Some people thought Al Franken wasn't qualified

[ellacott]

But they didn't say much publically. Why was Al Franken given more consideration than Caroline Kennedy?

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. Where does the Minnesota race stand, anyway?

Talk about a painful process..............

[Wickerman]

4. 2nd day of review of conested votes

Looks pretty good for Franken. Its a mess, but a well run mess. As a Minnesotan I am proud of the way the recount is being handled. Very transparent, very structured. It will most likely wind up in court and the structure being as sound as it is will make it much less likely to turn on a recount screw up.

Coleman has more challenges than Franken and its looking like most of those challenges are crap.

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. Let's hope Franken prevails.

Thanks for the update.

[Wickerman]

2. Back in the day many said Hillary wasn't qualified to do the job

and was carpet bagging AND cashing in on her husbands name. I said it then and I say it now, screw them, just like Hillary, Caroline will do a fine job.

[Beacool]

5. Big difference...........

Hillary ran for office and voters had a choice. Caroline is given a senate seat as if it was a party gift.

[Wickerman]

8. someone is going to be given say

I'd say her background is as good as one could hope for as a non-politician. She has proved experience in fundraising, she knows constitutional law, she can run shit, she handles herself well. So she has never run for dogcatcher. :eyes: Its two years, she can step in, do her damnedest and if she sucks the voters will make a choice.

Give me a great and intelligent humanitarian over a self-serving career pol any day of the week.

[Beacool]

14. My point is that precisely because it's an appointment,

it should not go to a non politician. I have no problem with Caroline as a person or wanting to be a senator. But, if she wants it that bad, then let her wait until 2010 and she can run like any other candidate. Let the appointment be someone who has actually worked their way up the ranks and has earned the right to be considered for the job. Like Caroline Maloney, Nita Lowey, Nydia Velazquez or Andrew Cuomo, for example.

[Wickerman]

15. Thats a decent opinion

I don't care that much, I'm confident the seat will be well-filled. I do think, however, that Kennedy can do a terrific job in filling it. I think she will be listened to, respected, and more than capable of handling the responsibilities that entails. Her ethics and world view are refreshingly progressive, I look forward to the leadership she will bring to the seat.

[Renew Deal]

22. Why do you want to make it easier for the republicans?

Are the republicans nominating place holders to make it easier for a Democrat to win an "open" election? The concept is absolutely idiotic.

[Beacool]

32. Who the hell is thinking about the Republicans right now?

What's idiotic about wanting a person appointed to a job who actually has ran for office in their own right. The senate is not the House of Lords.

[Renew Deal]

41. Because it suggests we should nominate a weaker candidate.

You're afraid that she'll be senator for life. There's a reason for that. It's because we all know she is the strongest candidate. She might not be an accomplished legislator, but she doesn't need to be.

[Renew Deal]

21. Voters didn't have much of a "choice"

All other contenders were pushed out to accomodate Hillary. Then Hillary ran against a repub tool in a state where she had a 2 million Democratic vote advantage. She didn't exactly go back to Arkansas to run.

[Beacool]

35. Granted,

but if she hadn't won the support of the people in NY they still could have voted for the Republican. Hillary worked very hard at earning the right to their vote, she even won many of the upstate traditionally Republican counties. In 2006 she won even more of those counties and got as many in her column as Bush did in 2004.

What elected office has Caroline ever run for that makes her more worthy of the job than someone else?

[Renew Deal]

40. It doesn't matter whether she has ever held elected office before.

If that was the standard, no one would ever be elected.

[Beacool]

56. But she's NOT being elected,

she's being appointed. Big difference.

[SwampG8r]

30. but the seat WILL be appointed

will you make these same statements against whoever is APPOINTED to this seat?or only caroline kennedy?

[Beacool]

37. I don't think a non politician should be appointed to a US senate seat, period.

Whether it be Caroline Kennedy, Chelsea Clinton (if she was old enough) or anyone else.

:shrug:

[Beacool]

3. I don't think that he's qualified.

But, the difference is that he ran like any other candidate and the people of the state had the opportunity to decide whether they wanted him as their senator. Caroline is just being given a US senate seat based on what precisely? Family name? Having endorsed Obama?

