For the love of God, someone put this woman out of her misery. She’s in over her head in a way that we haven’t seen in, well, about a couple of months. Others have spoken extensively about the problems inherent in the entitlement mentality that Ms. Kennedy clearly subscribes to, but the case against her best comes from her own, you know, lips. In an interview with the New York Times, the socialite-cum-candidate-for-you-know-public-office didn’t have a lot to, um, say:
“I’m really coming into this as somebody who isn’t, you know, part of the system, who obviously, you know, stands for the values of, you know, the Democratic Party[.]”
…
“I know how important it is to, you know, to be my own person. And, you know, and that would be obviously true with my relationship with the mayor.”
…
“Andrew is, you know, highly qualified for this job,” she said. “He’s doing a, you know, a great job as attorney general, and we’ve spoken throughout this process.”
…
“You know, I think, you know, we’re sort of, uh, sharing some of this experience. And um, as I’ve said, he was a friend, a family member, and um so, and uh obviously, he’s, you know, he’s also had an impressive career in public office.”
…[W]hen asked how she might differ with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg or with Governor Paterson, who has sole authority to make the Senate appointment, she demurred.
“I’m not going to talk about my disagreements with him,” she said. “You’ll find out over time.”
If you want to know what she stands for, why don’t you just appoint her already? Gosh. Don’t you know who she is?
Ms. Kennedy would not say…whether she supported proposals to abolish tenure for teachers and offer them merit pay instead.
“To pick out the most controversial one as a stand-alone thing, I don’t think that’s really the way to go about this,” Ms. Kennedy said. “People can vote; it’ll be really interesting to see what happens. There’s a lot of experimentation going on in the country that we should pay attention to.”
Huh? Okay, well, how would you vote, Ms. Kennedy? Yes, there’s a lot of experimentation going around. Have you been paying attention to any of it? What do you think of it? Isn’t this your supposed area of specialty?
One of the main assets she could bring to the Senate, Ms. Kennedy suggested, was her celebrity itself. It would be useful, she said, in bringing attention to New York’s needs and fighting for a bigger share of federal stimulus money.
She may have a point. If she’s appointed to this — which she probably will be: is Governor Paterson, a legacy officeholder himself, really going to mortify a Kennedy? — it will only confirm that, in politics, nothing quite beats being born with the right last name.
She said she employed one household worker as well as a personal assistant — though she said she had far more experience managing people at the Department of Education. “Building a staff is something that I would have no trouble doing,” she said.
Oh, good grief.
…[W]hen asked Saturday morning to describe the moment she decided to seek the Senate seat, Ms. Kennedy seemed irritated by the question and said she couldn’t recall.
“Have you guys ever thought about writing for, like, a woman’s magazine or something?” she asked the reporters. “I thought you were the crack political team.”
Huh?
—
OK, so here’s what we know about Ms. Kennedy: she supports gay marriage (why?), opposes vouchers (why?), supports an undivided capital in Jerusalem (why?), opposes NAFTA (why?), and wants to bring people together (oh boy!). It’s not too harsh to say that a higher level of scrutiny needs to be applied to Kennedy: she is seeking this office with a preposterously low level of experience, has never been particularly attentive to New York politics, has never written much about politics in a way that doesn’t merely employ platitudes, and has lived a life of luxury, floating along on her family name. It’s not like she’s used to her family name to make herself a paragon of accomplishment through the channels that she’s been offered, which is at least something that we can say about, say, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. She’s just lounged around as a socialite, editor of a few books, and sometimes-public advocate. So when she comes to the table asking for a Senate seat, she deserves a lot of probing into her thoughts. This isn’t a time for fooling around: we face the threats of a depression, a nuclear Iran, and an ongoing war against radical Islam. We need serious professionals, not a celebrity.
December 29th, 2008 at 5:34 am
Paterson is going to give us a leftwinger no matter what. At least it would be preferable for him to choose someone that has more than an empty vacuum between her ears. It’s not like there is a shortage of Democrats in NYS. He has plenty of better options. I’m really interested to see what he does. If he screws up this appointment it could hurt his own chances in 2010.
December 29th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Well, you know, she say you know, a litle too much, just like that other woman, who ALSO was seeking office and ALSO didn’t had much to say, you know, beside, you know, ALSO.
December 29th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Palin was given the redneck treatment while Kennedy is being given the royal treatment. Predictable. Like I said from the beginning: the Palin defenestration was mostly a class thing. Palin was ludicrously more qualified to be VP- an office which was, until Nixon in 52′, far less prestigious/important then Senator- then Caroline is to be Senator. But, thus far we have 1/2 of the press discussing Ms. Kennedy in hagiographic terms, and maybe 1/3 expressing mild skepticism. I’ve heard no “cancer on the Democratic Party” comments, or suggestions that it’s legitimately possible that she doesn’t know the name of ANY newspaper, no witty references to her cultural milieu. Because, my goodness Ms. Kennedy is a Kennedy, and she went to Haaaavad, and she’s been to tea with oh so many fascinating people. Kathleen Parker is sold.
