MyDD :: A Mandate Of 240

A Mandate Of 240

by Josh Orton, Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 12:40:03 PM EST

Caroline Kennedy now has a Facebook page with 1,392 members.

But an online petition hocking David Paterson to hire her for the Senate has garnered only about 240 takers despite a 10,000-signature goal -- and it's been up since Dec. 7th.

The Facebook page links to a CarolineforSenate.com home page, founded by a 20-something SUNY-Rockland student named Christopher Luis Cádiz Zambrana. It features the usual Kennedy-didn't-authorize-this-site disclaimer.

There's been some pushback in the comments after Jonathan and I raised concerns about Kennedy...I realize that people support her. I'm just not thrilled with how she's approached the gig. No one's asking her to hold a listening session in every county, but ducking questions and appearing mostly with political elites doesn't exactly build a notion of informed consent among the citizenry.

Update [2008-12-23 12:45:58 by Josh Orton]: And speaking of public opinion, a new Q-poll finds lukewarm support for Kennedy:

Among all registered voters in New York, 33% say Gov. David Paterson should name Kennedy to the seat, edging out state Atty. Gen. Andrew Cuomo at 29%. Among Democrats only, it's Kennedy 41% to Cuomo 27%. On top of that, New Yorkers expect that Kennedy will get the seat by a 48%-25%.
...
Only 40% of respondents said she is qualified to be a U.S. Senator, with 41% saying she is not.

I don't mean to rain on the Kennedy parade - she could turn out to serve the state well. But I don't really know why yet (and it seems New Yorkers don't either).

Tags: Caroline Kennedy, NY-Sen (all tags)

Permalink :: 22 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: A Mandate Of 240 (2.00 / 1)

She seems to be the only contender at this point with a stand in favor of full marriage equality, so I guess that says something for her.

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 12:49:14 PM EST

Imagine that (none / 0)

People are lukewarm about her after the media has hammered her for weeks straight on standards that have not existed for prior appointees. I'm shocked. Just shocked.

You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 12:50:51 PM EST

Re: Imagine that (none / 0)

Leave Caroline aloooooooooooooone!!!

by Josh Orton on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 12:52:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Seriously? (none / 0)

You think that my relatively unbiased (yes, I think well of her for supporting Obama early, no, I don't really care that much who keeps Clinton's seat warm for a couple years) observation of the ridiculous media feeding frenzy perpetrated by bottom feeders like Chris Matthews is tantamount to whining to mom?

You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 01:01:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seriously? (none / 0)

I think anyone publicly asking for a Senate appointment shouldn't duck reporters. And shouldn't release policy positions through spokespeople only when pressed.

You want reporters to just assume she's qualified?

by Josh Orton on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 01:08:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I want reporters to be honest (none / 0)

I wonder if there was a media firestorm when St. Louis lawyer Xenophon P. Wilfley was appointed, with but a year of local political service, to represent the State of Missouri in 1918 after the untimely death of William J. Stone. He served for five months and was defeated in the primaries.

Mind you, Senators in 1918 were approximately 4% more powerful than they are now; Hawaii and Alaska weren't even states yet, so there were only 96 Senators. Can you imagine giving all that power to a man who was less than one term as the chair of the local board of election commissioners?

You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 01:21:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Come on Josh, you know what is going on... (2.00 / 1)

Right now, they are ramming and cramming out position papers, and drilling KC on them?

Why?

Because it is the blessing/curse of being a Kennedy.

If she makes ONE flub, it will be 24/7 on Matthews, Blitzer, and KnowVox will flood the diary section here like Katrina!

Do you think Carolyn Mahoney would be asked to stand for an hour long press briefing and drilled on ever nuance of ever issue?

So, I agree, She needs to come out and face the press soon.

She is using the Kennedy leverage to get ahead, she needs to realize that comes with a price.

Still, I find it kind of telling that THE ONE STANCE she has stepped beyond the Clintons AND Obama,
her full throated support for Gay Marriage is getting NO takers from the Anti-Kennedy crowd?

In the midst of the firestorm about Warren, notice all the Anti-Kennedy MyDD folks (admit a lot are just Puma sock-puppets)
are simply stepping right by that one.

Support the separation of Church and State: Vote YES on WA R-71!

by WashStateBlue on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:05:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Imagine that (none / 0)

The point is not to complain about this but demand others get the same scrutiny. Do not lower standards for one person. Use this to increase standards for other nominees.

I want Caroline Kennedy to come out of this in good shape. She lost her father and brother too early. Mom is dead. She seems very well meaning. So what is there not to root for. But we should not be discouraging criticism of her just for partisan purposes. If this was the Bush family, we would want the republicans to do the same.

by Pravin on Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 10:50:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Mandate Of 240 (none / 0)

The polling on this issue has been fairly useless from my point of view. Obviously if you ask a question like "which of these people should be the next Senator?" then Kennedy and Cuomo will always be way out in front due to name recognition, but that says nothing about whether either of them would make a good pick standing alone.

The questions in this poll that single out Kennedy are more useful. Interestingly, 40% of voters say she is qualified while 41% say she is unqualified - not good numbers - but on the question "do you think she would be a good Senator?" 46% say yes and only 30% say no.

