Explain Why Appointing Caroline Kennedy isn't Nepotism

[dynasaw]

Could you explain why the efforts to have Caroline Kennedy fill Hilary Clinton's Senate seat isn't nepotism or cronyism? Would we Dems be as tolerant is If Republicans attempted the same maneuver?


Definitions: "Nepotism is the showing of favoritism toward relatives and friends, based upon that relationship, rather than on an objective evaluation of ability, meritocracy or suitability. For instance, offering employment to a relative, despite the fact that there are others who are better qualified and willing to perform the job. The word nepotism is from the Latin word 'nepos', meaning "nephew" or "grandchild".

"Cronyism is partiality to long-standing friends, especially by appointing them to positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications. Hence, cronyism is contrary in practice and principle to meritocracy. Cronyism exists when the appointer and the beneficiary are in social contact; often, the appointer is inadequate to hold his or her own job or position of authority, and for this reason the appointer appoints individuals who will not try to weaken him or her, or express views contrary to those of the appointer. Politically, "cronyism" is derogatorily used."

I am undecided as to what to think about her entry into the senate; Jane Hamsher's take:

Her leadership could have been really helpful when we were trying to keep the progressive lights on and getting the stuffing beaten out of us by a very well-financed right wing for the past eight years. But when things were tough, she was nowhere to be found.

Now that the Democrats are in power, she'd like to come in at the top. We have absolutely no idea if she's qualified, or whether she can take the media blast furnace of being a Kennedy in public life. She's certainly shown no appetite for it in the past. She'll have a target on her back and if she can't take it, if she crumbles, she will become a rallying point that the right will easily organize around.

The woman has never run for office in her life. We have no idea how she'd fare on the campaign trail, or how well she could stand up to the electoral process. She simply picks up the phone and lets it be known that she just might be up for having one of the highest offices in the land handed to her because -- well, because why? Because her uncle once held the seat? Because she's a Kennedy?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/caroline-kennedy-thanks-b_b_149070.html

[mrreowwr_kittty]

1. I can't.

I like and respect Caroline Kennedy immensely but there are many more qualified people than she is.

[onenote]

9. I'm curious: who do you think would be more certain to win election in the general?

No, she hasn't run before. But then again, neither had Daniel Patrick Moynihan when he was elected Senator from NY or Jim Webb when he was elected Senator from Virginia (to give a more recent example). Even if she's appointed, she'll probably face a primary challenge, so not having electoral experience doesn't mean much -- she'll be tested in the primary.

I believe that there are any number of individuals who are qualified to be the junior senator from NY. However, the ultimate qualification is can that individual get elected. I think Caroline Kennedy,given her name recognition, fund-raising, and basic qualfications certainly is as, or more, likely to win election than anyone else who might be under consideration. But I'm open to hearing specific other names and arguments as to why they would be a better choice in terms of electability.

[cali]

12. We got to see those people campaigning

before they were elected. And that's not an insignificant point. Sure, she has name recognition, but no one has a clue as to how she'd perform as a candidate. I don't think there's any guarantee that she's more electable than others.

I'd like to see a place holder named. Then those that want the open Senate seat can campaign for it.

[onenote]

17. when did moynihan and webb campaign before they were elected,

other than in a primary, which Kennedy probably would face as well. If she can't pull it off,she won't be the first appointed Senator to be knocked off in a primary.

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. Uh, wouldn't SHE be that placeholder?

She'd only be appointed to fill out the term, and the primary campaign for the 2010 election will be starting in little more than a year.

Are you saying there should be a special election to fill the seat for 18 months?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

28. NY has lots of Congresscritters. I'm sure several are eminently qualified.

I keep hearing good things about Rep. Carolyn Maloney. As for CK, the point the OP is making is not about her 'electability' or how good a person she is, it's about nepotism and I happen to agree with it. That said, I'm not going to cry over it if she gets appointed.

