There are plenty of admirable things about Caroline Kennedy and not a lot of dishonorable thing (if any) and heaven knows, after burying a father and an uncle (RFK) who died because they were in politics, she’s not in it for the glory.
Consider this argument: appoints are personal; Should Gov David Patterson seek my advice on who to appoint to fulfill the Senate seat left vacant by Hillary Clinton, I might say ‘Pick ME!’. I know I could do a good job, though I have scarcely more experience than Caroline. If an appointment means anything it’s a validation of the governors ability to handle extraordinary circumstances. And he’s going to appoint someone known to him.
Another argument says that inherently flawed as the system is, it doesn’t, de facto, produce bad results: Ted Kennedy was basically ‘chosen’ for the Senate seat he holds right now. Though he had to go through an election… c’mon. He’s Ted Kennedy and he was basically ‘given’ the seat his brother held. THAT hasn’t turned out too bad, now has it? Much the same can be said for Robert Kennedy in the Senate, tho’ he was AG for his brother in the administration (how’d he get THAT job?). He was a good AG and he was a good Senator.
On the issue of qualifications: Hillary Clinton was scarcely more qualified THEN than Caroline is NOW… She married into it…! By all accounts, she was a superb Senator.
The choice, such as it is, might very well be between Caroline Kennedy and Andrew Cuomo… hm… where’d I hear THAT name before? So saying no to Caroline Kennedy isn’t saying no to the process, which is the real problem. It’s entirely possible that, should Caroline Kennedy decide to actually run for the office, she would be installed in the office FOR THE EXACT SAME REASONS that you decry… name recognition, celebrity status and ‘heredity’… Lord knows that’s how G. Dubya ended up in office… So, again, denying her an appointment is nothing but phyrric in extremis as it will do nothing to ameliorate the underlying structural flaws in the system.
There are lots of much more harsh, and no doubt much more funny, turns of phrase out there.
<
p>I agree that special elections are much better than appointments in cases like this. If Ms. Kennedy wants to contest the seat in the next election, more power to her. Senator Clinton, to take your example, actually stood for election.
<
p>In the instant case, I think there are many far more qualified people for the position, including those discussed in the various threads yesterday.
<
p>Heredity is not a good way to select leaders.
… a well defined ‘line of succession’. I think part of the job of the ‘secretary of state’, or maybe even the Governor, ought to be to step up and take the place of a Senator in the event of an unplanned vacancy mid-congress. It goes without saying that it should all be ‘above-board’ and well disclosed: a clear indication, say, that a vote for Martha Coakley not only puts her in the AG spot, but also in the line of succession. Would, I think, add an interesting wrinkle to politics.
<
p>
<
p>I like the idea of a ‘line of succession’ like we have with the current presidency. Much less in the way of hysteria and handwringing if we know, beforehand, who’s going to step up… I think extraordinary circumstances, usually death in office but in this instance a different form of promotion, requires some extraordinary measures.
<
p>
<
p>She’s not being chosen via heredity, despite the name. She’s being appointed (if she ends up with it) because she, and her uncle, Ted Kennedy, maybe can pull all the right strings. If she isn’t chosen, it won’t be due to a sudden burst of democracy in bloom, but because somebody else (Cuomo, Slaughter, etc…) pulled the strings first… or pulled harder… Either that, or David Patterson is rolling dice with names on ’em. Is that any better or worse? Do you honestly think that standing up against Caroline Kennedy is somehow standing up on principle? Which principle would that be…?
<
p>On a related note, Paula Poundstone suggests that, to reverse the trend in Illinois, we ought to just go ahead an give Obamas Senate seat to the most well-behaved prisoner at Joliet…
Better than special elections, which are a big expense of time and money just to fill a single position. As you note, voters presumably would be aware of the succession when hey vote. VP is a good example of the possible impact of this kind of thinking.
<
p>As to Ms. Kennedy, however, I’m not sure how you separate heredity from the fact that Senator Kennedy is presumably pulling strings for her — he is her uncle, after all.
<
p>As to Poundstone’s suggestion, food for thought.
I think we should be very careful at characterizing elections as an “expense”. When people view them that way, it becomes easier to eliminate them.
