Caroline Kennedy = JLo???????

[rvablue]

Personally, I'm OK with a Kennedy appointment and I'm also OK if Paterson goes in another direction.

This analysis, however, is a total insult to a Constitutional scholar.

What a jerk....let me guess....he probably wants it for himself?????


Rep. Ackerman: Caroline Kennedy Like J-Lo

@ 10:36 am by Walter Alarkon

Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) said that possible Senate appointee Caroline Kennedy is as qualified as pop singer Jennifer Lopez, reports the New York Post.

"I don't know what Caroline Kennedy's qualifications are," Ackerman said on local New York radio before adding, "Except that she has name recognition, but so does J-Lo.

"I wouldn't make J-Lo the senator unless she proved she had great qualifications, but we haven't seen them yet," he said.

Lopez is a New York City native, having grown up in the Bronx.

Kennedy, the daughter to President John F. Kennedy and a campaign aide to President-elect Obama, has been mentioned as a possible successor to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who will vacate her seat when she becomes secretary of State.


http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/12/11/rep-ackerman-caroline-kennedy-like-j-lo/

[JuniperLea]

1. They cherry pick, don't they?

All of a sudden there's no law degree... no work of any kind. And the saddest part is, people believe that crap.

[pacalo]

2. Compared to the ex-teacher, Caroline's law degree gives her a good foundation for making laws.

[JackRiddler]

6. That's why they hire lawyers to write the language...

Please. I think the Senate could stand more teachers and fewer lawyers. I'd like to see a few nurses and garbagemen in there too.

[pacalo]

15. Please. Don't turn this into an aggrandizing debate.

I was referring to the ex-teacher's complaint that the lawyer who is acutely interested in civil rights wasn't "qualified" to serve in the Senate.

[JackRiddler]

20. I'm sure she's intellectually qualified...

However, I figure about 3 million people in this country are intellectually qualified to make good senators, and maybe 17 of them are actually in the Senate.

[pacalo]

21. Hahaaa! Isn't that the truth -- I totally agree. And Caroline would be among those 17 good ones,

along with Teddy.

[DavidDvorkin]

3. We've seen a lot of J-Lo's great qualifications

As her career starts fading, we might see even more of them.

[stillcool]

4. I wonder what Gary Ackerman's

qualifications were...ah here they are..

Gary Ackerman was born November 19, 1942, on western Long Island, in Brooklyn, New York, and raised in Flushing, Queens. He attended local public schools, Brooklyn Technical High School, and received a B.A. from Queens College in 1965. After college, Ackerman became a New York City School teacher where he taught social studies, mathematics, and journalism to junior high school students in Queens.

Following the birth of his first child in 1969, Ackerman petitioned the New York City Board of Education for an unpaid leave of absence to spend time with his newborn daughter. But his request was denied under then existing policy which reserved unpaid "maternity-child care" leave to women only.

In what was to be a forerunner of the Federal Family Leave Act, then teacher Ackerman successfully sued the Board in a landmark case which established the right of either parent to receive unpaid leave for child care. A quarter of a century later, now a Congressman, Ackerman in the House-Senate Conference Committee, signed the report of the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Ackerman's second career move occurred in 1970, when he left teaching to start a weekly community newspaper in Queens called The Flushing Tribune which soon became The Queens Tribune. Ackerman served as its editor and publisher.

Ackerman was first elected to public office—the New York State Senate—in 1978.

[JackRiddler]

5. That's not bad...

Taught school, by definition working class, fought for a just cause, won a righteous court case, started a newspaper that's still around, got himself elected to an office. I don't like him too much as a politician but those are solid qualifications. I think he's got every right to complain if Caroline Kennedy is appointed directly to the Senate because she's rich and well-connected and famous, without ever having had to run for any office or, afaik, even make a speech. It's a travesty, it really is.

I think J-Lo and Kennedy have equal rights to run for office, however. If they can make a credible case to the voters, they deserve it just as much as Ackerman or anyone else. It's the idea that she should be appointed that is disgusting.

(And if someone who's never even run for an office before is fair game for an appointment, then why can't it be broadened to include Nobel Prize winners or great novelists or artists or philosophers? Senate is not an executive position, the Senate could stand to use real variety, not just a political animal who likes to get things handed to her without needing to work.)

[stillcool]

7. No it isn't.. he's got a great record!

but what does that have to do with Caroline Kennedy's qualifications? She is a lawyer, and is a member of the bar in NY, and DC. She's written 7 books. She's involved in the New York education system, and she's been an ardent supporter for the Democratic Party her entire life? What does that have to do with "Jay-lo"? If Andrew Cuomo, or Fran Drescher got Clinton's seat would they be more 'deserving'? Would it be 'handed to them'?



.

[JackRiddler]

12. Again, if she wants to run for it...

I'm sure she can make a case. I might even vote for her. Running for an office is a valid form of trying to qualify yourself before the public, who thus get a chance to judge your ideas.

But never having even run for anything, she should now get an appointment because she's rich and connected? No.

And please: You surely are aware that book authorship, her being a bar member and "ardent" support of the Democratic Party would all mean absolute zilch if she wasn't named Kennedy. If those are qualifications for instant promotion from never-held-office to US SENATE, then she should get in line behind New York's several thousand other equally intelligent professors, lawyers and Democratic party activists. Not to mention scientists, poets and visionaries.

I can think of a worthy Kennedy for the seat, but you know in her case it's 200% about the Kennedy name, or she wouldn't be on any list for this job. Fuck that. Seriously.