[Captain Hilts]

33. Rep. Mahoney is good - but too old. nt

[mrreowwr_kittty]

39. She's 60. Not too old at all. nt

[Captain Hilts]

41. By most standards, but folks are looking to someone younger at the start. nt

[onenote]

47. she obviously lacks name recognition -- btw, its Maloney, not Mahoney

she's an able member of congress and I have no problem with the idea of her as senator. She would be 68 by the end of her first elected term, and I think that a younger nominee would be better.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

50. I spelled it right in my post. nt

[clear eye]

42. IMO, her biggest problem is not electability, but qualifications

that there's no indication she knows anything about the issues in the kind of depth a Senator of a large state like NY needs to in order to do her job. Sitting on a few boards (which the wikipedia author of her article deceptively refers to as "is a director of"), occasionally fundraising for a few causes by phoning wealthy friends, and being an early Obama supporter, doesn't mean she'd have the slightest idea how proposed legislation would impact NYS or the country. If she shown any interest in the intracacies of policy by holding a real working position, that required her to know details, with an issue-oriented NGO, most of us now opposed would feel differently. Furthermore, owing her appointment entirely to Obama's recommendation, and having no depth of knowledge herself, there is a real danger that for at least the first couple of years she would behave as an Obama rubber stamp. Conceivably, this might result in costly errors for NYers.

People claim that Hillary Clinton was similarly inexperienced, but that is simply untrue. Bill Clinton frequently reiterated that the voters were getting "2 for 1" when they elected him both as Governor and as President because his wife was also extremely qualified and he would be regularly consulting with her. "During her post-graduate study, Rodham served as staff attorney for Edelman's newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children. During 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal."--from her Wikipedia article.

She also spoke informally with the people who came to see Bill, went on fact-finding trips with him, and attended numerous dinners of state during which she'd converse, at least occasionally about current affairs, with the most powerful people in the world. "In 1997 and 1999, Clinton played a role in advocating for the establishment of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, and the Foster Care Independence Act."--also Wikipedia
The Wikipedia citations are all footnoted there, if there are any doubters.

The research Clinton did for the above-mentioned legislation is a completely different type of involvement than Kennedy's has been. The main objections have nothing to do with paying dues to the NYS political establishment. Large donor/fundraisers with backgrounds like Caroline Kennedy's are normally thanked with ambassadorships.

[roguevalley]

49. it isn't nepotism. no one appointing her is her family, unlike *FRANK*

Murkowski appointing his daughter, *PRINCESS LISA* to his senate seat because obviously, no one but his spawn was capable of taking his job.
That's the difference. If you want to say favoritism, that would be more correct.

[Romulox]

2. It's not NEPOTISM!!!

It's oligarchy. :silly:

[Orsino]

45. But a nice change, perhaps, from carpetbagging. n/t

[hlthe2b]

3. Well, the definition of nepotism used to reflect only relatives

being hired or given favors by those in power. It seems recently to have been redefined to include "friends" sot hat it overlaps with the deviation of cronyism.

I don't believe the current Governor of NY is a relative of the Kennedy's. While he may be friendly with Caroline, I'd guess that same loose statement might apply to countless thousands of people in NY. He is the Governor, after all.

So, no, I don't consider it "nepotism." Cronyism implies quid pro quo and I don't know that that applies either. Maybe I'm just not so much a cynic on this issue as perhaps I might be on others.


I personally am not opposed to Caroline as I have no doubt she will work her tail off for the people. I think the Kennedy's personify noblesse.. The Bushes* and other oligarchies, simply self-aggrandizement.

[Eric J in MN]

4. Do you want a NY Senator who would win in 2010 and be a possible presidential candidate in 2016?

That's Caroline Kennedy.

[cali]

13. and you know this how? As far as what kind of candidate she'd be

we know very little.

[NashVegas]

5. I Never Said It Wasn't Nepotism

I only said that lefties who derided Hillary Clinton's accomplishments and qualifications because of whom she was married to were tools.

Nepotism is widely accepted in the US. It has been ever since John Quincy Adams became a POTUS. If CK wants the senate seat, it's hers. She earned it last January.

[Eric J in MN]

7. I don't see what CK did to earn the seat, but...

...I wouldn't mind her appointment, since if she gets it she might run in the presidential primaries in eight years.

[pacalo]

6. She's got as much ability as any other first-term senator has had.

Why is Jane Hamsher so against her?