<
p>In Springfield, a city councilor tried to get the primary canceled because it would whittle down the field from 20 to 18. He said that the city shouldn’t be wasting money on that primary to eliminate 2 people.
<
p>What he didn’t say is that increasing the field gives incumbents the advantage because the protest vote is spread among more candidates. Oops.
<
p>Luckily the primary was held, and while there were no surprises or upsets, there was no monkey business either.
Indeed, we can really increase democracy by making every Tuseday Election Day, and reducing the terms of office for all elected officials so that they end next Wednesday.
One-year terms for Representatives.
<
p>Not quite one week, but short.
<
p>Maybe that would have been better.
<
p>I think two years is a good compromise.
Truth be told, I was just reacting to the “not a cost, but a benefit!” argument, which strikes me as another head of the “not a tax, but a user fee!” “not a bug, but a feature!” hydra.
undoubtedly have people pulling for them – and those people also undoubtedly hold far more power in NY than Ted Kennedy. You’re grasping at straws.
<
p>There are two things about heredity in this instance:
<
p>A) if we were really talking ‘heredity’ we’d be having this conversation about Chelsea Clinton and not Caroline Kennedy
<
p>2) In a situation in which heredity holds sway, no amount of string pulling changes anything. It is, as they say, a ‘done deal’.
<
p>Yes yes, this is a ‘strict’ reading of heredity and maybe only a minor point….
with all due respect. The VP and Lt Gov. are true understudies. But a governor isn’t an true understudy for a US senator.
<
p>Also, there is the proximity problem. VPs and Lt Govs already live in the geographical area where the star they may need to replace lives and works. Not so with governors and senators. A lot of people simply don’t want to relocate or to be involved in Washington politics (Deval, for example). So I can imagine some really, really disruptive gubernatorial resignations if a governor were required to move into a vacated US senator’s seat.
<
p>True enough. Plus, we’d be swapping a statewide election (with all it’s disruptions, costs, etc…) for a statewide election with all… wait a minute!
<
p>I suppose, then, that the case can be made for ‘stepping up’ a House Rep and having the ‘replacement’ election just be district wide… or even letting districts have their own line of succession. Each cycle the succession changes… Say Ma 1 for a Congress, and then Ma 2, etc. I’m just thinking out loud.
<
p>
<
p>Well, it’d be part of the job description up front so the successor would have to be prepared for the possibility.
<
p>
sure it’d be part of the job description. but that doesn’t mean anyone would have to stay in the job if it came to that. also, think of the fantastic platform for populism with a governor insisting on staying put and serving his/her people “right here in the great state of x, god bless it!”. i can envision all kinds of great political theater coming from a governor’s refusal to leave his/her post. why, there would probably even be toothless state supreme court rulings admonishing the homebody governor! what great grist for the re-election mill.
Being a senator isn’t really a ‘step up’ from being Governor. There are plenty of people who have retired from the Senate specifically to run for Governor.
<
p>Special elections aren’t free, but they’re well worth it.
17th Amendment:
<
p>
<
p>Seems pretty specific: special election, except that state legislatures may allow the Governor to “make temporary appointments” until an election happens. As I said elsewhere, it’s too bad that the exception is in there — if it weren’t, we would just have elections, which is how it should be. But the language doesn’t seem to allow for a third option.
Violating the “Line of Succession Act” would be an impeachable offense for the governor. And make the next US Senator whomever of the Minority Leader of Senate President is of the same political party.
him/herself to the post? The 17th doesn’t seem to address that, but perhaps a provision elsewhere does? I’m not suggesting this should or will happen – just curious. Since the advent of Bush, I never put anything past anyone any more.
I don’t know offhand if it’s ever been done, but it’s always talked about. It would take a lot of chutzpah.
Appointing yourself doesn’t take as much chutzpah as appointing your neophyte daughter, in my opinion.
Nine governors have appointed themselves to fill vacancies, most recently Minnesota Gov Wendell Anderson in 1977. In 8 of those instances, the interim-Senator went on to lose the subsequent election and five of those lost in a primary, so it would appear to be political suicide.
But it is looking unlikely now 🙂
There are 29 members of the House of Representatives from New York. Let’s call them the AAA farm team. Clearly, ONE of them must have enough experience and talent to be a successful senator. If you want to jump the line a little, there are 62 state senators in New York. There are some large counties with county executives, and many city and town officials who have developed a political track record.