December 29th, 2008 at 9:36 am
hopefully giuliani and king can knock off patterson and kennedy and free ny of this crap in 2010
December 29th, 2008 at 9:38 am
if it makes you feel better, I’m an Obama voter who travels in mostly liberal/Democratic circles, and I don’t know anybody who hasn’t been rolling their eyes at C. Kennedy and hoping this whole thing blows over very quickly. what an embarrassment.
appointing C. Kennedy would be a huge gift from the blue team to the red team and I think it’s becoming rapidly less likely.
i almost never agree with M Miller but yes, the class/status dynamic here is ugly, and i say that as somebody without much patience for Palin.
December 29th, 2008 at 10:07 am
say what you will about politicians like Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, but at least they had the guts to stand before the voters of their states and ask them for their vote. Princess Kennedy wants to be appointed to the Senate, as if it were the House of Lords.
December 29th, 2008 at 10:20 am
“she is seeking this office with a preposterously low level of experience”
It worked for Obama.
December 29th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Alex, don’t you understand that Ms. Kennedy has had to work twice as hard as everyone else just because of her last name? How can you put such an unreasonable demand of (gasp) experience or (double gasp) stating her actual stand on issues in the way of such a hard-working individual, who has had such a burden of having the Kennedy name? I mean, she’d likely have already received the seat if she wasn’t a Kennedy!
December 29th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Geez. with the mess in Illinois and this soap opera, you have to wonder if the states should just abandon the vacancy appointments in favor of immediate run-offs.
December 29th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Dark horse 2012 candidate of the week: Bret Schundler
December 29th, 2008 at 10:50 am
I’m still waiting for the bill clinton pick
December 29th, 2008 at 10:53 am
maybe george pataki for senate in 2010 with rudy for gov and the gop might make a stand in NY state
December 29th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I think the idea of the GOP making a play in liberal states is exaggerated in both likelihood and benefit.
The kind of people who would be necessary to make gains in those areas would serve very little benefit beyond perhaps giving us back actual control of the congress – and even the term “control” would be questionable if we continually had to pander to the left flank of the party.
Thats the problem with the GOP going after blue districts (and by that I mean districts that are ideologically liberal, not ones that are simply occupied by Democrats), or the DNC going after red areas – it breaks down the ideological debate that should define politics.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:54 am
caroline needs her title of senator so obama can justify putting her on the ticket and replacing biden in 2012, followed by the MSM collectively orgasming to the site of king barack and princess caroline
December 29th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Kennedy as VP? No way…
Assuming Obama is even in the position in four years to win re-election by a comfortable enough margin to justify thinking ahead four years, not to mention to convince a rising Democratic star to roll the dice on their future by joining the ticket, there are far better candidates – look to Virginia if you want to see a potential VP replacement.
December 29th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
The Dems don’t think that way though. They are making inroads in VA, CO, AZ, MT. Give me ten Susan Collins in NY. They are still better than a Chuck Schumer.
December 29th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
#13 – Yeah, everyone should be either a Strom Thurmond or a Ted Kennedy! That’d be great for the country!
December 29th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
#15 – Well, McCain convinced a rising Republican star to roll the dice on her future by joining his ticket… Face it, only about 10% of politicians are as smart as Bobby Jindal, sadly. Plus, unless Obama screws up big-time, he’ll be very, very likely to be re-elected in 2012.
December 29th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
#13 “Thats the problem with the GOP going after blue districts (and by that I mean districts that are ideologically liberal, not ones that are simply occupied by Democrats), or the DNC going after red areas – it breaks down the ideological debate that should define politics.”
What you are suggesting, MatthewK, is abandoning all areas that aren’t already conservative. This is a great way of making sure the party doesn’t grow, and that liberal enclaves remain liberal enclaves. What we need is articulate candidates in all areas, pushing actual conservative ideas and messages. Doing so will help move areas currently dominated by liberals to be less so (and in some cases, flip them from mildly liberal to mildly conservative). You won’t do that by ignoring blue districts.
December 29th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I’ll be eagerly awaiting the SNL mock-up of this. Guess I’ll be waiting along time, you know..
December 29th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
We don’t have the luxury of ignoring blue enclaves when we are in the minority in both houses of congress and when we don’t hold the presidency
December 29th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
When did so-called Reagan Republicans start insisting we divide up the country and not try to persuade our opponents?
Do they/you not know that a major distinguishing characteristic of Ronald Reagan was to reach out to Democrats and change their minds?
