Tuesday, December 23, 2008


That's the number of questions Caroline Kennedy has answered in her pursuit to secure Hillary Clinton's seat, according to THIS article in the NY Times. Want to guess how many interviews she has granted in this pursuit? Zero. How about answers to questions regarding her finances? Zero. Yes, Caroline Kennedy is using the Barack Obama School of campaigning - give up NO information whatsoever. None. According to the article:
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.

Isn't that just fitting considering Obama's own levels of secrecy? Once again, it begs the question WHY she wants to be a politician. It would seem she sees it not as a service to the people of New York, but as an honor OWED her. I'd say she's a bit unclear on the responsibilities of the job. Never mind that this is an appointed position, and there are actually other people out there interested in the position who are FAR more qualified than she, say Andrew Cuomo, for starters (and I, too, would love to have a woman replace a woman in this seat, but women are not interchageable by gender alone. Experience, qualifications, and commitment to public service count, too.).

Jonah Goldberg had an interesting comparison of Gov. Sarah Palin and Caroline Kennedy in this article: Cinderella vs. the Barracuda
A perfect example of the bowel-stewing self-indulgence of elite liberalism:
For people who think there’s no cultural divide in this country, consider the treatment of two women much in the news in 2008.

The first is Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. A woman from very humble roots and with a very blue-collar life story, she worked with her steelworker and professional-fisherman husband to provide a life for their large family. She got involved in the PTA. She became mayor of her small town, then rose, by dint of her dedication and almost naive fearlessness, to the job of governor. In a mainstream, almost romantic sense, it’s almost like she was designed by God for a Hallmark movie of the week.

But, when John McCain picked her to be his running mate, the full fury of the liberal establishment — and sizable swaths of the conservative establishment, some of whom dubbed her a “cancer” on the GOP — came down on her with a vengeance usually reserved for Klansmen and pedophiles. Don’t get me wrong: There were valid criticisms to make. But that is quite a different thing than saying all of the criticism was valid or that the intensity and volume of the criticism was warranted.

No kidding. Americans used to revel in the "pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps" kind of story. Gov. Palin couldn't BE a better example of that rise. Well, maybe not quite as good as President Bill Clinton, but still - she clearly has made something of herself through hard work and perseverance. Not that you could tell that by the media's attacks on her.

And now to potential senator from the Great State of New York:
Then there’s Caroline Bouvier Kennedy, daughter of John F. Kennedy, sister of John Jr., niece of Senators Ted and Robert Kennedy, granddaughter of Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, and the cousin of myriad other Kennedys and Shrivers who’ve burrowed deep into the timber of the house of liberalism. A multimillionaire from birth, Ms. Kennedy has spent most of her life on the charity-benefit and cotillion circuit. A product of the Brearley School in New York and the Concord Academy in Massachusetts before she attended Harvard and Columbia, Kennedy has made the importance of public education her signature cause.

Sweet Caroline (she was the inspiration for the Neil Diamond song) recently made it known that she would like to be appointed to Hillary Clinton’s vacant Senate seat.

One could say without fear of overstating things that the liberal reaction to the inexperienced Caroline has been somewhat more gracious than the reaction to the “inexperienced” Palin. Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post has devoted two columns in as many weeks to this “fairy tale” scenario in which Kennedy, our “tragic national princess,” is finally rewarded — for her years of quiet dignity, selflessly avoiding scandal and the paparazzi — with the Senate seat that once belonged to her uncle Bobby. What’s astounding about the normally sensible Marcus’s case for “the Cinderella Kennedy” (New York magazine’s phrase) is that she doesn’t really make one, at least not on the merits. Marcus doesn’t even bother. It’s all schoolgirl gushing.

Pretty much. While there are very few actual requirements to be Senator, age being one of the few. But, don't you think that wanting to BE a politician might be helpful?? You know, going among the people, talking to them, shaking their hands, going to meeting after meeting after meeting? Just sayin'. Not that that seems to matter to The NY Times:
The editors of the New York Times, in a more skeptical editorial, summarized her qualifications thusly: “Ms. Kennedy has much going for her. As a public figure, she carries the glamour and poignancy of her family ...” The editors then went on to describe what great liberals her dad and uncles were. That’s it.

Wow. Talk about your hard-hitting journalism! Way to GO, NY Times!!! Goldberg continued:
This (is) a perfect example of the bowel-stewing self-indulgence of elite liberalism.

