Recent Activity
Search
About This Site

The BL RAG is dedicated to the idea of free expression, thus we welcome and encourage reader commentary on current events, issues, music, sports, or other topics of interest, no matter what one's political leanings or worldview.

  

Editors: Bozio, ChicagoNeoCon, Fornax, GrayRider, Kimboskerov, kwAwk, Machiavelli, Redbeard, Skinnydipinacid, Tijuana, Wes Morgan, Xanadu, and Zoy Clem

Contributors:

Lenny and Trackerdog

Maintenance Man:

Master Admin Dude

Alumni:

Winston
Powered by Squarespace
Use OpenOffice.org
« Dem Mouthpiece HuffPo Brings in Bill the Bomber | Main | Friday Open »
Friday
02Jan

Caroline Kennedy Zeroing In on Senate

In a bid to make the Democratic Party even less sensible,  New York's governor may be preparing to name Caroline Kennedy to fill out Hillary Clinton's term.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28468962/

Ms. Kennedy is of the You Know School of Public Speaking.

She will also be able to bring her vast knowledge of how not to vote to the United States Senate: http://www.nypost.com/seven/12192008/news/politics/carolines_poll_fault_144984.htm

This next few years, with the Dems in complete control, will be vastly entertaining:

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (28)

She's great... she's like Obama... only less experienced.

January 2, 2009 at 22:30 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

In a world where a one-term senator without any legislative acomplishments and zero executive expierience is qualified to be President, why not have Caroline Kennedy be a senator?

January 2, 2009 at 22:32 | Unregistered Commentermachiavelli

Well...ah...she might..hmm...be a great, uhm Senator.

January 3, 2009 at 09:58 | Unregistered CommenterZoy Clem

I'm a bit confused. How exactly does the support of term limits so that we end up with 'citizen legislators' not professional politicians jive with this mocking of people who don't have enough experience to hold office or aren't polished enough to hold office?

So which is it inexperienced unpolished citizen legislators or experienced and polished professional politicians?

Start Jeopardy theme music here.

January 3, 2009 at 10:06 | Unregistered CommenterkwAwk

Well, I expect even a citizen legislator to have a rudimentary command of the language, and also one who can remember whether or not he or she voted in the last election...

January 3, 2009 at 10:26 | Unregistered CommenterZoy Clem

I'm no booster of the notion of appointing Caroline Kennedy a Senator; still, the folks who gave us George W. Bush and Sarah Palin, fingerpointing over ANYONE'S "public" [in a booth in a coffee shop] speaking skills?

You've GOT to be kidding. Hats off, though, for maintaining the straight face while doing it.

Preposterous.

January 3, 2009 at 12:24 | Unregistered CommenterWinston

So which is it inexperienced unpolished citizen legislators or experienced and polished professional politicians?
That's a fair question. Personally, I look more to education and intelligence than I do political experience, anyway, so I don't have much conflict on this question while supporting term limits. Yes, I'll take an inexperienced citizen-legislator...*grin*


My distaste for Kennedy, in this case, is the same distaste I held/hold for Clintons, Bushes, Bayhs, Murkowskis, Kennedys, and other "political families" in general; I don't think that dynasties, husband-wife teams and democracy mix well.

January 3, 2009 at 12:34 | Registered Commenterwesmorgan1

"So which is it inexperienced unpolished citizen legislators or experienced and polished professional politicians?"

Are those really our only two choices?

January 3, 2009 at 13:08 | Unregistered Commentermachiavelli

I'll take citizen over polished every time. But anyone who "ever" say's "yaknow" more than ONCE in the space of 10 seconds is automatically disqualified.

And yes windy, also anyone who habitually say's "youbetcha."

Davy Crockett was a citizen legislator btw, but wasn't deemed to be very smart by his fellows because of his lack of polish/sophistication.

January 3, 2009 at 13:45 | Registered CommenterTijuana

"So which is it inexperienced unpolished citizen legislators or experienced and polished professional politicians?"

Are those really our only two choices?

What other choices exist? In a perfect Congress, those with more experience would help the newcomers along until their own term limits became effective, and we'd have a "rolling" body of knowledge instead of the concentrate of seniority from which both parties currently suffer.

January 3, 2009 at 15:12 | Registered Commenterwesmorgan1

I'nt it speeecial,....Camelot lives on!
Another royal anointed Kennedy to slobber and salivate over,...friggin morons.
Wait, I think I feel a "tingle" in my legs!

