Caroline Kennedy

[ishtat]

Should she get Hilary Clinton's spot in the Senate?

 

[JackLuis]

Should she get Hilary Clinton's spot in the Senate?

Better that Rudi, I'd say.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Bill wants Chelsey to get the job...he says screw the age requirement.

 

[jeninflorida]

well Hilary does not want that...she is afraid of the Kenney's...

Should she get Hilary Clinton's spot in the Senate?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

She'll probably get it, though I don't think she's earned it. But she can raise money like no one else around, and she's super-electable, super popular.

She probably won't do a bad job either with all the guidance she'll get. It's just kind of wrong to see her waltz into it without paying any dues.

And now ol' Jeb Bush is raising his hoary head...

 

[voluptuary_manque]

This country needs another revolution. Down with the aristocrats! Off with their heads . . . all of them!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Caroline is not at all qualified for any political office. I don't mean that to be negative, just non-positive. I will say she is probably more qualified than her Uncle Teddy was when he was elected.

She would probably get elected if she ran. NY is noted for electing celebrities to high office, as is CA. She could possibly win election in CA, and probably in MA, but anywhere else, she would deservedly be a laughing stock. Nothing against the lady; she just hasn't paid her dues.

 

[off2bed]

The founding fathers are turning in their graves.

 

[midwestyankee]

The founding fathers are turning in their graves.

I doubt it, as the Founding Fathers originally set up the Senate as a wholly appointed body.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The founding fathers are turning in their graves.

Well, yes and no. The "Founding Fathers" were basically wealthy aristocrats, who were descended fom self-made men, much like the Kennedys are. They might have considered a woman to be unfit for such responsibility, but othewise they would have been alright with it.

Originally, senators were elected by state legislatures, rather than by general elections.

 

[ishtat]

I am not sure that 'paying dues' is a qualification. The problem is it leaves the politician with political debts often to pretty unpleasant characters. It just struck me that CK is at least as well qualified as Hillary Clinton was when she took a Senate seat.

Eight years of the Senate would place her in an interesting position in 2016 at age 59.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I am not sure that 'paying dues' is a qualification. The problem is it leaves the politician with political debts often to pretty unpleasant characters. It just struck me that CK is at least as well qualified as Hillary Clinton was when she took a Senate seat.

Eight years of the Senate would place her in an interesting position in 2016 at age 59.

And the years that Hillary has spent in the Senate have produced exactly what, pray tell?

No damned Royal Families!

 

[sr71plt]

And the years that Hillary has spent in the Senate have produced exactly what, pray tell?

No damned Royal Families!

I believe Hillary Clinton has one of the highest work/results ratings in the Senate for the time she was there.

And it's a laugh to think of the Clintons as American royalty--certainly on the scale of the Kennedys, Roosevelts, Gores, Byrds--or even the Bushes.

People don't seem to be able to understand that Hillary is the hardworking, dynamo politico of that pair--and always has been.

I'm not thrilled at the expectation of Caroline Kennedy for the U.S. Senate, though. I can't see her as in touch with the general public and its needs or as having put in any preparation. There are Kennedys applenty who have, if that's what they want.

 

[jeninflorida]

Oh my god, are you kidding me? Granted, I have no idea what she has done for new York….but if you think the Clintons are in it for anyone other than the Clintons… can you share your drugs with me?

I believe Hillary Clinton has one of the highest work/results ratings in the Senate for the time she was there.

And it's a laugh to think of the Clintons as American royalty--certainly on the scale of the Kennedys, Roosevelts, Gores, Byrds--or even the Bushes.

People don't seem to be able to understand that Hillary is the hardworking, dynamo politico of that pair--and always has been.

I'm not thrilled at the expectation of Caroline Kennedy for the U.S. Senate, though. I can't see her as in touch with the general public and its needs or as having put in any preparation. There are Kennedys applenty who have, if that's what they want.

 

[sr71plt]

Oh my god, are you kidding me? Granted, I have no idea what she has done for new York….but if you think the Clintons are in it for anyone other than the Clintons… can you share your drugs with me?

Can't quite see where I said the Clintons (like almost everyone else) weren't in it for themselves.

Does this stop someone from being an effective senator for their state/nation in Congress -- or does it make them American Royalty? Those were the two issues being discussed and that I addressed.

So, to answer your question--no I wasn't kidding--about what was actually under discussion.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Then let's get back to that question. Just what is this work/results ratio that she has accomplished? Where is the significant legislation that she has put through Congress? Other than stay around where she could be seen as 'important' and 'presidential material' just what has the junior senator from New York done?

 

[jomar]

She'll probably get it, though I don't think she's earned it. But she can raise money like no one else around, and she's super-electable, super popular.

She probably won't do a bad job either with all the guidance she'll get. It's just kind of wrong to see her waltz into it without paying any dues.

And now ol' Jeb Bush is raising his hoary head...

Divine rightish. Or leftish, I suppose.

 

[sr71plt]

Then let's get back to that question. Just what is this work/results ratio that she has accomplished? Where is the significant legislation that she has put through Congress? Other than stay around where she could be seen as 'important' and 'presidential material' just what has the junior senator from New York done?