<
p>There are plenty of qualified understudies. Pick one.
The 17th Amendment doesn’t say anything about the procedures under which candidates will be selected for the elections, after all. Perhaps “Candidates shall be drawn from the current membership of the state legislature,” or something like that. What do you think, David?
than the tiny AG/governor pool suggested by petr. Of course, there is nothing that precludes the guv from fishing that pool. Are you suggesting a law that mandates it? It is perfectly conceivable to me that the “best” fish in that pool might not always be willingly hooked, leaving a non-sitting legislator as the best pick, so it might not be prudent to limit the governor so drastically. The NY legislature only has 210 or so members currently. Subtract members from the “wrong” party, and you may very well not be left with anyone willing who is also able.
I can come up with at least 10 elected officials in MA who have demonstrated talent and skill, and who would make an excellent US Senator. If I could do this math in a much smaller state, certainly there are a couple of dozen really good, hard-working Democrats who would be excellent US Senators from NY.
but can you guarantee that to always be the case? i see no good reason to so severely limit the pool the governor can choose from. remember, the MA legislature is stacked with a majority of dems right now, so you have a lot to pick from. what if you still had romeny and this sort of law was in place in mass? would you feel so happy that he would likely pick from the anemic pool of republicans in the legislature? i’d much prefer he had the state’s entire population of goopers (or others) to choose from. the best person isn’t necessarily lying in wait in the legislature. might be, but not necessarily.
I am just saying there is a good farm team in MA, as there must be in NY. I don’t know how you codify this, but I would much rather see Mike Capuano appointed rather than someone like Chris Gabrieli.
<
p>By the way, this Caroline Kennedy thing is further proof that if you aspire to be a US Senator, the best thing to do is start off by moving to another state. Think about it. Could Bernie Sanders have been elected to the senate from New York?
<
p>There are seven current US Senators who were born in NY state. Sanders is one. Can you name the other six? (Hint: all but one are Democrats.)
that people (and I’m NOT saying you do this, just in general) like to rail against politics and how it’s always the same people running things… then suggest new ways of making sure that the same people run things.
<
p>Having a line of succession would essentially strip the ability of getting fresh faces in politics, at least at high levels. I don’t think you need previous elected experience to be an effective public official. There are plenty of jobs that offer the necessary experience – from public advocates to business owners. That’s just one reason why any ‘minor league/line of succession’ system is a bad idea.
<
p>I think that might limit people in the extraordinary circumstances of a ‘non-election’ vacancy.
<
p>The worst thing, from my point of view, is to have the seat vacant for any period of time. Perhaps the second worst thing is to have a, more-or-less, ad-hoc whim of the Gov fill the seat for more than a year or two… Somewhere between vacancy and incumbancy is the extraordinary circumstance.
<
p>
<
p>I quite agree. I think the argument is how (and why) they are chosen. Obviously the Blagojevich approach is dead wrong. On the other hand, special elections, hastily arranged and speedily concluded are, to my mind, not that much better than a gubernatorial appointment and costly to boot… although I quite agree, also, with the argument that costs of elections ought not to be a show-stopper.
<
p>
<
p>But we can’t let the desire, however noble, to get the ‘best candidate’ for the long term in there right away. I trust the process enough that, should a line of succession be enabled, a poor candidate will only be a placeholder and the next election ought to, it is my hope, usher in the ‘best candidate’.
incumbency is a powerful thing. A special election may reduce the amount of people who could run for a position, but there’ still a fair amount of choice that can offered in even a small time frame.
Who, of those likely to be selected, are “more qualified” and why?
<
p>What determines the qualifications? Previous elected office? I’m sorry, but Cuomo’s there for the name as well, and his politics aren’t particularly friendly toward progressives. He’s essentially the anti-Spitzer, from what I’ve read, and I don’t mean that in a clean-politics way. I mean that in the not-standing-up-against-corporate-interests way. Cuomo has his peeps and they aren’t the grassroots activists and middle class.