January 3, 2009 at 16:56 | Unregistered Commentertazzmax

Obama votes 'present' and Caroline forgets to vote. What’s the problem? In dem politics it makes perfect sense. I know I've been gone a week drinking mas cervesa's but the alcohol didn't dull the brain that much.

January 3, 2009 at 18:20 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Wes, How about a citizen who can actually be bothered to vote? That would be a start.

January 3, 2009 at 18:52 | Unregistered CommenterRedbeard

Well, the Founders didn't see fit to add that to the qualifications, so...

(No, I couldn't resist...)

January 3, 2009 at 22:43 | Registered Commenterwesmorgan1

Nice snark, Wes, but totally off base. If you want to "get" me on original intent grounds, it will take something else.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." --Article X of the Bill of Rights

Meaning, of course, that among all the other retained rights, the people retain the right to select a public official based upon criteria which they decide is important. Like, you know, that the person actually, you know, is public spirited enough, you know, to vote.

January 4, 2009 at 06:00 | Unregistered CommenterRedbeard

You're right, of course - you can base your vote on whatever criteria you choose. You might, for instance, decide that you'll vote for only Republican candidates, no matter the race or the particular individuals. If one were to vote a party line, one might then feel no particular need to vote in primaries.

Oh, wait - almost all of the elections Kennedy has "missed" have been Democratic primaries.

January 4, 2009 at 11:43 | Registered Commenterwesmorgan1

I vote in every primary. Call me a citizen.

January 4, 2009 at 13:18 | Unregistered CommenterRedbeard

Wes;

Your working hard to rationalize this one. Pushing that boulder up hill must be exhausting.

January 4, 2009 at 16:01 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Nope - I think she's just as qualified as anyone else who's eligible. I don't have a horse in this race; she isn't going to be my Senator. Sure, I'd rather see someone else, but my objection to her appointment would be its dynastic nature, not her perceived lack of experience.

This whole "she doesn't vote" nonsense is just that; there aren't that many of us with perfect voting records, especially including primaries, and it seems kind of goofy (to me) to say "she missed two general elections in 20 years, so she shouldn't be appointed to the position."

January 4, 2009 at 17:24 | Registered Commenterwesmorgan1

So, like, you know, you're ok with it.

January 4, 2009 at 20:18 | Unregistered CommenterRedbeard

I would expect someone who wants to serve as a senator to have been interested enough in the political process, not to mention good citizenship, to vote in every election.

But I do fully agree with you, Wes, on dynastic grounds. If not for her name, Ms. Kennedy would have about as much chance as a proverbial round packed mass of snow crystals in the torrid nether region.

January 4, 2009 at 20:57 | Unregistered CommenterRedbeard

What exactly makes her a preferred choice?

January 5, 2009 at 04:44 | Registered CommenterSergeantJack

I can only guess that the Dem back room operatives are rubbing their hands together in anticipation of Princess Caroline, Sock Puppet.

January 5, 2009 at 08:18 | Unregistered CommenterRedbeard

"What exactly makes her a preferred choice?"

That is the universal question at times when it comes to Democrat candidates. They can never tell you why he/she'd make a great Senator/President/etc.... they just know they're a Democrat and they're gonna vote for him/her. That explains the base, but where's the rationale of her fellow Democrat politicians, particularily those in the New York area. Are there no Democrats more qualified than this woman to fill Hillary's shoes? None? Zero?! ZILCH!?!?

... and how many relatives of former politicians for the Democrat side of the aisle whould this annointing make now?

January 6, 2009 at 12:32 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

"Democrat candidates . . . her fellow Democrat politicians . . . the Democrat side of the aisle"

Tell ya what. I'll drop "Rethuglicans" if you drop this. Deal?

January 6, 2009 at 12:43 | Registered CommenterWinston

Maybe you need some thicker skin?

January 6, 2009 at 12:54 | Registered Commentermachiavelli

... and how many relatives of former politicians for the Democrat side of the aisle whould this annointing make now?
Um...I don't think that you can toss THAT particular grenade at only one side of the aisle while the "Jeb Bush 2012" discussions are ongoing...*laugh*

January 6, 2009 at 12:56 | Registered Commenterwesmorgan1

I can only HOPE that Jeb Bush is not my best option in 2012. lol.

Not funny... but still laughing anyway ;o)

January 6, 2009 at 13:12 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>