15 December 2008

Caroline Kennedy Wants It.

"It" is a U.S. Senate seat, if you believe Rev. Al Sharpton and others. New Yorkers now seem convinced that the Daughter of JFK actively covets the seat that Senator Clinton will surrender if she's confirmed as Secretary of State. This is her resume, or as much as the Times could throw together. Are you impressed? I am not. I have nothing against the woman as an individual, and I can't pass judgment on her political views -- but that's part of my main point. Mrs. Schlossberg should be reminded that this is not the Roman Republic, but a democratic one. There are no "senatorial" families in this country, and she has neither the obligation nor the guaranteed right to keep her family's name in the upper house of Congress. If it's now a matter of public record that she wants Governor Paterson to pick her, then the very least she owes to the people of New York is to step forward and explain to us why she thinks she's fit for the job. I said my piece last week about the need for a constitutional amendment that would take such decisions out of governors' hands. For all I know, a Kennedy could win an election in this state, so I don't demand this with the thought of keeping Caroline out of Washington. But the people should have a say in this matter. If they want Caroline, let them tell the governor. If they want someone else, let them name the person. If they want an election, let them say that. But simply bowing to an accidental governor's arbitrary will on this subject seems undemocratic, and the last time I looked New York was a blue state.


hobbyfan said...

We're not even sure if Swillary will even be confirmed as Secretary of State, but the media seems to think that's a slam dunk. Caroline Kennedy has lived in NYC most of her life (after her late mother moved there in the 70's, I think), and is more established in the state than Swillary was in the first place. It's not entirely about nepotism and taking advantage of Gov. Paterson, but an excuse to keep the Kennedy family 1) in the news as well as 2) in the senate.

The Crime Think Collective said...

In this case, I'd have to side with the "right". According to the Constitution, a person is ineligible to that office if the office received a salary increase while said Senator was in office. The constitution says nothing about eligibility if the increase is rescinded. And to try to appoint someone to office using such a fix (even though it has been done before) is sneaky and underhanded and most certainly NOT what the founding fathers had in mind.

Further proof that the modern American government holds the Constitution in contempt unless it suits them otherwise.