Caroline Kennedy

[jeninflorida]

yeah, I remember reading about when "Kennedy" was elected...and the drama.

I have to go to Moscow in the next 3 months....I like russians more than the 1/2 French people from Quebec. russian and other eastern military...a lot less different than ours. Still no one has been able to "control" Afghanistan...almost as colorful as the Baltic

My parents decided they would emigrate to Australia when that Catholic Kennedy turned decision-making power over to the pope (and they did, in fact, take an embassy assignment in Norway to at least have both feet off the "sinking ship"). (And before that my grandmother told her friend, Bess Truman, that Harry was going to ring the death knell for the country--and Bess's mother wagged her head in agreement.)

Afghanistan has been just as expensive as Iraq (even in U.S. soldiers killed) and will continue to be so--and we won't win (just ask the Russians about that). It just hasn't been the war anyone's been paying attention to.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JEN

Democrat Ron Silver said that Bush was the patron saint of Democrats, but you guys cant let the 2000 election go. Silver said Bush appeased the Democrats every chance that came along. And its true. Bush infuriates conservatives because he wants to be loved by Democrats.

Take your hero Obama. He's loading the White House with Clinton people (including Hillary) and using an anti-Gay cleric for the inauguration. I have a hunch that by 2012 you'll be as sick of Obama as I am of Bush.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Before everyone gets all excited about Caroline's desires, try reading this . . . and perhaps be glad you don't live in New York?

 

[DeeZire]

Caroline is not at all qualified for any political office. (

Considering that in America today, the most important qualification for public office is the ability to raise money for the campaign, Caroline is over-qualified.

As we have recently seen, the second most important qualification is looking good (ala Sarah Palin) and Caroline passes that test with flying colors.

If you look at education as a qualification, she does have a law degree, which could be considered an asset if she's going to be making laws for a living.

I would be the first to admit that she's lacking in experience, but that could be a good thing considering that green politicians are generally more idealistic and less prone to backdoor dealmaking than there more experienced peers.

Of course there is the dynasty to consider, but if we're going to disqualify her on that count, we must also disqualify any more Bushes from public office, which I would whole heartedly endorse.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Afghanistan has been just as expensive as Iraq (even in U.S. soldiers killed) and will continue to be so--and we won't win (just ask the Russians about that). It just hasn't been the war anyone's been paying attention to.

I'm sorry. The Afghanistan war has not been at all comparable to Iraq. There have been 964 Coalition deaths in Afghanistan so far, 556 Americans compared to over 4,000 Americans in Iraq.

The cost of the Iraq war is estimated at $687 Billion, while Afghanistan is $187 Billion according to Reuters..

Things are very bad in Afghanistan, though, and Afghainstan is by far the more serious security threat. Resources that should have gone there to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban have been wasted to no good purpose in Iraq, and now we're paying the price. Things are very grim in Afghanistan right now. It's where we should have been focused from the start.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Considering that in America today, the most important qualification for public office is the ability to raise money for the campaign, Caroline is over-qualified.

As we have recently seen, the second most important qualification is looking good (ala Sarah Palin) and Caroline passes that test with flying colors.

If you look at education as a qualification, she does have a law degree, which could be considered an asset if she's going to be making laws for a living.

I would be the first to admit that she's lacking in experience, but that could be a good thing considering that green politicians are generally more idealistic and less prone to backdoor dealmaking than there more experienced peers.

Of course there is the dynasty to consider, but if we're going to disqualify her on that count, we must also disqualify any more Bushes from public office, which I would whole heartedly endorse.

No more damned Royal Families! Any of them.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm sorry. The Afghanistan war has not been at all comparable to Iraq. There have been 964 Coalition deaths in Afghanistan so far, 556 Americans compared to over 4,000 Americans in Iraq.

The cost of the Iraq war is estimated at $687 Billion, while Afghanistan is $187 Billion according to Reuters..

Things are very bad in Afghanistan, though, and Afghainstan is by far the more serious security threat. Resources that should have gone there to fight Al Qaeda and the taliban have been squandered in Iraq, and now we're paying the price.

OK, I evidently was indeed exaggerating (even though the figures for Afghanistan are being grossly underreported). Overemotional on this, I think, since I've had friends killed there. I do get carried away on that, because Afghanistan is just being ignored and it isn't any less a knotty problem than Iraq is. But in light of your numbers, I'll agree I was taking it too far. I tend to see the faces rather than the statistics.