Here’s a news flash: Not everyone truckles with doe-eyed awe at “America’s royal family.” Some of us don’t even like the idea of American royal families. JFK and RFK had their good points, but they don’t deserve the beatification they receive on a daily basis. As a man, Teddy Kennedy is hardly a role model, and as a public servant he’s not much better. I, for one, don’t think denying poor black kids private-school scholarships (aka vouchers) is heroic. Nor do I think his support for alternative energy, except when it might obstruct his Hyannis Port estate’s views with windmills, is admirable.

Simply, the Kennedy clan is no priestly caste, serving as the conscience of the nation, and its progeny do not deserve eternal deference.

You gotta admit - he has a point. Many liberals, myself included, found Ted's position on windmills to be just a TAD hypocritical, but it is to the more important issue that Mr. Goldberg is addressing: the Kennedys are hardly worthy of beatification with all of the personal, and political, issues in which they have engaged, or been caught, much less be "American royalty."

Goldberg concludes:
Now, I know the comparison between Palin and Caroline Kennedy is not perfect. Each has strengths where the other has weaknesses, and the jobs of senator and vice president aren’t identical (the former actually has more responsibility, for starters).

But the comparison is nonetheless revealing. Palin’s selection triggered troughs of bile, vomited up from nearly every respectable liberal quarter. A Florida congressman, and Obama surrogate, insinuated that Palin was a “Nazi sympathizer” and anti-Semite (she’s not, but Caroline Kennedy’s grandfather was). Her by-the-bootstraps story was ridiculed by nearly every ex-debutante newsreader and avowed “feminist” in America.

Meanwhile, Caroline, with a resume perfectly suited to being a Kennedy and little else, is a Cinderella who deserves a Senate seat because, well, she just does.

Whatever Palin’s faults, Sarah Barracuda’s America has a lot more going for it than Sweet Caroline’s.

Oh, sure - Caroline Kennedy deserves the seat just because she wants it, at least in HER mind, and the mind of her family. That's just exactly the kind of people we need in Washington, especially to provide oversight to The One Who Wants To Be King.

On a lighter note, I think Andy Borowitz, the humorist, has the perfect interpretation of Caroline Kennedy wanting something for not much in this piece:

Caroline Kennedy Asks to be Time’s Person of the Year
: Places Phone Call to Magazine’s Editor

Caroline Kennedy would like to be considered Time magazine's Person of the Year for 2009 and has let the magazine's editor know of her interest in the honor, aides to Ms. Kennedy confirmed today.

While some observers considered Ms. Kennedy's bid to be premature, especially since 2009 has not officially begun, aides to the New York senatorial aspirant said that it reflected her view that 2009 will be a very big year for her.

"I think Caroline's calling Time magazine and asking to be put on the cover shows just what a tireless worker she is," said cousin Kerry Kennedy. "When she really wants something, she's not afraid to roll up her sleeves and make a phone call."

Her cousin said that having witnessed Caroline's work ethic, she has no doubt that she is deserving of Time's highest honor: "I can't tell you how many times she's gotten the wrong number, been put on hold, or had calls dropped altogether."

In addition to the Person of the Year honors, Kerry Kennedy said that Caroline had also expressed an interest in next year's Nobel Peace Prize.

"That's a call she hasn't made yet," Ms. Kennedy said. "She has to figure out the time difference in Oslo."

Ahem. Well, she's just as qualified for THAT as she is the US Senate.

I could be wrong, but isn't SHE engaging in a "Pay to Play" scheme? Isn't that what her uncle, Harry Reid, and all the others are doing by trying to force Gov. Paterson to choose her?? It sure seems to be pretty close to what is happening in IL, except from the other side. They are trying to coerce Gov. Paterson to give her this position for what, payback for all of her service during the election? Probably. Hey, I'm just sayin'. But it seems eerily similar to me. What do YOU say?

1 comment:

Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy said...

Mike J!!! My apologies - I must have hit the wrong button for your comment! If you don't mind, could you please re-send it? It was good (as always)!!

I can tell you that you are right on target abt Obama's self-report. My immediate reaction when I saw the AP article (with Obama's major fawner, Nedra Pickler) and its "conclusion" was Nixon's, "I am NOT a crook!" Uh, yeah...

Again, SORRY!!!