December 29th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
No – that’s not what I said. I NEVER said we should try to change minds. What I said, or at least meant to say, was that we shouldn’t run those more at home in the DNC just to gain seats – that is no way to promote an ideology. Run all the Conservatives in Blue districts that you want, work to change minds all you can, but DO NOT stock the party full of leftists.
===
“The Dems don’t think that way though.”
And what has it gotten them beyond physical control of the Congress? Not much. Even with control, the Democrats weren’t able to push through a wave of liberal legislation. The party is now so filled with moderates and Conservatives that the liberal ideology that the DNC is supposed to represent has to be watered down beyond most recognition to pass.
How many of the Pelosi-backed bills are dependent on support from liberal Republicans for passage?
A while back, there was talk about how the DNC is great for building a majority, but not at all good for governing with one.
====
Its great that the GOP attacks liberals, but we should really be putting our focus on the Conservative Democrats. Why wasn’t there a serious challenge to Johnson in SD? We have to portray these people as Democrats who, though they are not so bad themselves, are pawns and enablers of the liberals.
====
Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats are damaging the party system (and probably the country as a whole) by mixing the two ideologies.
December 29th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
put it this way – how does the liberal ideology and agenda benefit from having a pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, anti-tax Democrat hold a seat in GA?
How does the Conservative ideology benefit from having a pro-gay, anti-business, anti-life, anti-gun, affirmative action Republican hold a seat in CA?
December 29th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
MatthewK,
It doesn’t work that way in practice. Take social, fiscal, foreign issues. If one is liberal on all three he is not going to be a Republican. If conservative on all three, he probably won’t be a Democrat. There are always going to be shades of gray. I’d much rather have Arlen Specter voting FOR Roberts and Alito than any Democrat. As a so-con I am sure you would too. If you write off blue areas or demand ideological purity then you win the South by a ton – and lose everywhere else.
December 29th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
First, why do you assume the south is the only area where three-leg conservatives can win is the South?
Second, I’m not even going to get into moderates in this discussion – but there are people in the GOP who are more liberal than Conservative, just as there are some Democrats who are more Conservative than liberal. And THAT is where the problem is.
December 29th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
MatthewK,
Because three-leg conservatives haven’t won in the Northeast or West in twenty years. And the Mountain West is slipping too.
December 29th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
#26 “but there are people in the GOP who are more liberal than Conservative, just as there are some Democrats who are more Conservative than liberal. And THAT is where the problem is.”
THAT problem is due to the nature of a two-party system. To win power, you have to appeal to more than just your core ideology. If you want to have a system where the D or R (or I, L, G, etc.) after a name means anything whatsoever, you need a provisional election system, so people don’t feel forced into supporting one of the two large parties when it’s the lesser of two evils to them. Republicans aren’t to blame for not being ideologically-pure, the electoral system is rigged to punish them if they are.
December 29th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
“Because three-leg conservatives haven’t won in the Northeast or West in twenty years. And the Mountain West is slipping too.”
Well, the far west and the Northeast are one thing – but there are still plenty of strong conservatives in the midwest, and some in the southwest, in addition to the South.
The 2007 ACU ratings give five Senators 100% ratings – two are from the South, two are from the Plains region, one is from the mountain west, and one is from the southwest.
—
And you seems to think that a two-party system is a bad thing – I think its a great thing.
My problem is with the Republicans who belong in the DNC, and the Democrats who would probably be a better fit in the RNC.
December 29th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
#29, just as there are more than two logical (depending on how you look at it) combinations of what public policy should be, there should be more than two viable parties in existence. The current system doesn’t particularly allow for that (though they try in MN; see where that gets them?). This “You’re either with me, or against me” philosophy will do wonders for rallying a solid 20% of the population who will turn out like crazy and always vote for you. Go down the line, eliminating anyone who disagrees with one of the three legs (“Oh, you’re for same sex marriage, off you go!” “Oh, you think the fed has a right to restrict guns in certain areas, can’t have that!” “Oh, you believe in FEMA, blasphemer be gone!”). You will quickly find that party with double digit seats in the House, and a threat of going to 25 seats in the Senate.
“My problem is with the Republicans who belong in the DNC, and the Democrats who would probably be a better fit in the RNC.”
Based on what definition? If a person is a fiscal conservative and a social liberal (seems oxymoronical, doesn’t it; yet this exists in a substantial number of people), which party should they be assigned to? Should they just be kept from voting or declaring a party? No, if you want political parties to mean something ideologically, then there needs to be a way to allow for third (and fourth) parties to operate on a realistically competitive level. A two party system will only lead to fiscal conservatives becoming Dem because of social issues, and social liberals becoming Reps because of fiscal issues.
December 29th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
“The 2007 ACU ratings give five Senators 100% ratings – two are from the South, two are from the Plains region, one is from the mountain west, and one is from the southwest.”
Is there something wrong with my math skills today? That doesn’t seem right.