 

[DeeZire]

No more damned Royal Families! Any of them.

You want to reinvent civilization? Good luck with that.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Considering that in America today, the most important qualification for public office is the ability to raise money for the campaign, Caroline is over-qualified.

As we have recently seen, the second most important qualification is looking good (ala Sarah Palin) and Caroline passes that test with flying colors.

If you look at education as a qualification, she does have a law degree, which could be considered an asset if she's going to be making laws for a living.

I would be the first to admit that she's lacking in experience, but that could be a good thing considering that green politicians are generally more idealistic and less prone to backdoor dealmaking than there more experienced peers.

Of course there is the dynasty to consider, but if we're going to disqualify her on that count, we must also disqualify any more Bushes from public office, which I would whole heartedly endorse.

She's not even close to being green when it comes to politics. She was a toddler when her father became pres. and all her life she has had at least one uncle in the Senate and cousins and other relatives in elective or appointive positions. Not that she is qualified by that, but she has witnessed and discussed backdoor dealing all her life, although she has never been personally involved.

Being good at raising money would be a plus when campaigning, but she isn't doing that.

BTW, I don't think she would be the least qualified senator in history. I don't know who would be, but there have been quite a few who have been elected to the senate in their first political effort. Of course, they were ELECTED, not appointed.

 

[sr71plt]

She's not even close to being green when it comes to politics. She was a toddler when her father became pres. and all her life she has had at least one uncle in the Senate and cousins and other relatives in elective or appointive positions. Not that she is qualified by that, but she has witnessed and discussed backdoor dealing all her life, although she has never been personally involved.

Being good at raising money would be a plus when campaigning, but she isn't doing that.

BTW, I don't think she would be the least qualified senator in history. I don't know who would be, but there have been quite a few who have been elected to the senate in their first political effort. Of course, they were ELECTED, not appointed.

Guess you must be a Kennedy yourself to know how involved Caroline has been in family discussions on politics.

But, yes, there have been a lot of unprepared folks who entered the U.S. Senate. More by appointment than by election, however, I'd wager. For instance, JFK's college roommate was appointed to JFK's Senate seat just for as long as it took to rev Teddy up to run for it.

 

[midwestyankee]

Seems to me there are two issues at hand here. First, there is some reluctance to accept what appears to be a coronation of a member of a politically royal family who may or may not be well prepared to serve in the Senate. Second, much of the argument against appointments such as this hinge on the belief that there's something sacred, or at least better, about electing political officials rather than appointing them.

We are a conflicted nation when it comes to the concept of royalty. While we do not allow for royalty within the official confines of the Constitution and laws, we habitually revere certain kinds of people as if they were royalty. Certainly most presidential families get this treatment in greater or lesser degree (albeit rarely universally from all corners of the population). Many celebrities from sports and entertainment achieve something like royal status as well. When was the last time you think that folks like Angelina Jolie, George Clooney, Oprah, Tiger Woods, or even any of our former Presidents walked into their neighborhood deli for a sandwich without being mobbed by fans and the curious? When was the last issue of a tabloid newspaper published with a story that featured some star or another from entertainment, sports, or politics?

I'm not so sure that the process of electing a Senator—as actually practiced in most states and not in its idealized civics-textbook state—is all that worthy of being thought sacred. In most races, name recognition and familiarity provide huge advantages. Presently there are six people serving in the U. S. Senate who are the children of people who served in the U. S. Congress. You think any of them would have been elected without their family names? You think any of the first-time politicians who an on their own money (think Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois, whose seat Obama won in 2004 when Fitzgerald chose not to run for reelection) would have been able to win without massive amounts of television ads to create name recognition?

In practical terms, Caroline Kennedy is no more and no less "qualified" to be a Senator than plenty of people who have served in the Senate in recent decades.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

In practical terms, Caroline Kennedy is no more and no less "qualified" to be a Senator than plenty of people who have served in the Senate in recent decades.

Agreed. And the "spotlight" on her seems totally out of proportion with other candidates.

I mean, come on... she's no Sarah Palin.

 

[DeeZire]

Being good at raising money would be a plus when campaigning, but she isn't doing that.

Box - According to the linked article in post #1, she raised over 60 million during the last campaign. Of course she isn't raising money now, but she has the capability.