Hey, I just went with what was in the media on the effectiveness reports various groups always put together at the end of congressional sessions. And not knowing there was a test, I didn't take notes. I'm sure someone who wants to argue with you about it will be along in a few minutes to do so.

For one thing--which was a presidency breaker--if Hillary Clinton hadn't stuck so hard with New York interests on the response to 9/11 and, therefore, had been less supportive of the invasion of Iraq, chances are good she'd be president-elect now.

 

[jeninflorida]

jumping subjects, on the 9/11 thing, what if we never invaded Iraq....would the world still be in a downturn? speaking of that how many billions have we spent there? I thought part of the plan was that Iraq would pay for the war with oil?

Hey, I just went with what was in the media on the effectiveness reports various groups always put together at the end of congressional sessions. And not knowing there was a test, I didn't take notes. I'm sure someone who wants to argue with you about it will be along in a few minutes to do so.

For one thing--which was a presidency breaker--if Hillary Clinton hadn't stuck so hard with New York interests on the response to 9/11 and, therefore, had been less supportive of the invasion of Iraq, chances are good she'd be president-elect now.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

jumping subjects, on the 9/11 thing, what if we never invaded Iraq....would the world still be in a downturn? speaking of that how many billions have we spent there? I thought part of the plan was that Iraq would pay for the war with oil?

Hey, don't ask me. Rumsfeld never called once, during the entire operation.

 

[sr71plt]

jumping subjects, on the 9/11 thing, what if we never invaded Iraq....would the world still be in a downturn? speaking of that how many billions have we spent there? I thought part of the plan was that Iraq would pay for the war with oil?

We've poured a whole hell of a lot of money down that Iraq drain (and, yes, we were told Iraq would pay for itself). That could have been used for a lot domestically, not the least put toward bolstering infrastruture (e.g., those falling bridges). I've maintained that the economy issue hinges on the Iraq morass, yes. The only problem with that is that just because we spent the money in Iraq rather than having it available in the States doesn't mean the Bush administration would have spent it on bolstering infrastruture--and most certainly not on education or other social programs.

 

[jeninflorida]

jumping subjects but on these lines...when Obama gets in office, how long before we pull out of the 2 wars.....

2nd, how quickly do you feel that Obama can get money on "green lighted" projects? I know that Miami as over 3.2 billion worth of projects that are ready to roll out (or so they say) but the goverment is missing 3.2 billion to fund the projects.

this plan is a great short term fix. now, what really is another "dot com"...

The great thing about the dot com days (and also the day traders) was the fact that more millionaires were created and the federal coffers were over flowing during this time period

We've poured a whole hell of a lot of money down that Iraq drain (and, yes, we were told Iraq would pay for itself). That could have been used for a lot domestically, not the least put toward bolstering infrastruture (e.g., those falling bridges). I've maintained that the economy issue hinges on the Iraq morass, yes. The only problem with that is that just because we spent the money in Iraq rather than having it available in the States doesn't mean the Bush administration would have spent it on bolstering infrastruture--and most certainly not on education or other social programs.

 

[sr71plt]

jumping subjects but on these lines...when Obama gets in office, how long before we pull out of the 2 wars.....

2nd, how quickly do you feel that Obama can get money on "green lighted" projects? I know that Miami as over 3.2 billion worth of projects that are ready to roll out (or so they say) but the goverment is missing 3.2 billion to fund the projects.

this plan is a great short term fix. now, what really is another "dot com"...

The great thing about the dot com days (and also the day traders) was the fact that more millionaires were created and the federal coffers were over flowing during this time period

Can't physically pull out of someplace like Iraq in less then five or six months (unless we can to just hand over all of our equipment and if the government wants to nationalize the nation's airplanes for a couple of months to use in troop evacuation). And Obama hasn't indicated a pull out in Afghanistan at all--he's consistently signaled the need for a buildup there.

I have no idea how fast Obama's going to be able to get anything out of Congress--he can't even start the process in doing that until January 21st.

 

[jeninflorida]

if only one can push bush out and we can start fresh....

I can only imagine that past generations have felt that the world was coming to an end during this time period of a lame duck. Is this time period any different (from a quick look at the numbers looks like we are pretty close to a “depression”)?


what is it gonna cost to be in Afghanistan?

Can't physically pull out of someplace like Iraq in less then five or six months (unless we can to just hand over all of our equipment and if the government wants to nationalize the nation's airplanes for a couple of months to use in troop evacuation). And Obama hasn't indicated a pull out in Afghanistan at all--he's consistently signaled the need for a buildup there.

I have no idea how fast Obama's going to be able to get anything out of Congress--he can't even start the process in doing that until January 21st.

 

[sr71plt]

if only one can push bush out and we can start fresh....

I can only imagine that past generations have felt that the world was coming to an end during this time period of a lame duck. Is this time period any different (from a quick look at the numbers looks like we are pretty close to a “depression”)?


what is it gonna cost to be in Afghanistan?

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.