Poor, Car-o-line (dat, dat, dat)
Regardless of what you think of the idea of appointing Caroline Kennedy-Schlossberg to the U.S. Senate, she did not deserve the humiliating process she went through she went to just to say after all that, she wasn’t willing to be appointed by Gov. David Paterson. Instead, an obscure, upstate Congresswoman gets the nod. That’s all fine and dandy but it didn’t need to come with innuendo about tax problems, housekeepers, (we’re assuming immigrant housekeepers here, the bane of all upper class existence along with the Social Security taxes and the ICE) marriage status, an invented phony excuse about Uncle Ted’s health, sniping between the governor’s staff and Kennedy hacks and dueling news stories about whether she was still a candidate or not.
Maybe Kennedy-Schlossberg wasn’t ready to be in public service but after going through this cattle call, she’ll probably never entertain such notions again despite having her idealism rekindled by Obama’s candidacy and her children’s reaction to it. It’s too bad.
The American Prospect’s Erza Kline agrees with me 100 percent: “Governors shouldn’t be making appointments to Senate seats. No they shouldn’t if they’re going to act as confused and mendacious as Gov. Paterson did through this whole fiasco (or sell them to the highest bidder like Blago). State legislatures should be making such appointments, which is why I renew my call for the repeal 17th Amendnment.
Yes, true, if state legislatures picked U.S. Senators once again Caroline would have had to suck-up to them, but at least it would have been a formal process and perhaps she would have campaigned for a few of them last fall to help them get elected so they could return the favor. And with so many members of the legislature she could have set out to construct a broad coalition of different and diverse lawmakers. In this case, she and all the other candidates were at the mercy of one man and the way his mind worked, which in Paterson’s case is something I’d never entertain to guess at.
There’s a better way to pick a better Senate. No more governor’s personal pet appointments, no more “seat warmers” and no more onslaught of ”you’re another” campaigns. Let the state’s do the job our Founding Fathers and the Constitution wanted them to do.
Why shouldn’t she have a difficult time of it?
By announcing that she wanted the appointment, she made it clear that she wanted to get something for nothing, and there’s nothing more costly than that, in politics or any other realm of life. It seems as if she assumed that her (horrid) last name meant that vetting was below her, the media disagreed, and unpleasant facts came out, just like they would have during a campaign.
In my opinion, the press did their job and saved the people of New York from having to endure a quarter century of spurious noblesse-oblige and mediocrity in their senate seat.
Of course, repealing the 17th is the best possible solution for this kind of thing, but in the meantime, the media ought to grill every candidate as hard as they grilled Ms. Kennedy.
Sean,
Is “repeal 17th amendment” supposed to be a link to something?
It would be good to know why this political no-entity stood in the first place and now has run away.
The truth will out – and a good thing. If she has a messy private life or abuses illegal workers the electorate should know.
Unfortunately, her being a Democrat, I fear we never will.
Ranks have closed.
States could also just amend their state constitutions to allow the legislature to vote on appointees; that would have a better chance than repealing the 17th Amendment.
However, the governor represents the entire state and the majority of the legislature does not, so it makes more “political theory sense” for the governor to make these appointments, doesn’t it?
I watch CNBC. we are in the thick of a major once in a lifetime financial crisis. to me, that’s where the action is. I flip over to MNBC and they are talking about caroline scharlshberg kennedy and it’s lke “who cares”. can’t you foreign policy/ political junkies admit it’s a dry spell now that bush is gone and we have a normal president?
Mike, I did fix link. It’s refers back to earlier post I did on the subject.
The more our politics is about personality and personalities, the more trivial and mean it must be. Party platforms are now meaningless and except for a few signal issues, politicians are free to adopt the policies of their opponents. It follows then, that the character and experience of candidates are crucial to good government. Yet we see Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California, Barak Obama in the White House, and many many more.
Our nation is governed without stable principles, and by mere “personalities.” What thinking, feeling person would want to engage in a system like this?
Thomas O. Meehan wrote:
“It follows then, that the character and experience of candidates are crucial to good government.”
But Thom, Mr. Bush had experience as a governor, and I suspect the man has a good character. And Mr. McCain has character and experience, would you really want to see him sitting on Pennsylvania Avenue today?
In other words I wonder if the country and the world’s situation hasn’t gotten so much more complex now that what’s needed more than ever is brains and judgment, which is being recognized as what was lacking with Bush. And while I’d concede that Mr. Obama benefitted from a popularity/”personality” bubble, I don’t suspect that would have caught on or persisted unless he came across as he does as such an obviously intelligent guy.
TomB,
What makes you think that the past was simple, or the present complex by comparison?
I think we ought to be wary of assuming that contemporary conditions have changed the age-old principles of what makes a good leader. Many of the smartest people are rendered indecisive by the amount of information they take in and retain, others fail because they’re overconfident about their own abilities, while still others have underdeveloped skills in areas of life unrelated to fact-finding.
Leadership at the highest level is still more similar to leadership at an intermediate level than it is to academia, and I’d rather have a trustworthy, experienced president who was of average intelligence than a super-smart individual who was a weak or duplicitous leader.
Matt:
Well at first I was going to admit you’re right that the past wasn’t by any means simple but I guess what I mean is that I think it’s hard to deny we live in a more complex international system now, a more complex economic system now, and our society has gotten more complex too, don’t you think? But maybe the better way to have said it was that regardless *people* have come to see that brains and judgment are more important than they were before over just pure character.
Look not only at this recent election but some past ones too. I admit that Gore was *presented* as having more brains than Bush II, but he sure didn’t come off all that swift in the campaign, and regardless I think lots of people now would vote for that stiff over Bush II if we had to replay 2000.
And then look at Clinton: Clearly Bush I had tons more character and that was before we even knew Billy very well, right? Bush’s character was impeccable even. He just didn’t seem very … with it, did he? And same if not moreso when Dole ran against Clinton.
As to your druthers, I just don’t know. In some instances and with some problems or challenges, you bet, 1000% I’m with you. In some others and with some others though, give me brains.
E.g., you’re in the infantry in a terrible war. Of course you want your commander to have character and at least average intelligence. On the other hand if things got really sticky, I don’t know that I would mind all that much having a genius making the decisions that meant my life at the time, even if he was a rotter personally. Remember, no-body thought Grant has all that much character, and he beat the pants of Mr. Character himself the great Robert E. And the first thing you think about with MacArthur isn’t his character, but boy he parlayed a weak hand against the Japanese brilliantly and saved how many American boys? And then of course there’s Inchon too.
In any event not the kind of thing that is susceptible to a “one answer fits all, always,” is it? Indeed it seems an endlessly fascinating question.
TomB, I presume that character, in the case of Bush, includes both a good faith admission of one’s own limitations and a willingness to change one’s mind and course of action in the face of overwhelming evidence of failure. As for Bush’s gubernatorial experience, I guess it’s possible to be Governor of Texas and be a perfect ass as well.
McCain’s experience was as a pilot, and blowhard legislator. Pilots are like surgeons; they’re always right. The have to be quick deciders but they are not men of deliberation in my experience.
Perhaps what me need is some sort of Cursus Honurum. A series of responsibilities you must execute successfully before you can take all of our lives and fortunes in your hands.