Comparing her to Palin is interesting, considering that at least Caroline has a law degree, which would seem to be more of a qualification than Palin's journalism degree. I mean really, if you're going to champion Palin, you can't change the requirements to knock Caroline. Personally, I think the ladies are equally qualified, with Palin coming out the loser because of her status as a religious ideologue.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Guess you must be a Kennedy yourself to know how involved Caroline has been in family discussions on politics.

But, yes, there have been a lot of unprepared folks who entered the U.S. Senate. More by appointment than by election, however, I'd wager. For instance, JFK's college roommate was appointed to JFK's Senate seat just for as long as it took to rev Teddy up to run for it.

I'm not a Kennedy, but I know politics is the family business, so CK would be involved in family business discussions.

I believe appointments are mostly the widows of deceased senators. This would include Muriel Humphrey from MN and the widow of the dead man who beat John Ashcroft in MO. I'm sure there ae others, but I'm not going to look them up now.

There are also those who have been elected, such as John Glenn (D-OH), Geoge Murphy (R-CA), Bill Bradley (D-NJ) Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and some others.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box - According to the linked article in post #1, she raised over 60 million during the last campaign. Of course she isn't raising money now, but she has the capability.

Comparing her to Palin is interesting, considering that at least Caroline has a law degree, which would seem to be more of a qualification than Palin's journalism degree. I mean really, if you're going to champion Palin, you can't change the requirements to knock Caroline. Personally, I think the ladies are equally qualified, with Palin coming out the loser because of her status as a religious ideologue.

What I meant is that she's not campaigning, at least not in the way the term is usually defined.

Did anybody mention Sarah Palin on this thread? I know I didn't. I would consider Palin to be more qualified to serve in the Senate, because of her years as city councilwoman, mayor and governor. She has paid her dues. I'm not sure how much of a big deal a law degee would be. I don't believe members of Congress actually sit down and wite all the details of proposed laws; they have staff members who do that.

 

[sr71plt]

What I meant is that she's not campaigning, at least not in the way the term is usually defined.

Did anybody mention Sarah Palin on this thread? I know I didn't. I would consider Palin to be more qualified to serve in the Senate, because of her years as city councilwoman, mayor and governor. She has paid her dues. I'm not sure how much of a big deal a law degee would be. I don't believe members of Congress actually sit down and wite all the details of proposed laws; they have staff members who do that.

I agree that Sarah Palin has better preparation to be a U.S. senator from Alaska than Caroline Kennedy does to be a U.S. senator from New York.

 

[trysail]

There are more than a fair number of people who think of the entire Kennedy family as parvenu arrivistes— i.e., the antithesis of aristocracy.

Only yahoos in a democracy could ever think of those sleazeballs as royal or aristocrats. The idea is laughable on its face.

 

[jeninflorida]

I just don't think it would be wise...to go out with Ed for drinks...and let him drive me home not a happy ending

however, if you go out with Bill Clinton...a girl is sure to have a fun night...but I wonder if she gets help with dry cleaning

There are more than a fair number of people who think of the entire Kennedy family as parvenu arrivistes— i.e., the antithesis of aristocracy.

Only yahoos in a democracy could ever think of those sleazeballs as royal or aristocrats. The idea is laughable on its face.

 

[DeeZire]

The idea that experience can turn a dumb ass into a smart person is interesting, but probably wishful thinking. GWB would be an example of that. I brought up Palin knowing Box's history defending her and comparing that to his condemning Caroline. Assuming Caroline is smart (an unfounded assumption I admit) I would consider her intellect to be a more important qualification than experience, which apparently has not improved Palin's intellect one bit. She's still a clueless ideologue (with a knack for reading cue cards.)

Just as many professions require certification, I've always thought elected officials should require certification, just to make sure they're not mentally challenged or ill-informed, or otherwise incapable of carrying out their duties.

 

[sr71plt]

The idea that experience can turn a dumb ass into a smart person is interesting, but probably wishful thinking. GWB would be an example of that. I brought up Palin knowing Box's history defending her and comparing that to his condemning Caroline. Assuming Caroline is smart (an unfounded assumption I admit) I would consider her intellect to be a more important qualification than experience, which apparently has not improved Palin's intellect one bit. She's still a clueless ideologue (with a knack for reading cue cards.)

Just as many professions require certification, I've always thought elected officials should require certification, just to make sure they're not mentally challenged or ill-informed, or otherwise incapable of carrying out their duties.

