Monday, December 29, 2008

Kennedy provides more to cringe over

The NY Daily News’ Michael Goodwin as quoted yesterday in If you love Caroline Kennedy:

“Her quest is becoming a cringe-inducing experience, as painful to watch as it must be to endure.”

Politico's Ben Smith can’t resist ridicule as he brings us the latest cringe-inducing episode - - -

One thing Caroline Kennedy would bring to Washington: A new, distinctive Kennedy verbal tic: She said "you know" 138 times in her Times interview.

The day's other Kennedy read: A more personal interview with the Post, in which she says, among other things, that President-elect Obama had been "encouraging" of her run.

CORRECTION: Gawker counts 138 "you knows," noting that the Times used it a couple of times too.



The “you knows” don’t bother me all that much.

What does bother me is her failure to demonstrate a detailed grasp of any complex domestic and foreign policy issue, including federal legislation in place and proposed regarding it.

Also, Kennedy hasn’t discussed such basic, important questions as whether she supported or opposed the surge and whether she thinks New York’s Charles Rangel should step down from the chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee while he’s under investigation for failure to pay certain federal income taxes and for other matters bearing on abuse of his office.

I can't see anything Kennedy's offering New Yorkers besides her name?


Anonymous said...

Yes, her failure to articulate any policy other than to say that she is a Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton Democrat. What exactly does that mean? They hold somewhat divergent views on a number of issues. Just as she is unable to articulate a coherent sentence, she has difficulty expressing her political views. I would posit that the ability to make one's self clear is an important first step in one'a ability to express a cogent political philosophy.

Anonymous said...

There are what the British call 'safe' Parliament seats,meaning whoever runs from a certain party will win.NY is somewhat a 'safe' Senate seat for the Dems at present.
I think the feelng was,"She'll vote the right way.If there's difficult work,someone else will do it."
Bu she seems to inept.Also,the Senate of an imploding state is a big deal.And would someone tell me how her celebrity transfers into more Federal funds to the state?
Happy NY

Anonymous said...

Even to procure a "safe seat" in Parliament, a candidate must present one's self to the local party and be chosen as a candidate and then run (and win) in a general election. There are no appointed seats in the British Parliament - if an opening occurs for whatever reason, there is a by-election. A safe seat refers to the fact that historically whoever is the candidate for a given party (le's say the Tories) will always win over any of the candidates from any of the other parties. Our system is different in that when an opening in the national legislature occurs, the governor of the stae where the vacancy exists has the power to appoint someone to that seat to either fulfill the remainder of the term or until a new election is mandated by law. In the case of New York, Patterson made it clear yesterday that whomever he appoints will not be considered a "care-taker" of the seat - that said person will be expected to make a run for that office in 2010 and then will have to run again in 2012. (His reasoning is that a senator is only effective based on the senator's seniority - which is in fact true). Two expensive senate runs in a two year period would be beyond the reach of many - there is a strong push to keep both New York seats firmly in the Democrats' grasp. Thus, given the Kennedy financial resources (and ability to drum up money) one can see the allure for Paterson to elevate Kennedy to the position. However, having the money is one thing, possessing political ability is quite another - something that Ms. Kennedy has not (so far) shown. She has effectively used the Camelot myth (though how much of that was massaged by her Uncle Ted is an interesting question) to help Obama win the election. Though she was a member of his vp vetting team one has to question just how much she contributed to that effort. (One could argue that Obama did not have much in the way of real choices when it came to choosing his vp). She has shown that she is quite inarticulate and has been unable or unwilling to state her positions. Finally, for someone who considers public service and involvement in politics her family's legacy, how can she get around the fact that she has failed to vote in numerous elections? Was she unaware that elections were going on? Was her social calendar so full that she could not get herself to the voting booth? Her "dismay" when her voting record was brought up was not over the fact that it was revealed as much as it was that it indicated to all that she really has no interest in the political issues. How she can then argue that she would effectively represent the poor and middle class is beyond me.

Anonymous said...

Today's (Jan. 3rd) WSJ has an interesting op ed piece by Peggy Noonan regarding why Caroline Kennedy is not senatorial material.