If I'm Gov. Paterson, I'm not sure I want 41% of my constituents thinking that I just appointed an unqualified person to the Senate. That wouldn't happen with a safe, largely unknown pick like Carolyn Maloney, but there also wouldn't be as much upside, so it's not immediately clear which direction to go in.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 01:00:48 PM EST

Re: A Mandate Of 240 (2.00 / 1)

What the polling data shows more than anything else (and Josh is ignoring this,) is that the people of NY have no clue who they want to represent them in the Senate just yet or why.

If 46% of the people say she would do a good job but only 40% of the people think she is qualified to do the job than it stands to reason that at least 6% of the respondents think an unqualified person is likely to do a good job.

Also you can say that it is lukewarm support, but she has a clear plurality of the respondents (and an even larger lead when you figure in just Democrats.)

I know that a lot of people hear don't want to see her get it because of the way she has approached it, and because she is a Kennedy, and because she supported Obama, and because of a dozen other reasons.

All of that being said I have a feeling that she would be an ally to the progressive movement AND that she would be a strong bet to hold the seat for just about as long as she wants.

Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America

by JDF on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 01:42:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Mandate Of 240 (none / 0)

Campaign Diaries just released its first Senate rankings of the 2010 cycle, with detailed rankings of every single race of the year. Republicans are once again stuck playing defense!

by LeftistAddiction on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 04:51:17 PM EST

Re: A Mandate Of 240 (none / 0)

She shouldn't get this seat. She isn't the best candidate, she has the best name.

Jack, Bobby and Ted are heroes of mine. But just because Caroline shares their last name does not mean she's the best choice for this seat.

by liberalj on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 05:24:28 PM EST

Okay (none / 0)

In that case, should she be judged for the seat based on traditional methods of ascertaining appropriate appointees, or should we make new criteria because of her name? Because that's what is happening. The media is applying standards that they have not applied to any other Senatorial nominee in my lifetime.

You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 05:39:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Okay (none / 0)

The media is giving her attention and respect that she would never receive if her name wasn't Kennedy.

Her name is pretty much her only qualification for the job. Not that she hasn't done good works, she has. But her resume with a different name wouldn't be considered.

Caroline should be judged on the standards everyone else is, by those standards she should be rejected as unqualified.

by liberalj on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 05:42:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What standards are those? (none / 0)

The requirement for becoming a Senator are as follows:

+ at least 30 years old.

+ a U.S. citizen for at least nine years at the time of election to the Senate.

+ a resident of the state one is elected to represent in the Senate.

These are the only requirements for the office that are specified in Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress /a/senrequire.htm

In a few years the people of New York get to decide who gets the seat for reals. Kennedy is more than qualified to keep it warm until then.

You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 05:52:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What standards are those? (none / 0)

Those aren't standards, they are requirements. As it says at the bottom of your cut and paste.

Kennedy could keep the seat warm, she isn't incapable of doing the job. But that just shows how the standard is lowered for her, she just needs to show she's up to it. Normally, you need to show you're the best, most qualified applicant.

I have nothing against Caroline, she could go on to be a great Senator. But she's not the right choice, she's not the best choice.

Patterson should choose someone who has earned it.

by liberalj on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 05:57:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's my point (none / 0)

But that just shows how the standard is lowered for her

What standard?

I've never ever heard of any of the "standards" that you're suggesting before.

You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 10:43:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's my point (none / 0)

Do you seriously think the people of New York shouldn't give a shit about who represents them in the Senate for the next two years, and possibly much longer? Two years is the length of an entire term in the House, do you think it makes no difference who represents your district for the next two years?

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 11:22:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You should care (none / 0)

After an appointee is selected, you should carefully watch that person's performance for the remainder of the term that they're serving, and then make a responsible decision in the primaries or general election the next time they're up.

This is how Democracy works.

You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 10:03:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You should care (none / 0)

I will never understand this mentality that says you should only care about a government decision after it gets made. Sometimes I wonder if anyone actually operates under such a mentality, or whether it's just a cheap way of dodging a discussion.

Thanks for the explanation of how democracy works, though. Every time I called my representatives and asked them to vote a certain way on a pending matter, I had no idea I was doing it all wrong. I should have just waited quietly to see what they would do, and then make a decision in the next election based on that.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 01:40:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Mandate Of 240 (none / 0)

What do you mean you don't mean to rain on the parade??? YOU DO!

I think what it comes down to is that the Kennedy name and the fact that its John F Kennedy's daughter means something to some of us and nothing to others... Thats really it.. Now if Caroline had led her life like some sort of crack hoe bimbo of course she would not even be considered..

The idea that the Senator who is appointed has to be the "best candidate" as liberalj posts up above is laughable. Are we to believe that over the past 200 years appointments have all been filled by the "best candidates"??? Give me a break. The law does not say it has to be the "best candidate" it simply states that the Governor fills the temporary vacancy and then there will be an election and the temporary fill in can be challenged in a primary.

by obama4presidente on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 06:10:02 PM EST

Re: A Mandate Of 240 (none / 0)

I really am struck by how little the fact that its John F Kennedy's daughter means to people around here.

by obama4presidente on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 06:11:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.