I think to write Sarah Palin off as just a dumb ass would be a real mistake. Her principal problem has been that she comes from a minisule political environment. I think she's innately quite smart--and that to denigrate her potential would be leaving your right flank fully exposed and waving a "come hit me right here" sign.

 

[midwestyankee]

I think to write Sarah Palin off as just a dumb ass would be a real mistake. Her principal problem has been that she comes from a minisule political environment. I think she's innately quite smart--and that to denigrate her potential would be leaving your right flank fully exposed and waving a "come hit me right here" sign.

I agree. She holds views that I and many others find detestable but the lady is not unintelligent. She was too poorly informed to be a credible candidate for VP this cycle but there's a world of difference between being uninformed and unintelligent.

If Sarah Palin's work ethic matches her ambition, I expect that she'll be sleeping with briefing books for the next two years. You can expect a memoir-style political book from her in 2009 or 2010 that will signal some subtle shifts in her views to make her seem more palatable. The book will also go to pains to show her intelligence and decision-making skills in action, though I'm not entirely clear how she'll do this.

 

[DeeZire]

I think to write Sarah Palin off as just a dumb ass would be a real mistake.

Two reasons for that -

1. To goad Box into defending her and illustrate the hypocrisy of dismissing an unqualified D while supporting an unqualified R. I miss the political discussions we were having a few weeks ago.

2. Based on the Katy Couric interviews, I stand by my claim that she's a dumb ass. That and the fact that anyone who believes man walked with the dinosaurs is seriously deluded. I may be underestimating her, but I think it's wise to continue to frame her as incompetent. In America today, whoever frames the issues first usually wins the public sentiment, regardless of whether or not they're right. The Rs have proved this time and again. It has only been recently that the Ds have realized they need to catch up.

 

[Boxlicker101]

There are more than a fair number of people who think of the entire Kennedy family as parvenu arrivistes— i.e., the antithesis of aristocracy.

Only yahoos in a democracy could ever think of those sleazeballs as royal or aristocrats. The idea is laughable on its face.

Aristocrats and royalty can be just as sleazy as anybody else. Maybe sleazier, because they often have a veneer of decency.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Two reasons for that -

1. To goad Box into defending her and illustrate the hypocrisy of dismissing an unqualified D while supporting an unqualified R. I miss the political discussions we were having a few weeks ago.

2. Based on the Katy Couric interviews, I stand by my claim that she's a dumb ass. That and the fact that anyone who believes man walked with the dinosaurs is seriously deluded. I may be underestimating her, but I think it's wise to continue to frame her as incompetent. In America today, whoever frames the issues first usually wins the public sentiment, regardless of whether or not they're right. The Rs have proved this time and again. It has only been recently that the Ds have realized they need to catch up.

I didn't defend Sarah Palin, but I did say she has paid her dues and was more qualified to be in the Senate than Caroline Kennedy. Generally speaking, on this forum, we do not hold a person's religious views against him or her. Why is Sarah Palin an exception?

 

[trysail]

Aristocrats and royalty can be just as sleazy as anybody else. Maybe sleazier, because they often have a veneer of decency.

You are correct in the sense of degenerates— but degenerates and their offspring don't last long. For your consideration—

The Calamity of Appomattox
By H.L. Mencken

"No American historian, so far as I know, has ever tried to work out the probable consequences if Grant instead of Lee had been on the hot spot at Appomattox. How long would the victorious Confederacy have endured? Could it have surmounted the difficulties inherent in the doctrine of States’ Rights, so often inconvenient and even paralyzing to it during the war? Could it have remedied its plain economic deficiencies, and become a self-sustaining nation? How would it have protected itself against such war heroes as Beauregard and Longstreet, Joe Wheeler and Nathan D. Forrest? And what would have been its relations to the United States, socially, economically, spiritually and politically?

I am inclined, on all these counts, to be optimistic. The chief evils in the Federal victory lay in the fact, from which we still suffer abominably, that it was a victory of what we now call Babbitts over what used to be called gentlemen. I am not arguing here, of course, that the whole Confederate army was composed of gentlemen; on the contrary, it was chiefly made up, like the Federal army, of innocent and unwashed peasants, and not a few of them got into its corps of officers. But the impulse behind it, as everyone knows, was essentially aristocratic, and that aristocratic impulse would have fashioned the Confederacy if the fortunes of war had run the other way. Whatever the defects of the new commonwealth below the Potomac, it would have at least been a commonwealth founded upon a concept of human inequality, and with a superior minority at the helm. It might not have produced any more Washingtons, Madisons, Jeffersons, Calhouns and Randolphs of Roanoke, but it would certainly not have yielded itself to the Heflins, Caraways, Bilbos and Tillmans.