[stillcool]

16. what qualifications are you looking for?

anyone but her?

[onenote]

17. she will have to run for it in two years.

Someone is going to get appointed. Why exactly does it matter whether that person has run for anything before? Should someone be disqualified from getting the nomination to run for senate without a primary challenge if they've never run for anything before? That was the situation with HRC when she catapaulted over the putative candidates for the Democratic senate nomination in 2000 and those other candidates -- experienced, elected officials with far greater ties to NY than HRC -- were essentially told to get over it. And you know what? I agreed with the party leaders that made the decision to elevate HRC over more experienced candidates and to basically hand her the nomination because I thought she'd make the stronger candidate in the general. And I feel the same way with respect to Caroline Kennedy -- that she'd be the strongest candidate in the general in 2010.

Indeed, unlike HRC, Kennedy has no guarantee that when 2010 rolls around she won't face a primary challenge. If she's the strong candidate I expect her to be, she'll persevere. If not, she'll lose. Getting the appointment is by no means the same as handing her the seat in 2010.

[JackRiddler]

18. HRC won it by vote...

That's the people's choice. (Sort of, given that we are stuck with a party duopoly.) Getting the seat by appointment is an entirely different matter. It should go to someone whom at least some of the people have chosen before. Maloney, for example, or Cuomo.

However, if two free years in the United States Senate should be opened up and awarded to anyone the governor feels like, regardless of having had no political career to date, then Kennedy is even less qualified. Being rich and connected by way of family money should be an absolute disqualifier. This is supposed to be a democracy and a meritocracy, not an aristocracy. So that's right: anyone but her, she already got enough freebies in her life.

Let's send our children a positive message about how to get to the Senate, like "work hard, do well in school and have original ideas," rather than "be born rich and raise money for politicians."

After a few minutes browsing the faculty of Columbia University, for a start (we have great state schools in New York, too, so I'd like to look there as well), I found a whole bunch of more deserving candidates, but there's a real standout:

http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/academics/directory/jes322-fac.html

So what's are the criteria? Political career, or general achievement? On either scale, Ms. Kennedy is nowhere.

[onenote]

22. no one is going to win the "appointment" by a vote.

Right? Get it? Someone is going to get to be US Senator for 2009 and most of 2010 without having the voters decide they should get the job. And then, if they still want the job, they'll have to get the voters support. That's true for Caroline Kennedy. And its true for every single other person who might want the job.

Why does it matter whether someone has faced the voters before? Should someone who has run statewide and lost be preferred over someone who has run and won in a small district?

The reason most candidates get the nomination to run for office is that the voters think that they are more electable than the other choices. In this case, there is no way for the voters to make that choice -- it will be made by the party leaders. Just as the party leaders made that choice when they made it clear that HRC was their choice for the nomination in 2000 and that other candidates should give up.

As for who is deserving -- that has never, ever been the criteria. Its who can get elected and do the job. There is no reason to think that Caroline Kennedy fails on either of those criteria.

I assume you don't think that being rich and connected is a disqualifier for getting elected. If its not, then why is it a disqualifier for getting appointed when you have to stand for election in less than two years?

[JackRiddler]

24. Oh, I get it...

You think hereditary dynasties are acceptable, I do not.

Again, by election, at least the people have a say, however limited.

By appointment, the last thing that should be done is to give it away as a favor to a rich person who raised money for the Democrats. That's practically the definition of corrupt. So if anyone is to be considered, it should at least go on merit. I say Stiglitz! Or some other Nobel Prize winner - New York is full of them, actually.

[gmudem]

19. Cuomo is a statewide elected official in New York

And has also been a cabinet secretary in the past, so I would say yes he is more qualified than Kennedy.

[onenote]

23. how does either of those positions make him more "qualified"?

Was George Allen more qualified to be US Senator than Jim Webb because Allen was a Senator and Webb had never held elected office? Was Bob Franks, a four term congressman more qualified to be US Senator than Jon Corzine, who had never held any government office?

Oh, and was JOhn McCain more qualified than Barack Obama because McCain had served in elected positions in the US government longer than Obama?

Having experience may make someone prefer one candidate over another. But it doesn't necessarily mean that they are more "qualified" or, more importantly would be the best person for the job.

[gmudem]

26. Those comparisons don't work.

Kennedy is a lawyer but it doesn't seem like she has been to involved in politics or government before this opportunity. Webb was a high-ranking military officer, Corzine was an executive of a large financial company, and Obama was a U.S. Senator. Has Caroline Kennedy held any positions like that?

[rvablue]

9. Take a peak at journalist classifieds, the Queen Tribune can't hang on to a reporter

for the life of them.....even in a very competitive and bleak job market for young journalists.

Wonder why?

[deaniac21]

8. I bet j-lo would be a great senator.

[rvablue]

10. I hope that you've simply neglected a sarcasm tag in your post. n/t

[JackRiddler]

13. Better than Larry Summers and Robert Rubin as economic "advisers"...

or Robert Gates as the continuing Minister of War.

[whippo]

11. JLo for President 2016

[Tutonic]

14. Lil Kim for VP

[kskiska]

25. Three qualifications for Senator

You must be at least at the age of 30 years old, and you must have been a U.S. citizen for at least 9 years. Resident of the state he/she will represent.

Qualifications for Supreme Court Justice - None, but must be confirmed by Senate.

[elehhhhna]

27. If Caroline is J-Lo, Sarah Palin is Paula Abdul.

lol