[ellacott]

9. She still has to run

Anyone who replaces Hillary will be given the position until the next election.

[Beacool]

12. She has to run in two years,

by then Teddy would probably be gone and Caroline will be ensconced for life in a seat that some other NY politician with a long record of serving will never obtain. I just heard on the radio something that made me think, we have regressed politically to the earlier era of the nation when family dynasties ruled. We had the Adams, Tafts, Roosevelts, Bushes, Kennedys, etc. The Clintons are not a real dynasty unless Chelsea joins the fray.

[ellacott]

13. If she's a good senator it doesn't bother me

I sometimes get tired of the career pols. Fresh ideas might be a welcome change. People felt Hillary took the seat from other NY pols with a long record of serving. She's proven to be a great senator.

[Renew Deal]

24. So you prefer to have a weaker candidate?

If you admit that she's a longterm +1 for us, then it's hard to make a case that a weaker candidate should be nominated.

[onenote]

25. appointed senators do not have a "lock" on their seats

You assume that if CK is appointed that she will be "ensconced for life" in her seat. Well, that would only be the case if she actually is able to withstand any challenges. While incumbency is powerful for elected senators, its proven far less so for appointed senators. Since 1970, there have been 30 appoined senators. Twelve were elected to a full term upon the expiration of their appointed term, while 11 lost either in a primary or in the general and the remaining 7 chose not to run for the seat, in some instances because they knew that they couldn't win.

[PBS Poll-435]

6. They are both qualified to run for Senate if they meet the constitutional requirements

Al Franken did run this year.

In the primary and in the general.

[jberryhill]

7. And they could vote for him or not

It was called a "primary", and the Democratic party voters of MN selected him as candidate.

Those who didn't think he was qualified voted for the other candidate.

See how easy that is?

In the case of the NY senate seat, it's entirely up to Gov. Paterson who he wants to pick.

And, he'll pick whomever he believes is best suited to the position.

So I don't understand the fuss over this.

[ellacott]

11. I don't understand the fuss either

That's why I was asking the question. People will be given the opportunity to vote for her or against her also. The people who are criticizing are saying that she is not qualified to be a Senator. I don't agree with that.

[paulk]

16. but they did say so privately, in the voting booth

in both the primary and general election.

Actually, who are these "some people"? Do you know them? Can you link to them?

This whole premise seems a strawman argument...

[ellacott]

18. What are you talking about? Yes I do know them

One of them was me. Are you saying there was no one who said he had no prior qualifications? How does that equal a strawman argument?

[paulk]

44. so YOU never said anything publicly and you're asking US why?

:eyes:

[ellacott]

45. Why do you think?

Can you follow the thread? I'm not the only one. I've had opinions on many politicians. That's how this democracy thing works.

[cali]

17. what part of running for election is different from lobbying to be appointed, is

so difficult to understand?

[ellacott]

20. In this situation others are also lobbying to be appointed

I have no difficulty understanding any of this.

[cali]

33. if you're comparing Franken running and Kennedy lobbying, you

clearly do have a problem understanding that the comparison is void due to that rather large distinction.

[ellacott]

38. I assure you Cali that I don't have a problem understanding

I comparing their qualifications to be a Senator. That's all I'm looking at.

Most of the criticism is questioning her ability to be an effective legislator. This is what I'm questioning.

[onenote]

29. someone is going to be appointed

so the issue isn't about lobbying to be appointed v. being elected to the seat. The issue is whether CK, having not been previously elected to any public office, would be a better choice for that appointment than someone who has previously been elected to some public office. And my answer to that question is that I don't think any of the other prospective appointees would have the same immediate impact that CK is likely to have. Freshman senators, particularly those that are appointed, tend to be treated by the rest of the Senate as second class senators. There are exceptions of course. Hillary was one. Jim Webb was one. Where a new senator, appointed or elected, has an impact, its usually where that senator brings something to the table that other senators want to be associated with, such as HRC's name and connections and fundraising ability or Jim Webb's military "cred". More than any other person I've seen named as a prospective appointee to the NY seat, CK is likely to have an immediate impact because of her name and her fundraising ability. The value of her endorsement of Obama is not going to be lost on other senators and they will seek her out to work with her --- to get her support for their bills and to lend their support to her legislative efforts -- the traditional horsetrading on which the Senate operates.

