The New York Times reports that NY Governor Paterson has been interviewing candidates for the appointment to Hillary Clinton’s U.S. Senate seat, should she vacate it.
Two candidates, NY Assemblyman Danny O’Donnell and president of the United Federation of Teachers Randi Weingarten, are openly gay. O’Donnell was recently interviewed by Paterson, and is the focus of the NYT article. Weingarten threw her hat in the ring a few weeks ago. If either is appointed, they would be the first openly gay person to serve in the U.S. Senate.
Please share widely!
They are both more accomplished, and more qualified to lead, than Caroline Kennedy.
What is your beef with Caroline Kennedy? More than anyone else it seems you have repeatedly bashed her while, as far as I can tell, not offering an alternative. It gets to the point when I start to wonder what she’s done to you.
There are two alternatives in this post. Pablo likes them both, and he’s written at length about why he doesn’t like Ms. Kennedy as a Senator. You may not agree, but at this point it’s hard to see why anyone would ask what pablo’s “beef” is with her — he’s been pretty clear on that.
Though all he’s said is that they would be better than Kennedy. I don’t recall him taking the initiative to suggest a candidate. It’s fine to argue she’s not qualified and I believe there may be others more qualified myself. It’s just that pablo has been pouncing on her like he has nothing better to do and it just seems overdone.
For someone to wake up one morning, and to think she should get an appointment to a senate seat, with a total lack of experience, is wrong. Anyone who believes she is qualified due to her name, wealth, and society credentials, is condemning us to be a party of liberal elites.
<
p>I want a US Senator to have a solid background in public policy, and some real-life experience, to be in a position to set public policy. I want someone who can relate to the difficulty of running local government in the midst of federal mandates. I want someone who has worked all of his or her life in public service, and has earned the chance at the seat.
<
p>Let’s open the door for people who don’t have a position of influence and power, who don’t have family connections. Let’s have the first openly-gay senator, or an African-American, or some working class guy who cut his teeth on the town council. Let’s find someone with talent for the job.
<
p>Caroline, um, is not, you know, ready for prime time. She has done nothing to earn a senate seat. Let’s hope it goes to someone who has actually earned the appointment.
Because you seem to be implying that.
I think he’s implying that Kennedy would get the seat because she’s an entitled noble from Camelot. He’s saying, let a regular but well-deserving schlub have a crack at a senate seat for once. Or something along those lines. “Gay” & “African-American” aren’t qualifications, they’re characteristics of the sorts of people who rarely get to cut into the front of the line because they’re not given privileged treatment beyond their abilities like he alleges Kennedy is.
<
p>Do I have that right, pablo?
The point is, there are many talented folks who are gay, minority, working class, or otherwise just plain mainstream folks who would never get a shot at a senate seat. Part of the reason is that wealthy folks traditionally have a huge advantage in building name recognition, and don’t need to give up a 9-5 real job to play in politics.
<
p>I see gay folks, African-Americans, cops, teachers, as being mainstream people. I see them every day. I don’t see Caroline and her friends as being the kind of person that I, or anyone I know, would ever have a chance of associating with. That’s not a problem, unless she has the nerve to think she can actually REPRESENT folks like me.
In a state of approximately 11-12 million people or whatever the current census is—-we just have to have another Kennedy? Couple that with the fact that Ms kennedy/Schlossberg has an apparent difficult time speaking off the cuff, answering a simple question. I would hazard that there are likely at least a half a dozen bloggers at BMG that are infinitely more qualified than Ms Kennedy/Schlossberg.
<
p>What’s with the need for an individual that may or may not belong to an “identity group”. How about someone that is simply honest and forthright?
<
p>
. . . but is that the New York way?
<
p>Are these guys more articulate? They appear more accomplished. You know . . .
<
p>No issue with Kennedy here, but Caroline needs to be able to deliver the message coherently. New Yorkers will accept no less!
All one would need to question Kennedy’s articulation was her corpse-like reading of two paragraphs at the recent Kennedy Center Honors. The charisma of a soda can.
this is not necessarily a defense of kennedy, but plenty of able politicians have no charisma. charisma should be near the bottom of the list of qualifying attributes, imo. but i agree that “articulate” should be much higher on the list.
I think this scenario and the similar one playing out in Illinois highlight a drawback to democracy. Governing and campaigning are two very different skills. There are plenty of people of Plato’s “Philosopher King” stature who would probably make fine Senators, but couldn’t campaign to save their lives. The Governor who has appointive power has an opportunity to find someone who is capable of being a Senator, but not necessarily running for Senator. I’m not really trying to make an anti-democratic case. I would just remind you all of Winston Churchill’s quote: “Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others!”
I agree that special elections are probably the best way to go, but in states where this is not law, I don’t see the world crumbling because of it. In fact, I can imagine a scenario where it would be beneficial to have a senator appointed immediately, such as when the nation is facing war or other major catastrophe and the state urgently needs fair representation (2 senators).
I’d hardly call having 2 senators “fair” representation when Montana has as many Senators as California (or Massachusetts, for that matter). 1 person/1 vote is fair representation, which is decidedly not the US Senate.
representatives proportionally represent the population within the state. at least that’s the way i see it. it may not be perfect, but i’m not sure how it could be improved upon.
Representatives in the House, however, are based upon population. The Senate deal was a way to assuage concerns among some of the founding fathers about highly populated states having too much power. Even Rhode Island has 2 senators.
<
p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U…
Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman.
<
p>All drama, nepotism and celebrity nostalgia appointments aside…I hope Gov. Patterson has the courage to name someone with solid credentials and ability to do a good job.
to hear O’Donnell speak once or twice. He would not be a bad choice.
It appears many of the names being considered are from the NYC/Long Island area, and the state already has one U.S. Senator from New York City. It would be nice if the governor considered some candidates from upstate New York.
<
p>I agree with the idea of appointing someone based on his or her resume, and not their family legacy. However, the issues facing farming and old factory cities and towns aren’t exactly the same issues affecting the Upper West Side of Manhattan.
You raise a good point. However, as I’ve heard it, Hillary was really well respected and appreciated by upstaters, and she wasn’t even from NY originally. So just because a candidate is from NYC or their current job has forced them to relocate there or to Albany doesn’t mean they won’t understand and be a great advocate for upstate concerns.
Roughly speaking, upstate NY has 7 million people; downstate has 11 million.
<
p>FYI
<
p>Senate Seat Class 1:
68-71 Charles Goodall (Jamestown NY)
71-77 James Buckley (NYC)
77-01 Daniel Moynihan (NYC)
01-08 Hillary Clinton (NYC-suburb)
<
p>Senate Seat Class 3:
49-49 John Dulles (Watertown NY)
49-57 Herbert Lehman (NYC)
57-81 Jacob Javits (NYC)
81-99 Alfonse D’Amato (NYC)
99- Chuck Schumer (NYC)
She’s a one-issue politician (Teachers’ unions) and he’s a lightweight. Next.