Writer, editor, lawyer, and member of the famous American political family, the Kennedys. Born Caroline Bouvier Kennedy on November 27, 1957, in New York, New York. The daughter of Jacqueline and John F. Kennedy, Caroline spent several of her early years in the White House during her father’s term as president. She has experienced much loss in her life, starting with the death of her father at the hands of an assassin in 1963.

Highly intelligent, Kennedy earned a law degree from Columbia University. Unlike other members of the Kennedy family, she has chosen to stay out of the political arena and away from the public spotlight. She has spent some of her time, quietly performing public service and preserving the legacy of her father. In 1989, she helped establish the Profile in Courage Awards, which honors elected officials who have shown political courage.

Interested in constitutional law, her first book tackled the Bill of Rights. With Ellen Alderman, she co-wrote In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights in Action, which was published in 1991. The pair wrote another book together entitled The Right to Privacy (1995). Around this time, Kennedy experienced several personal tragedies. Her mother, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, died in 1994. Five years later, her only sibling, John F. Kennedy, Jr., was killed when the plane he was piloting crashed in the ocean near Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts.

To honor her late mother, Kennedy helped create The Best-Loved Poems of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, published in 2001. She has served as editor for two other anthologies: Profiles in Courage for Our Time (2002) and A Patriot’s Handbook: Songs, Poems and Speeches Every American Should Know (2003). Her latest work is A Family of Poems: My Favorite Poetry for Children (2005).

Besides her book projects, she serves as president of the board of directors of the Kennedy Library Foundation. She is also a member of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award Committee and a member of the national board of directors for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=204598

[cali]

14. No she doesn't. An experienced Rep like Hinchey or Slaughter

has a greater ability to get things done than a neophyte lawmaker. And more seniority as well.

[pacalo]

16. Everyone's started somewhere, even Hinchey or Slaughter.

[onenote]

20. Slaughter is nearly 80 and Hinchey is 70

They are both terrific representatives, but I think that the opportunity to name someone who could hold and defend the seat for multiple terms is a factor worth considering.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

35. Hinchey, a true Progressive Liberal hasn't a snowball's chance in hell for the seat.

On the other hand, Louise Slaughter has a good shot at it.

If they aren't chosen and Caroline Kennedy is, as a a lifelong NYer, I would be very happy to have her represent me. She worked at making a difference in the NYC Public School System. She has experience as the President of the Kennedy Library Foundation and is on the board of the NAACP and Educational Fund. I will also be very happy to have her war chest if she runs for re-election. Neither Hinchey or Slaughter would be able to afford to run against a Repuke candidate..ie Ghouliani, Bloomberg.

BTW... Hinchey IMHO rocks!

[John Q. Citizen]

52. Thay have no senority in the US Senate. What do you mean senority?

[suston96]

8. The US Senate seat in NY is up to the people in NY. Let the governor do what he needs to do........

He will risk his own future if he does not follow what he believes the people in his state want. All he has to do is ask them.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

38. As a NYer, thank you. I am tired of reading all of these threads from out of state residents

second guessing my Governor. It is his decision, and I think Caroline Kennedy is more than up for the job. That doesn't mean that there aren't some other Democrats I'd like to see appointed (ie Slaughter/Hinchey) but I'd be delighted to have Caroline Kennedy to be My Senator too,

[clear eye]

51. A NYer here, asking why would you be happy w/ Kennedy? n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

53. Please see my post #35.

[nichomachus]

10. So, you're saying he should appoint an enemy?

The governor is probably going to be friendly with whomever he appoints. So, no matter who he appoints, you will be able to accuse him of "nepotism."

Sheesh.

[WI_DEM]

11. It's not nepotism--Patterson isn't related to her.

[LanternWaste]

15. Maybe new rules should be put into place...

Maybe new rules should be put into place that disqualify both federal/state/local appointments and those running for federal/state/local offices based on no other reason than mere parentage and blood lines? We could call it "The Sins of the Father" Amendment... :shrug:

Edited: clarity

[maddowfan]

18. I'm Pretty Sick of the Kennedys. I Have To Be Honest. They Are The "Old Democratic Establishment"

I don't dislike Caroline, though.

[Marrah_G]

25. yeah- fuck them and all the good they have done the country

:eyes:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

26. That doesn't mean every one of their progeny gets first dibs on elected offices

Now and in perpetuity. That's as silly as the notion that John McCain should be forgiven every transgression because he was a POW.

