Princess Caroline wants to be your Senator, New York...

[Keystone Phil]

...even though voting...well...it isn't really her thing - http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/12/20/caroline_kennedy_missed_voting_in_several_elections/



She found no point in voting in 1994 which included a vote for the Senate seat that she wants to hold.

I noticed that this story was posted two days ago in the other thread but it didn't generate any discussion. It looks like it got buried during a debate in that thread. Hopefully, this will spark some conversation.

[they don't love you like i love you]

*yawn*

Let New York decide in 2 years.

[Lunar]

I’m more concerned by her refusal to back a Democrat in the upcoming mayor’s race than I am about her missing some [admittedly some close ones] Democratic primaries and general elections in years past. 

But yeah, big yawn.  I don’t care if Paterson appoints someone that has never voted or used to vote Republican.  But it should be someone with clear positions on the issues, if nothing else.

[Holmes]

Oh, you.

Now that we know some of her stance of some issues, what else is there to bash... hmm.. oh yes, her voting record. Can't cover that one up!

As for her not backing a Democrat in the mayoral primaries, why should she? If she likes Bloomberg, it's her choice. Then again, I'm just a Caroline hack.

[Lunar]

Now that we know some of her stance of some issues, what else is there to bash... hmm.. oh yes, her voting record. Can't cover that one up!

As for her not backing a Democrat in the mayoral primaries, why should she? If she likes Bloomberg, it's her choice. Then again, I'm just a Caroline hack.

We know her stance on what, three issues?  She's in favor of an undivided Jerusalem, she's pro gay-marriage, oh, and she doesn't like to see poor schools perform poorly.  What more could one ask for?

She has demonstrated NO abilities to be a senator.  She refuses to hold a press conference where she takes questions, she hasn’t demonstrated any knowledge of New York issues, ands he hasn’t demonstrated any ability to run a campaign or face media scrutiny.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Now that we know some of her stance of some issues, what else is there to bash... hmm.. oh yes, her voting record. Can't cover that one up!

As for her not backing a Democrat in the mayoral primaries, why should she? If she likes Bloomberg, it's her choice. Then again, I'm just a Caroline hack.

We know her stance on what, three issues?  She's in favor of an undivided Jerusalem, she's pro gay-marriage, oh, and she doesn't like to see poor schools perform poorly.  What more could one ask for?

She has demonstrated NO abilities to be a senator.  She refuses to hold a press conference where she takes questions, she hasn’t demonstrated any knowledge of New York issues, ands he hasn’t demonstrated any ability to run a campaign or face media scrutiny.

Better than being an absolutely wretched and horrible Senator like the current occupant of that seat.

[Speed of Sound]

Tis' the English New Yorkian Restoration! Look, James II even looks like her! (A little more substance to James)


I really do hate how she is favored for a seat against people with....CREDENTIALS. How the hell can she get this seat of Cuomo? How can you justify it? The picture above, and notihng more. Ugh, infuriating.

[CultureKing]

I feel like she isn't that horrible of a candidate. She has done alot of charitable work and truthfully just by being a Kennedy means that a fair portion of you life is political by default (I am not saying that means she deserves a senate seat, just that's the way it is, it is not as if she is a competely unexperienced loon).

[Lunar]

Now that we know some of her stance of some issues, what else is there to bash... hmm.. oh yes, her voting record. Can't cover that one up!

As for her not backing a Democrat in the mayoral primaries, why should she? If she likes Bloomberg, it's her choice. Then again, I'm just a Caroline hack.

We know her stance on what, three issues?  She's in favor of an undivided Jerusalem, she's pro gay-marriage, oh, and she doesn't like to see poor schools perform poorly.  What more could one ask for?

She has demonstrated NO abilities to be a senator.  She refuses to hold a press conference where she takes questions, she hasn’t demonstrated any knowledge of New York issues, ands he hasn’t demonstrated any ability to run a campaign or face media scrutiny.

Better than being an absolutely wretched and horrible Senator like the current occupant of that seat.

Whether or not Caroline would be better than Hillary is irrelevant because Hillary is not in the running.

That's not a justification whatsoever.

[Lunar]

I feel like she isn't that horrible of a candidate. She has done alot of charitable work

OH RLY

Front page Politico story.