December 29th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Most all democrats and liberals are in over their head. And many republicans.
December 29th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
“Is there something wrong with my math skills today? That doesn’t seem right.”
Nope – that was me. Sorry. Six Senators.
December 29th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I’ve heard no “cancer on the Democratic Party” comments, or suggestions that it’s legitimately possible that she doesn’t know the name of ANY newspaper, no witty references to her cultural milieu. Because, my goodness Ms. Kennedy is a Kennedy, and she went to Haaaavad, and she’s been to tea with oh so many fascinating people. Kathleen Parker is sold.
I’ve heard no apologies from your likes for accusing me of attacking Palin for her culture and class. I think I’ve clearly demonstrated, time and again, that I was going after her for her intellect and qualifications.
December 29th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
“A two party system will only lead to fiscal conservatives becoming Dem because of social issues, and social liberals becoming Reps because of fiscal issues.”
Why do you assume that social conservatism and fiscal conservatism are incompatible? Its the opposite – you can’t have a society that abandons all traditional morals, values, and social standards while expecting only minimal government involvement in the economy.
===
A multi-party system would both decrease the stability of the US government (look at the comparative weakness of the parliamentary governments in Europe – all dependent on shaky coalitions that break up frequently, constantly shifting the balance of power) and ensure that even less gets accomplished than it does now.
December 29th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
“that I was going after her for her intellect and qualifications.”
Concerns that were clearly justified – even if they got us both banned.
December 29th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Why do you assume that social conservatism and fiscal conservatism are incompatible? Its the opposite – you can’t have a society that abandons all traditional morals, values, and social standards while expecting only minimal government involvement in the economy.
Why?
They’re compatible only in the sense that they’re both traditional.
But I don’t see how we can decry government intervention on one hand and then say that government is absolutely fantastic, on the other hand. How can you be for liberty on one hand and social engineering on the other?
December 29th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
“Why?”
Because a strong economy (and with it a strong military, and through that, a strong nation in general) is dependent on two things – the first is a strong and growing population. The second is a population with strong values (ethical, moral, etc.).
Both of those things are provided by the type of strong, traditional conservative values supported by the GOP.
December 29th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
“But I don’t see how we can decry government intervention on one hand and then say that government is absolutely fantastic, on the other hand. How can you be for liberty on one hand and social engineering on the other?”
because gov. intervention is not the root of all evil…nor is all intervention created equal.
Think – why do you oppose government intervention in the economy? Because it involves the government? Not likely, or you’d be an anarchist. Since you aren’t, I can only assume that your opposition is based on a recognition that excessive taxation and over-regulation impede growth. In other words, government over-involvement in economic policy has negative results.
But does government involvement in social policy have the same negative consequences? If said involvement involves protecting the traditional definition of the family, preventing millions of babies from being aborted, and promoting social values that benefit the country 0 then I think the answer is no.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
The hell is your bizarro obsession with population growth?
I oppose government intervention in the economy for moral reasons, first and foremost.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:29 am
“put it this way – how does the liberal ideology and agenda benefit from having a pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, anti-tax Democrat hold a seat in GA?
How does the Conservative ideology benefit from having a pro-gay, anti-business, anti-life, anti-gun, affirmative action Republican hold a seat in CA?”
Matt, you aren’t asking the right question. Focus less on the theoretical benefits to an ideology and more on the concrete benefits to predominately non-ideological voters: Do the people of New York want to live in a state where one party assured of complete control of government, no matter how badly they screw up? Two party rule is ESSENTIAL for a functional, transparent, representative government. Pretty much anywhere where one party rule is entrenched (Chicago, Washington DC, the California legislature, the old South, etc.) the results are eventually disasterous for the people who live there.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Haha, Sean P just asked MatthewK to think non-ideologically. LOL.
December 30th, 2008 at 6:46 am
#35 “Why do you assume that social conservatism and fiscal conservatism are incompatible?”
You misunderstand my meaning. I’m saying that you’ll have a certain portion of the population go to the “wrong” party based on feeling more strongly on a single issue they disagree with in the “right” party than the multitude of issues they agree with them on. You just won’t get an ideologically pure party when you are confined to just two choices at the ballot.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:33 am
#14 Max and #18 WinM, you two seem to be seeing the larger picture. Obama will win a 2nd term, and he will replace Biden with Princess Caroline as VP on the ticket. The MSM will be enraptured at this dream ticket, the first black POTUS and the only surviving child of JFK. They don’t care if she isn’t able to talk intelligently, she is a Kennedy and that should be the only thing that matters. In 2016 Princess Caroline will be in the prime position to become the first woman
POTUS.
December 31st, 2008 at 2:11 pm
After Princess become POTUS, she will appoint Obama to be the US Ambassador to the United Nations. From there Obama will become Secretary General and his experience in the Chicago political machine will enable him to fit right in.