George Harris K.C. Star Reader Advisory Panel 2008
Maybe my problem is envy, but I wish governors wouldn’t appoint people to high office because they come from well connected and famous families.
For that matter, I wish we wouldn’t elect so many people who happen to come from the American version of royalty. For example, Hillary Clinton has many strengths, but would she have been successful in her bid for a Senate seat in New York if she hadn’t carried the Clinton fame won by her husband? Doubtful. And don’t get me started about the Bush dynasty.
Caroline Kennedy seems like a fine person. She is an attorney. She has written some books. And no doubt, there are real advantages that the Kennedy name would create for Caroline in the Senate. Don’t you think her call would be returned quicker than the call of, say, Senator Tester?
But most of us start at the bottom of our businesses and professions and work our way up. Politicians usually run for city council or serve in the state legislature and then run for Congress or the Senate. We would all like to start at the top, but there is, in fact, value in learning the ropes first.
There is a tradition of appointing or electing spouses of officials who die in office to fill out the remaining term. After being appointed to complete her husband’s term, Jeane Carnahan didn’t win the election to begin her own term in the Senate. But Mary Bono won a special election in California to complete the term of her deceased husband, Sonny Bono of Sonny and Cher fame, and won subsequent elections to continue in Congress.
So filling out the term of one’s spouse, whether by appointment or election, doesn’t guarantee continued success, though it surely does increase the chances for success in future elections.
But wouldn’t we be better off if we sought out leaders based on their own merits without the advantage of a famous name? Isn't that more consistent with the concept of democracy?
Delicious
Digg
Kennedy's voting record....
Kennedy's voting record.... I guess much too busy working on some lib "cause" to exercise her civic duty...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/12/18/2008-12-18_records_show_caroline_kennedy_failed_to_.html
twas_was wrote:This may be
I might point out that both women are exceptionally intelligent, highly educated experts in law (which is kind of a nice thing to have in a lawmaker), in addition to the life experience they brought and would bring to the position of senator.
Not arguing that either is the most highly qualified individual in her state, but let's be realistic here, neither is exactly a pushover either.
Throw da bums out. I agree
Throw da bums out. I agree with you, George. Family dynasties must be shut down. Anyone who has already served one, maybe two terms, or if their spouse or parent has served, should be legally disqualified from ever serving in any political capacity in state or national offices. The corrupt system has become a money-making venture for career politicians as evidenced by the scab that was yanked from the oozing sore that is Illinois when their current Governor was arrested. Throw da bums out. Who wouldn't want a life-time pension and an inside track? How much schmoozing must be smothered on our new Secretary of State in the form of silent money slipping into banks before her crooked husband is finally caught up to his elbows in the slime? A trillion?
This may be from left field
This may be from left field - but Caroline Kennedy is qualified if Hillary Clinton was qualified. People seem to forget that Hillary Clinton's qualification to be U.S. Senator was that she was the First Lady. And if the fools in New York want someone like that (who, by the way, moved to NY for the sole purpose) as their U.S. Senator, then that was up to them. In New York, you see, logic in politics has been absent for many years.
I like how this guy's so
I like how this guy's so dumb he can't even spell Barack correctly.
Personally I don't much care
Personally I don't much care whether or not Caroline Kennedy is qualified, that question should be put to voters in the State of NY. Some apparently think she is. Of course those same people thought Jeane Carnahan was qualified, and still think Barak Obama is qualified. If less than 200 days in the US Senate, and zero executive experience qualifies someone to be President of the United States, and having been married to the former govenor of a state qualifies someone for the US Senate, I guess being a rich socialite might just measure up.
Caroline Kennedy is not
Caroline Kennedy is not unqualified BECAUSE she is a celebrity. But for her to be appointed simply because of her celebrity is inappropriate.
If Caroline Kennedy demonstrates her competence by working up within the system--through election or appointment to lesser posts, her being a celebrity should not be an obstacle to her attaining any office. IMO she currently doesn't merit being appointed to serve out HRC's senate term. I think she may ultimately prove to be a splendid public servant if, with a measure of humility, she runs for office like folks with fewer connections and less name recognition do.
Rebelmama, sure we could do
Rebelmama, sure we could do worse than Caroline. But there are hundreds, maybe thousands of people who have devoted their lives to public service who could also serve, but they're not famous. How about appointing some scientists, who would probably never run for office but could serve, even for a brief time, on important committees and advise the legislature. Maybe some artists and writes, who also would not likely run for office but who could provide important ideas, albeit temporarily, to the legislative process.
Congress is so dominated by lawyers now, and this is a loss to us. It was not always this way; Congress used to have farmers, laborers and others from a broad range of life in America.
Here's another idea: for temporary appointments, why not get retired Congressmen and Senators who could step in and immediately contribute but who are not likely to use the appointment to propel themselves into the next election?
Let's see...Caroline Kennedy
Let's see...Caroline Kennedy is a intelligent lawyer, author, mother, great speaker, thoughtful, familiar with living life in a fishbowl, willing to step out for her beliefs...we could do a lot worse, don't you think? To oppose a viable candidate because he/she has a famous name is no different from using race, gender or religion as a litmus test. I'll be the first to admit name recognition can be an unfair advantage (think Ted Stevens, for example), and for that reason I struggle with support of term limits. (Just try to boot out an incumbent in a society where the only thing worse than bad press is no press!) But a famous name shouldn't be an excluding factor.
George, you are
George, you are discriminating. Just because a person is famous, a rock star, a movie star, a billionaire, a dirt poor laborer, fat, ugly, white, black, yellow or whatever, do you just throw them in the ditch because they immediately do not meet your criteria. The now new buzz word of elitist comes to my mind - are you being one in some form? How many times are people passed over for a job because they aren't a pretty boy or girl or they are black (that does still happen), etc., etc. You are continuing the saga - shame on you. That's how girls get complexes when they lose their self-confidence thinking they don't come up to par with the thin stick models. Now you tell me a person wouldn't be a good candidate because they are famous. Lordy, lordy, lordy!!!!