Her charitable work, while averagely-impressive, was mostly just to lend her mother f-ing name to charity causes!  Someone else did all of the actual fundraising.

[Eraserhead]

I don't really care that much about this. I just want to know if she'll actually be talking to the press at some point or is that just not going to happen?

[Keystone Phil]

Oh, you.

Now that we know some of her stance of some issues, what else is there to bash... hmm.. oh yes, her voting record. Can't cover that one up!

As for her not backing a Democrat in the mayoral primaries, why should she? If she likes Bloomberg, it's her choice. Then again, I'm just a Caroline hack.

Yeah, oh, me (whatever that means).

I guess asking your future Senator to show up and vote in a few critical elections is too much. I don't get how someone with such a background in politics misses a single election.

[© tweed]

I am beginning to barely care about this

[they don't love you like i love you]

I am beginning to barely care about this

Does this mean you do care now but are seeing it less of an issue or don't care now but are starting to?

[© tweed]

I am beginning to barely care about this

Does this mean you do care now but are seeing it less of an issue or don't care now but are starting to?

latter


one of the answers she gave to a question someone asked her on the tv reminded me of Palin

[they don't love you like i love you]

Meh. I just care about the fact that she'd basically be a slap in the face to Hillary. Better than one of Hillary's lackeys.

[Lunar]

Which of the prospective 12 are Hillary lackeys?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Any that endorsed her over Obama.

[Lunar]

That's like the basis of NY politics.  It has nothing to do with being a hack.   You yourself admit that you enjoy all kinds of political shenanigans in order to get ahead.  I'm sure all kinds of people "endorsed' Hillary (aka something meaningless in order to advance their personal political advocacy).  Everyone who didn't publicly stick it to Hillary isn't a Hillary hack.

And I'm someone who probably wouldn't have voted this year if Hillary was nominated.  I dislike her intensely but this logic makes no sense.

Which of the prospective 12 are Hillary lackeys?

Any that endorsed her over Obama.

[they don't love you like i love you]

But putting an active Obama supporter in there is so much cooler than someone who gave Hillary only a lukewarm endorsement.

[Lunar]

But putting an active Obama supporter in there is so much cooler than someone who gave Hillary only a lukewarm endorsement.

Is showing up Hillary (who has actually indirectly supported Caroline by quieting all anti-Carline support) really anything at all now that the ()'s have happened?

It makes the Democrats look bad, thus enabling anti-Democratic partisans to expand their arguments.  Neither of us want that.  Do we want Sean Hannity to sound like a loon to moderates or do we want him to have a legitimate point?

[Lunar]

YAY Secrecy.  That was the best part of the Bush/Cheney administration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/nyregion/23kennedy.html?_r=1

If she were applying to be, say, an undersecretary of education in Barack Obama’s new administration, Caroline Kennedy would have to fill out a 63-item confidential questionnaire disclosing potentially embarrassing text messages and diary entries, the immigration status of her household staff, even copies of every résumé she used in the last 10 years.

If she were running for election to the Senate, Ms. Kennedy would have to file a 10-part, publicly available report disclosing her financial assets, credit card debts, mortgages, book deals and the sources of any payments greater than $5,000 in the last three years.

But Ms. Kennedy, who has asked Gov. David A. Paterson to appoint her to succeed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton — and who helped oversee the vetting process for Mr. Obama’s possible running mates — is declining to provide a variety of basic data, including companies she has a stake in and whether she has ever been charged with a crime.

Ms. Kennedy declined on Monday to reply to those and other questions posed by The New York Times about any potential ethical, legal and financial entanglements. Through a spokesman, she said she would not disclose that kind of information unless and until she becomes a senator.

“If Governor Paterson were to choose Caroline, she would, of course, comply with all disclosure requirements,” said the spokesman, Stefan Friedman.

Mr. Paterson’s office said his choice for the Senate would undergo the same background check as any cabinet-level officer in Albany, including verification of employment and education, a review of tax returns, and a criminal background check by the State Police. The governor’s vetting process drew criticism this fall when it surfaced that his top aide at the time, Charles O’Byrne, had failed to pay income taxes for five years. The Paterson administration has since said it is requiring more extensive background checks.