<
p>Honestly, I’m catching whiffs of sexism in all these decries against Caroline Kennedy. Why is it anymore fair for Cuomo to be appointed than a woman? Apparently, he’s the experienced one, because he has a certain extra piece of anatomy. Someone who actually had to raise a family and keep that family out of the public picture by not running for office 20 years ago clearly shouldn’t be considered today. Right…
<
p>The process is what’s wrong here and, while I’ve read a lot of anti-CK decries, I’ve read few suggestions of who and what would be fair from those people. The only thing that makes sense and the only valid suggestion I’ve heard from the anti-CK crowd is in Paterson appointing a place-holder. I’ve only heard that from Kos. But who’s to say that place-holder would really retire after 2 years? And who’s to say that Paterson will nominate a place-holder. That seems doubtful.
<
p>I’ve got to go with CK, given the choices, the process and reality. Someone’s going to be appointed and that person will run for reelection in two years. Why not CK, who the plurality of people in NY want according to the polls? She can inspire people, bring people together and has a clear record of intelligence. I don’t care about previous elected office – this is the US Senate, not an executive position. She doesn’t have to manage much of anything, she just needs to be good on the issues, an intelligent advocate and have the ability to talk to the right people who can institute change for the people of NY and country at large. I doubt anyone would question her talents on the former. Moreover, I think she’ll be exceptionally effective at the later, given the connections and help she’ll undoubtedly have because of the influence and experience of the Kennedy family.
<
p>Bottom line is I don’t think most people really care about this issue – and the polls back that up. If the people want CK in NY – and they do – Paterson may as well give her to them. To not do so, just because her name and a perceived unfairness, would rob her from them for, well, forever. Meanwhile, if she’s appointed and doesn’t do a good job, she’ll be defeated in two year’s time. I doubt that will happen, because I bet she’ll be fantastic.
might as well get Godwin out of the way too! Hitler nazi blah blah.
<
p>anyone else want to play some ridiculous nonsense card? Anyone else think people don’t want her serving in senate cuz she’s white? Thought so!
and said so in a less direct way elsewhere. not that it’s the only reason people are opposing her, but i do think people are unwittingly (we can only hope) more prone to oppose her because she is a woman. all this conversation and still not one POCK has bothered to truly look into the creds of the NYT list of alternates that Bob regurgitated. we’re still flush with Chicken POCKs. and though a few people have gone to the great strenuous effort of mentionning cuomo’s name (without saying why he should be considered), where’s all the uproar over cuomo having a big daddy legging him up in politics? crickets.
<
p>since when is being a harvard-educated person trained in law at columbia university and member of the New York and D.C bars not a qualification for the senate? oh right. since a woman with a famous name has those qualifications. because heaven know no man has entered the senate with no more than a law degree and life or work experience.
I even linked to her biography in my initial post. She has some impressive qualifications.
compare and contrast. if you favor her, tell us why patterson should too. just tossing names out there is worthless. and helps make my point.
Is Nick Kristof’s suggestion.
<
p>As to compare and contrast: Gillibrand is a seasoned politician who has proven she can get elected. Her resume in part:
<
p>
<
p>Versus a celebrity who, while charming and admirable in many ways, has never held elected office, never even run for elected office, and so far as I can tell never even held a real job in her life.
Otherwise I find that incredibly offensive.
If you want to talk about offensive!
<
p>
<
p>They said it, not me.
<
p>I define a “real job” as one for which one receives a salary, that has responsibilities and accountability, and from which one can be fired. Perhaps you are right that she has had some “real jobs” by that standard, so I’ll withdraw that characterization. Her work experience, such as it is, however, still does not qualify her to be a U.S. Senator in my opinion.
she has a famous name, but how is she a celeb?
So, every death in that family gets round-the-clock new coverage, complete with hovering helicopters, because the viewers of E! News are interest in some random rich people?
Chelsea for Senate!
<
p>Forget no more Kennedy’s…how about no more lawyers? Why is having an education in law an automatic qualification pass for public administration?
… about an administrator. We are talking about a legislator. Knowledge of the law certainly can’t hurt.
you think that studying and practicing the law isn’t a plus for a lawmaker? you do understand what the legislature does, right?
<
p>read what I wrote, because you’re twisting my words. I never said a legal education was “an automatic qualification pass”, I said it was a qualification.
<
p>and what’s with the cheap shot at lawyers?
However, that’s all she is. She’s a lawyers who’s done some significant charity work.