[Marrah_G]

27. Nor should it be used against them if they want to serve.

Carolyn avoided politics for the most part. But Obama inspired her. The voters will decide in 2010 if they want whomever is appointed.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

29. Okay, so you have no problem with nepotism. Got it.

:thumbsup: :eyes:

[Marrah_G]

32. It isn't Nepotism. I never said those words. You are a liar.

I would tell you to go look up the definition of nepotism, but I am sure you already know it and are just behaving like a petulant child to amuse yourself.

Back to ignore you go.

Conversing with you is a waste of time.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

40. You are a drama queen. Good riddance. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

57. They don't.

Which other Kennedy's have been appointed to office?

[IndianaJones]

19. I say go for it if you can find one that isn't drunk or a womanizer to varying degrees. nt.

[Captain Hilts]

34. Common traits on Capitol Hill. nt

[economicgeography]

21. Maybe they should put the seat up for auction

Worked well in Chicago.

[stray cat]

22. Is Caroline Kennedy related to the NY governor? I didn't know they were close.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

30. Yeah, I'm sure if her name were Caroline Kinnipski she'd be up for consideration right now.

Right. :eyes:

[ShortnFiery]

23. Bullshit! It stinks and especially in these hard times, we don't need POLITICAL ROYALTY.

This whole notion of "Kennedys as Camelot" makes me sick.

NO WAY! This is just sicko and anti-populist "cult of personality." :thumbsdown:

[Johonny]

24. pretty sure it's not

according to webster

: favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship

So unless you know something that no one else knows it's not nepotism.

[hootinholler]

31. Jane,

You ignorant slut.

Caroline wasn't really in a position from which to lead.

-Hoot

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

37. Unless she's a family relative of Paterson, there is no way it's nepotism. Just read the

definition in any dictionary.

BTW... do you live in NY? I've been a lifelong resident, and wouldn't mind her being my Senator. I think she's brilliant and her heart is in the right place. BTW...she also has an impressive resume.

[clear eye]

43. My email to the Governor (and link)

http://161.11.121.121/govemail

Dear Gov. Paterson:

A U.S. Senate seat is too powerful an office to have it to be bought by the fundraising and large donations to the Presidential campaign of an unqualified person . People who do that get ambassadorships. If the time came for a Sen. Caroline Kennedy to pressure Obama for something NY really needed, I wonder if she would either recognize it or feel independent enough to do so.

On the other hand, Rep. Maloney is an experienced, effective, and caring policy "wonk", with a superb record on issues in support of families and the middle class, and a superior grasp of what is needed to improve our sick economy--somewhat in the mold of the current Sen. Clinton. She is also a good fundraiser and an extremely hardworking campaigner who would appeal to previous Clinton voters. Please make the right choice for NY.

[digidigido]

44. Explain why this post isn't stupid and irrelevant

[rateyes]

46. I wouldn't care if NY appointed Mickey Mouse,

as long as he/she votes as a progressive would, and is not corrupt. I think Caroline would probably see it our way most of the time, and if her name helps her, good for her. And, a plus would be that it would make Chuck Schumer's head explode.

[MinM]

48. Lisa Murkowski getting appointed to the US Senate by her father...

was by definition Nepotism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Murkowski

Murkowski, while a member of the state House, was appointed by her father, Governor Frank Murkowski, to his own unexpired senate seat in December 2002, which he had vacated after being elected governor...

Caroline Kennedy being appointed by somebody unrelated would not be.

Nice try. :sarcasm:

[2Design]

54. so what difference does it make - if you need to be conivinced then you

are not thinking

[Forkboy]

55. I'm starting to like her more and more just based on those against her.

:evilgrin:

[Warren Stupidity]

56. Nepotism would require

Patterson to be Caroline's direct relative. Cronyism? Is Caroline Kennedy a pal of Pattersons? I actually didn't think she was much of a major figure in Democratic Party politics in New York at all. The best complaint against Kennedy is that she lacks experience. Nepotism and cronyism aren't accurate accusations here.

[PM Martin]

58. It is nepotism.

Though I do not believe that vacant seats should be filled by appointment.
A bi-election would be the only fair way to fill this vacancy. If Ms. Kennedy wins the bi-election than she was clearly chosen by the electorate.