The Senate’s self-imposed ethics rules do not require any disclosure by potential appointees, although sitting senators are required to file financial disclosure statements by May 15 each year. (The latest filing by Ms. Kennedy’s uncle, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, showed a net worth of at least $43.8 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which ranked him the seventh richest senator.)

But several ethics experts, good-government advocates and scholars, who called Ms. Kennedy’s situation highly unusual — because of her overt pursuit of the job, her celebrity and her lack of previous political experience — urged her to reveal information on her finances now, if only for appearances’ sake.

Ms. Kennedy made headlines around the world last week after alerting the governor that she wanted the job. She then began a public tour, meeting with political leaders around the state, and quickly cemented herself as the dominant contender for the seat.

“Precisely because there is no campaign or election, she should be more willing to disclose and subject herself to a greater level of public scrutiny than is required,” said Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, a nonpartisan watchdog group. He noted that other major contenders for the Senate seat — officeholders like the attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo, and Representative Kirsten Gillibrand — have mounted runs for office and filed public disclosures before.

Others wonder if Ms. Kennedy’s unwillingness to disclose personal information suggests she lacks the stomach for the kind of intrusive questions that could come her way as a candidate in 2010.

“If this were an open primary, and all the people seeking that position had to run, she’d have to make all those disclosures, so why not in the appointment process?” said Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, a watchdog group that lobbies for tighter ethics rules. “She can’t simply ride in on her name recognition or place in history. The voters and people of New York deserve that full disclosure.”

Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, another watchdog group, warned that requiring financial disclosure by “anyone who is speculated about” for such a vacancy could be untenable. “I would think it would be up to her,” he said. But he called Ms. Kennedy’s campaign for the appointment “kind of unique.”

So far, on her tour, Ms. Kennedy has taken just 11 questions from reporters, has granted no interviews, and responded only in writing to inquiries about her positions on significant issues.

“She needs to deepen the public’s idea of who she is,” said Paul Light, a professor at New York University’s Wagner School of Public Service. “To the extent she can be more transparent, she dispels the notion that it’s all about her name. We obviously know that she’s quite wealthy, but beyond that, we don’t know much about where she gets her income, how she’s invested, whether she has followed her own principles in her investing activities, and so forth. That would be very useful to know.”

Ms. Kennedy also has not had to disclose the names and salaries of the people working for her in her bid for the appointment. Lawyers have assured her that federal campaign-finance rules do not apply in this situation, her aides have said.

Ms. Kennedy also avoided disclosing any information about her finances while working as chief fund-raiser for the New York City Department of Education. She took the three-day-a-week job — director of the Office of Strategic Partnerships — in October 2002 at $1 a year, intending at the time to step up to a $90,000-a-year salary, but she later decided to forgo the salary. Taking it would have required her to file disclosures with the city’s Conflicts of Interests Board, officials said.

Since then, Ms. Kennedy has been a vice chairwoman of the Fund for Public Schools, the nonprofit arm of the strategic partnerships office. A 2006 state law required that the board members of all nonprofits “affiliated, sponsored by or created by” a city government submit detailed disclosure forms. But on Dec. 10, the city told an Assembly committee that the Fund for Public Schools would be exempt from the law, reasoning that the Department of Education is, legally speaking, a school district, not a city agency — even though the mayor has control over the schools.

The upshot: Ms. Kennedy, for now, is not subject to those disclosure rules, either.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

She found no point in voting in 1994 which included a vote for the Senate seat that she wants to hold.

If the bitch didn't vote for Moynihan in his last election, she shouldn't have the seat that was once his.

Bah.

[emailking]

I honestly don't see what it's supposed to matter whether she didn't vote in some elections or any elections or all elections. Voting is right, not a requirement. I'm all for encouraging people to vote. But there should not exist a basis by which one can be punished and/or villified for choosing not to vote. Remember, in this country, it is also your right NOT to vote.

[Хahar 🤔]

I honestly don't see what it's supposed to matter whether she didn't vote in some elections or any elections or all elections. Voting is right, not a requirement. I'm all for encouraging people to vote. But there should not exist a basis by which one can be punished and/or villified for choosing not to vote. Remember, in this country, it is also your right NOT to vote.

Of course. But the point being made is, can we trust someone who didn't vote (thereby betraying a lack of interest in the system) to be a Senator?