<
p>Fact of the matter is, if her last name wasn’t Kennedy, you’d have no idea who this woman was. She would be a face in the crowd. There’s probably a million plus people in this country with her qualifications but none of them with her name.
<
p>And a cheap shot at lawyers? somewhere in the area to 55-60% of the senators have law degrees. Fair attack.
and you know this how?
If she had a job that didn’t involve being a lawyer or charity, I’d love to hear.
<
p>check out Carolyn Maloney up above. Top-notch through and through, all without having a family that acts as a skeleton key for any door you come across.
hahahahahhahahaha!
<
p>you’ll be a good “history” teacher, i’m sure.
however substantial the charity work was, I correctly cited her occupation and the credentials people have been barking all over the news.
<
p>I have also cross-referenced these barkings with online sources including but not limited to everyone’s fav, wiki.
<
p>Failing to find any evidence that she has served in elected office, been appointed to government positions or served in an election in a capacity that does not involve her last name, I stand behind my fact.
<
p>Is she unqualified for the seat? probably not. However, she would have zero consideration without her family — another fact.
Your point is if she wasn’t JFK’s daughter she wouldn’t be a candidate. You are probably right. You said that she not unqualified, so what’s your point?
when there are probably more qualified or differently qualified people that should get more consideration before we use an inheritance system to choose the person to fill the spot.
that people who actually know the law would have some expertise in knowing how to change it? I’m not saying only lawyers can have the expertise necessary to craft good law – or that every lawyer is even good at it – I’m only saying that it is somewhat natural for people interested in crafting law coming from the profession of people employed to argue about its meaning and to know it intimately.
<
p>I wouldn’t vote for someone because they’re a lawyer, but I wouldn’t not vote for that person just because of their law degree either. No matter what their degree or profession is, I’m more curious on the whole about how they spend their time – what causes they advocate for, etc.
People go to law school to become a lawyer and make bank and better their situation.
<
p>People run for office to change this country to better the situation of others.
<
p>I think this country needs more teachers, doctors, or even gasp clergy for legislators…people who dedicate their lives to helping others rather than helping themselves.
<
p>[disclaimer] I’m aware there are lawyers who DO want to help people, as well as people who become doctors and teach…uhm..become doctors to make money.
no, thought not.
so yeah, maybe I have.
it’s the papers. And BMG is a MOST WELCOME distraction from Henry VIII.
but the most memorable professors I had were those who taught me history. Be proud, it’s noble calling.
… that all teaching is the teaching of history. For example, I didn’t ‘get’ electromagnetism fully until I learned of the approaches taken by Michael Faraday and James Maxwell to understand it. Random variables assembled into equations didn’t convey the meaning that brief histories of decisions and sticking points did. Same goes for a lot of chemistry I’ve learned.
<
p>And, while I’m not a business major, I understand that a large portion of the curriculum is ‘case studies’ which are, in essences, small histories.
… the “mechanical universe” too? I loved the historical perspective the show gave to the subject matters.
not all teachers take a ‘vow of poverty.’
<
p>Work in an urban school system, like Boston, and you’ll do very well, very soon. Work in a suburban school system and you can still do very well for yourself, especially if you’re willing to tutor or coach.
<
p>In general, our generation has finally learned that being happy doesn’t necessarily correlate with earning 3 figures – though in your case, many teachers do make 3 figures or close to it, so you may be able to have your cake and eat it too eventually. You’ll probably be much happier teaching than in a cubicle all day long and you may surprise yourself at the fact that you won’t be doing appreciably worse on the pay scale than your friends who sit on their ass all day long.
She’s likely going to be chosen. I shared the same initial thoughts with her lack of experience for the Senate. There were comparisons to Hillary, she did not hold elected office prior and I think we can all say NY has been pretty happy with the results. Yes, Hillary was elected to the Senate and the people of NY chose her to represent them without holding office prior. So if Caroline decided to run for Senate, no one would have a problem, right? The issue at hand here is what petr has posted, the process of the governor selecting a person. I for one believe there is absolutely no chance that this seat goes Republican. I also think that if Caroline ran for Senate that she would likely win. This is not me thinking that she’s the best candidate, but rather the “reality-based commentary” of the situation.