The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in Caroline Kennedy: One More Dynasty We Don't Need

Re: Caroline Kennedy: One More Dynasty We Don't Need

GeorgeSorwell — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:42:25 -0000

I'm kind of surprised at the enthusiasm for a "placeholder". I doubt the people of New York would be well-served by two years worth of lame duckery. That much seems obvious.

I also think that by holding off on announcing a replacement, Patterson is giving time for the bloom to fade. Which, for all the reasons listed here, might happen. Or might not happen, in which case, Kennedy might seem like a reasonable choice.

Re: Caroline Kennedy: One More Dynasty We Don't Need

jchem — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:43:21 -0000

It would be rather interesting to see what kind of back door lobbying is going on now for this seat, what with the whole Blago thing. Wasn't Ted trying to flex some muscle? As far as Caroline Kennedy goes, I suppose the governor can put in whoever he wants. I don't know what "credentials" she seriously has, and as mikeyes points out, I'm really not all that sure what credentials are required. Something tells me though that if her name was Caroline Smith, or anything other than Kennedy, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Population wise, New York is huge; isn't there anybody at the state level who has been there forever and ready to move up?

Re: Caroline Kennedy: One More Dynasty We Don't Need

DLS — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:53:39 -0000

"Patterson should nominate some sort of place holder who does not have big ambitiions. "

AH! but that's where the Dem Party nation-wide machine comes in, and Obama and Emanuel. It has to be someone trustworthy.

I'd hate to see Spitzer, Cuomo, or Kennedy be chosen. I wonder if the governor is thinking of "parachuting" himself out of his budget predicament (Mr. Cuomo, the governorship, the budget, and the consequences are all yours! Congratulations) and into the Senate.

Re: Caroline Kennedy: One More Dynasty We Don't Need

mikeyes — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:02:14 -0000

Exactly what are the qualifications for being a Senator other than being a millionaire and having ambition? A law degree helps, I suppose, but there are a number of Senators whose only qualifications include the money they had when they were elected.

Re: Caroline Kennedy: One More Dynasty We Don't Need

Jazz — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:50:39 -0000

I wish I had thought of that. In fact, I think I'll update the article with your suggestion.

Re: Caroline Kennedy: One More Dynasty We Don't Need

superdestroyer — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:23:33 -0000

Patterson should nominate some sort of place holder who does not have big ambitiions. Then Cuomo, Kennedy, and others can run in 2010 without one of them having the advantage of being the incumbent.

ms. Kennedy should run if she wants to, but she should not be the incumbent when she runs.

Re: Caroline Kennedy: One More Dynasty We Don't Need

Jazz — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:16:25 -0000

Yes, George, but if she wasn't in the running I'd be pretty much out of work until Jan. 21st, now wouldn't I? So thank God for Caroline Kennedy! Otherwise Joe would stop paying me and my family would be living in a refrigerator box under an overpass someplace.

Re: Caroline Kennedy: One More Dynasty We Don't Need

GeorgeSorwell — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:04:02 -0000

I agree with you about her qualifications, though I'd bet she'd win if she ran in an actual election.

I imagine Patterson won't make any official decision until after Clinton is confirmed. Making this story one more endless strand of speculation that will go on for weeks and weeks and weeks, with a few more weeks thrown in.

Re: Caroline Kennedy: One More Dynasty We Don't Need

Dave_Schuler — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:00:25 -0000

My general view is that New Yorkers are entitled to elect any damn fool senator they care to. I thought they were idiots to elect Hillary Clinton but, basically, it's none of my business.