And if I'm wrong, and she's a bust, there is nothing stopping anyone from challenging her in a primary before 2010. Appointed Senators are as likely to lose when they first come up for election as they are to win. I happen to think that an appointed CK is more likely to hold the seat than any other potential appointee.

[PVnRT]

47. Because she's a Kennedy, obviously

I mean, like, DUH.

[ellacott]

49. Is that what it is? Wow, you must be a genius

[Orsino]

19. Because he actually ran for office.

Because whatever one thinks of Franken, he was running against a real turd. And he wasn't running on Camelot nostalgia.

[Renew Deal]

26. It was such a mistake to run Franken

The only reason that election is even close was that we ran a comedian from out of state. DUMB!

[w4rma]

31. Franken is not from out of state. The reason it's close is because of the spoiler 3rd party run.(nt)

[Hansel]

39. Yep. MN needs to pass some kind of a run-off law

to require that no one can be elected with less than 50% of the vote. Not having such a law is the reason that a primarily progressive state keeps ending up with Republican nitwits.

[Renew Deal]

42. That's only part of the reason.

A better Democratic candidate would have gotten more votes. The third party candidate partly did well because Franken was terrible.

[w4rma]

43. Out of everyone elected to the Senate last election, Franken is the one I want in there the most.

I could not disagree with you more, Bleachers7 (especially when your reasoning keeps changing).

[Renew Deal]

50. I'm not sure what you disagree with.

He was a terrible candidate who was a comedian from out of state that had a ton of baggage. Other candidates wouldn't have had these liabilities and would likely have won going away. The only two advantages that he had was that he had name recognition and access to money. But neither of those made him worth the trouble, and another candidate would likely have won going away. What part of that do you disagree with?

[w4rma]

55. I disagree with your entire assessment. I don't think Coleman was as vulnerable as you say. (nt)

[Renew Deal]

23. Franken was a huge mistake.

The only reason that election is close is that we ran a comedian from out of state. He had way too much baggage. Matthews will have the same problems if he runs in PA.

[Hansel]

27. Franken was born and raised in MN. Coleman is from New York.

Ironic, ey?

[ellacott]

34. That IS ironic

[Arkansas Granny]

28. Al Franken ran a campaign for the office and made his case to the citizens

of Minnesota. He did not seek an appointment to the seat.

[Cha]

36. That's the only way anyone is going to

get Hillary's vacated seat right now is to be appointed and I'm glad Caroline Kennedy wants to serve us here in New York.

I welcome her with open arms.:hug:

[cherokeeprogressive]

46. He isn't.

And it's PUBLICLY.

[ellacott]

48. You're right, some did say it publicly

I just noticed that on this board that I hadn't read any posts criticizing his lack of experience(they may have existed but I didn't see them). I just thought it was ironic that Caroline is receiving all this criticism when I didn't see the same for Al Franken.

Some who have posted here have said there issue is not with her qualifications but with the fact that she would be appointed.

[Renew Deal]

51. Because if you don't live in the state, it's not your problem anyway.

Also, people had Obama to focus on. Now there's relative quiet.

[Freddie Stubbs]

52. Franken was the the air five days a week for three years discussing public policy

[cherokeeprogressive]

53. That's funny, all I ever heard him do was kiss ass, just like Randi Rhodes.

Oh wait... of COURSE that makes him qualified. What was I thinking?

Randi Rhodes for Senator!

[ellacott]

54. I'm on this board around six days a week for 4 years discussing public policy

I'm not sure that is a good reason. Caroline has been discussing public policy for many years. She's even been involved in public policy with her work with schools.

[HeraldSquare212]

57. He wasn't up for appointment: he ran for the office.

[ogneopasno]

58. Oh, plenty said he was unqualified. It's just that the DFL has gotten very good at putting a bunch

of semi-qualified people up on the ticket who all run against each other for the primary and then some random person who has a 50-50 chance of winning the general gets the endorsement. It's getting a little tiresome.