The rise of such bounders was a natural and inevitable consequence of the military disaster. That disaster left the Southern gentry deflated and almost helpless. Thousands of the best young men among them had been killed, and thousands of those who survived came North. They commonly did well in the North, and were good citizens. My own native town of Baltimore was greatly enriched by their immigration, both culturally and materially; if it is less corrupt today than most other large American cities, then the credit belongs largely to Virginians, many of whom arrived with no baggage save good manners and empty bellies. Back home they were sorely missed. First the carpetbaggers ravaged the land, and then it fell into the hands of the native white trash, already so poor that war and Reconstruction could not make them any poorer. When things began to improve they seized whatever was seizable, and their heirs and assigns, now poor no longer, hold it to this day. A raw plutocracy owns and operates the New South, with no challenge save from a proletariat, white and black, that is still three-fourths peasant, and hence too stupid to be dangerous. The aristocracy is almost extinct, at least as a force in government. It may survive in backwaters and on puerile levels, but of the men who run the South today, and represent it at Washington, not 5%, by any Southern standard, are gentlemen.

If the war had gone with the Confederates no such vermin would be in the saddle, nor would there be any sign below the Potomac of their chief contributions to American Kultur—Ku Kluxry, political ecclesiasticism, nigger-baiting, and the more homicidal variety of wowserism. Such things might have arisen in America, but they would not have arisen in the South. The old aristocracy, however degenerate it might have become, would have at least retained sufficient decency to see to that. New Orleans, today, would still be a highly charming and civilized (if perhaps somewhat zymotic) city, with a touch of Paris and another of Port Said. Charleston, which even now sprouts lady authors, would also sprout political philosophers. The University of Virginia would be what Jefferson intended it to be, and no shouting Methodist would haunt its campus. Richmond would be, not the dull suburb of nothing that it is now, but a beautiful and consoling second-rate capital, comparable to Budapest, Brussels, Stockholm or The Hague. And all of us, with the Middle West pumping its revolting silo juices into the East and West alike, would be making frequent leaps over the Potomac, to drink the sound red wine there and breathe the free air.

My guess is that the two Republics would be getting on pretty amicably. Perhaps they’d have come to terms as early as 1898, and fought the Spanish-American War together. In 1917 the confiding North might have gone out to save the world for democracy, but the South, vaccinated against both Wall Street and the Liberal whim-wham, would have kept aloof—and maybe rolled up a couple of billions of profit from the holy crusade. It would probably be far richer today, independent, than it is with the clutch of the Yankee mortgage-shark still on its collar. It would be getting and using his money just the same, but his toll would be less. As things stand, he not only exploits the South economically; he also pollutes and debases it spiritually. It suffers damnably from low wages, but it suffers even more from the Chamber of Commerce metaphysic.

No doubt the Confederates, victorious, would have abolished slavery by the middle of the 80s. They were headed that way before the war, and the more sagacious of them were all in favor of it. But they were in favor of it on sound economic grounds, and not on the brummagem moral grounds which persuaded the North. The difference here is immense. In human history a moral victory is always a disaster, for it debauches and degrades both the victor and the vanquished. The triumph of sin in 1865 would have stimulated and helped to civilize both sides.

Today the way out looks painful and hazardous. Civilization in the United States survives only in the big cities, and many of them—notably Boston and Philadelphia—seem to be sliding down to the cow country level. No doubt this standardization will go on until a few of the more resolute towns, headed by New York, take to open revolt, and try to break out of the Union. Already, indeed, it is talked of. But it will be hard to accomplish, for the tradition that the Union is indissoluble is now firmly established. If it had been broken in 1865, life would be far pleasanter today for every American of any noticeable decency. There are, to be sure, advantages in Union for everyone, but it must be manifest that they are greatest for the worst kinds of people. All the benefit that a New Yorker gets out of Kansas is no more than what he might get out of Saskatchewan, the Argentine pampas, or Siberia. But New York to a Kansan is not only a place where he may get drunk, look at dirty shows and buy bogus antiques; it is also a place where he may enforce his dunghill ideas upon his betters."

Published in The American Mercury, Sept., 1930, (The Vintage Mencken, Gathered by Alistair Cooke, Vintage Books, 1955, pp.197-201)