoulder every time the temptations of power of the hour threaten to sully the lillywhite ideals and idylls of her youth:

Shields: "Seriously, Dum-Dum, did you really think that voting for 'earmarks' for the HRH Prince Charles Fund for Mid-Atlantic Trust-Fund Orphans, the Ross Perot remakes of Herbert Shakespeare's A Tempest in Every Teapot Dome and The Mouse That Roared, and the Obama-themed Steely Dan remake "Are You Wet Behind the Years?" would really escape the notice of the late-night joke writers?"

Caroline [in tearful Laura Petrie/Mary Richards quaver]: "Ohh, Mark..."

I realize that in hoping thus to witness the exclusively SAGging fortunes of the political aims of Filly Fitz, I am far outnumbered on the other side by the supperannuated campaign props that the Joe Camelots of the Yupper East Side and the hunting shires upstate will afford should she need them, in which case, as little wing-lamed Tiny Tom said to the approaching muskets in A Thanksgiving Peril by Darles Chickens, "God help us, everyone."

Rod,

I am absolutely with you on this. It's dumb. To be honest, I was very shocked at first, then after I thought about it I came to the same conclusion that you did...they'd give it to her just because of her name.

At least Caroline K probably went to Harvard or a similar college, while Palin took 6 years to get through five 3rd-rate colleges (or was it 5 years and six colleges).

Social conservatives ought at least pay lip service to the legitimacy of a woman's career path charting a different trajectory with time than a man's: think Margeret Thatcher, whose vocation ripened similarly ~~ attain professional status (chemist vs lawyer) ~~ make a good match (both chose entrepreneurial partners) ~~ raise kids ~~ learn a lot about real life in unpaid servant leadership positions ~~ discover needs shared by all mums and dads alike ~~ accept personal calling to advance political objectives of preserving a safe and prosperous world for those who follow in our footsteps.

I resist the temptation to equate validity of experience with remuneration. Work raising a family and supporting one's community with unpaid efforts have a REAL VALUE, such increments to our wealth aren't reflected in the GDP and that's exactly WHY we need such women in public life to remind us that some things are "priceless" ir non-commercial. Any culture worth the moniker is built on this kind of self-less investment for the good of others. Now whether Caroline's choices of what to support (arts and other subsidized elite pastimes) is worthy enough in our estimation to count for much remains of course wide is open to debate. I for one would have rather seen her devote her considerable clout to a pro-life venture, whereby I could have some confidence she would take a stand on the issues that threaten our culture, but somehow I don't think that's the turf she's got staked our for herself.

quote: "At least Caroline K probably went to Harvard or a similar college, while Palin took 6 years to get through five 3rd-rate colleges (or was it 5 years and six colleges)."

George W. Bush has degrees from both Yale and Harvard. Many of the financial wizards who helped create our current financial mess have degrees from Ivy league schools. So who cares if Caroline Kennedy went to an Ivy league school? She might not have ever been admitted in the first place without her family connections. More importantly, an Ivy league education is not a guarantee of intelligence and wisdom. George W. Bush and the titans of Wall Street have proven that to be abundantly clear.

Palin doesn't strike me as the sharpest blade in the drawer. She's definitely partisan and those on the left aren't exactly unbiased in how they see her, though that's to be expected. Nonetheless, agree or disagree with her politics, she clearly has more experience as an elected official than Caroline Kennedy. Not that experience is everything, but still. Kennedy on the other hand has neither significant experience in government, nor has she accomplished anything of great worth on her own outside of government. Charity fund raising is great, but she wouldn't even be doing that without her family name and connections. Any way you cut it, all Kennedy has is her aristocratic family name. Sadly, that may be enough for a senate seat.

rr

Bugg, friendly advice on avoiding looking foolish in the future: Look it up. Kennedy did not change her name when she got married.

Even that detail isn't discussed.

Sometimes, and I personally believe the vast majority of the time, silence just means silence.

Personally, I'm disappointed to think she'd get the appointment over other qualified candidates (women or men), but I would hope we will all accord her the respect and courtesy that she should have. The simple facts of how she lost her father in a rather traumatic way in service to this country, of how she has unquestionably conducted her public (and seemingly personal life) with a remarkable amount of poise and class given the spotlight and trappings of fame available to her, how she has used her name and her celebrity largely for the public interest and good, should command that respect and courtesy.

What qualifications do you have to have to be a Senator?

If you're going to compare Sarah to Caroline, my gut would tell me to go with Caroline, because she seems to have some brains. Of course, Sarah has mixed it up, won elections, and has political experience. Unfortunately, to me, the experience she's displayed does not impress me.

Bottom line: no one person should have the power to appoint a U.S. Senator. Just as House vacancies are decided by special election, Senate vacancies should be decided by special election.

Duh-sciple