[PATRICK]

59. Well, she isn't related to Patterson

I am sure there are some fine candidates in Albany. I am sure Patterson is having a hard time trying to justify why one of them is better than the others and a noxious crowd of entitled wannabes crowding in to ruin any benefit it might have to his Albany problems. As an outsider(like Poland chose its kings) Caroline is sort of in the line of the "RFK" seat but that is a small point when considering something else.

Would she or some Albany trough hound be more inclined to back Uncle Teddy's single payer health care plan? In fact, progressive sports fans, might she be in fact more progressive than most of the likely candidates for the seat? Why is no one asking or researching that interesting element? If the familial crest is also indicative at present of another strong progressive vote I am sure she tops Al Franken(for sure Chris Matthews) and a better vote getter possibly. In any event she gives Patterson much needed breathing space to sort out the headaches of too many Albany schlep dauphins, which means her candidacy is overall a good thing.

I am not sure of the track record of governor appointed Senators, but I think when pols elect pols the last thing you get is some meritorious white knight. You get a name, a place mat, a tried and true warhorse, a favor called in, an ideologue akin to the governor, often someone OLD so as not to turn around and compete with the governor for First Citizen of the state. What exactly is this pristine process that has been so elitely violated? The bar at its current setting means that ANY decent American is better than a RW troll, qualifications nothing more than a red herring. Raising the bar means voting in the better representation the hard way and obtaining legislation to make that the norm. We are not there yet by a long shot.

All this complaining and no vetting and then complaining she has little record to vet.

[Karenina]

64. Some of the more pragmatic here

may also consider her "qualifications" and track record in FUNDRAISING. Just a thought.

[PATRICK]

65. I wish Congress could quickly

reform away the fundraising advantages for anyone and everyone but those elements are certainly more typical of appointment opportunity than building up the "qualification" resume as if someone were actually running or sitting down for a job interview. Maybe we should give a Civil Service exam for Senatoral candidates and pick them by score.

[PassingFair]

60. um...because she would win in a landslide anyway, if she ran?

She also took a somewhat unpopular stand
against the DLC wing of the party and helped
to pave the way for a successful Obama run.

I'd vote for her, and I'm not a real Kennedy fan,
nor am I a proponent of dynastic politics.

[onenote]

61. if words are to be given their actual meaning, no its not.

[Le Taz Hot]

62. May I just throw in a reminder that the Founding Fathers

had in mind CITIZEN government? We weren't supposed to have career politicians. They were SUPPOSED to be blacksmiths and farmers and cabinet makers so they would have a better perspective of how the governed could best be served. We have been WAAAYYY over-represented by lawyers who's heads are so far up the beltway ass they haven't seen the light of day for decades. We've HAD career politicians in power for decades. To channel Dr. Phil, "How's that been workin' for us?" We all know the answer.

She's college-educated, obviously a VERY smart person with a pretty pristine background (married to the same man, raised her kids to be productive citizens, no scandals). Given the history of her early life I'd say that speaks VOLUMES about her, don't you? Does the name "Kennedy" open doors? Yes, and it always will. Just as it will for the Clintons and the Bushes. But the fact that she was born with a famous name should not DISqualify her for the position either.

[Horse with no Name]

63. She is as qualified as ANYONE sitting in those chambers

She attended Harvard and has a law degree from Columbia.
I'm pretty sure part of law school talks about the Constitution--wouldn't you think?
Not only that...on your same premise...Inhofe from Oklahoma is a Doctor as was Frist. What made THEM uniquely qualified to serve in the Senate? Medical School doesn't talk about the Constitution?:shrug:

[TheKentuckian]

66. I'm sick of the sick of the Kennedy's people

For a bunch of wealth fucks they've contributed and certainly tried to accomplish more for the average citizen than about any other group of people with the heft to accomplish anything.

I think Caroline can be a strong part of the solution, can raise a ton of money, has instant star power, and most people will want to like her. I think she brings somethings to the table that will help us further and continue our agenda.

[mmonk]

67. I'm really burnt out on the Caroline bashing.

If what's been in government the last several years is experience and merit, screw that straight to hell.