LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about! (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=824)

Hank Chinaski 01-27-2009 04:39 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mommylawyer (Post 379150)
Apples and oranges

also, when replying to penske better not to raise rounded images when talking about female pols as it might well bring out his lactation lover sock.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 01-27-2009 04:40 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 379174)
Uh huh.

But I'm not sure that being around the Kennedy clan (ETA: among other things) is less of an political education than, say, the experience of recent Senators from Minnesota such as college professor (Wellstone), one term as state auditor (Dayton), one term as a country prosecutor (Klobuchar) and tv personality followed by one term in the House (Grams).

Granted, I don't think Dayton or Grams particularly distringuished themselves, and Klobuchar hasn't been around long enough to say, but Wellstone (the only one who never held elected office) did pretty well for himself.

Wellstone built up his constituency over more than a decade, running for other offices statewide and running other campaigns statewide. He was immersed in state politics for a long period of time.

Kennedy had every opportunity for a lot of years to do that. There are many political candidates who would have welcomed her involvement and participation. She just showed no interest until she wanted one of the top jobs.

There's a reason for cutting your teeth somewhere - in Caroline's case, for example, a run for Congress would have undoubtedly ironed out some of those little speaking quirks that got picked out and left her better prepared.

Hank Chinaski 01-27-2009 04:42 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 379149)
Wouldn't it depend on the job and how high you rise? Big law firm politics can be cut throat but probably not so much for the overnight word processing staff.

you must not know your overnight WP staff. At my last big law we have this really icky guy who had a book of porn he'd talk into the restroom with him, and stay for quite awhile IYKWIMAITTYD.

Word is there was plenty of back stabbing and power brokering that went on to avoid havijng to work on his files.

Adder 01-27-2009 04:47 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 379176)
Wellstone built up his constituency over more than a decade, running for other offices statewide and running other campaigns statewide. He was immersed in state politics for a long period of time.

I see. So if she had run state auditor and lost once you would be okay? And how is one run for auditor "other offices statewide?" Perhaps I am misremembering.

But if you want other examples, a bit of internet research reminds me that other two other Minnesota multi-term Senators were also neophytes: Dave Durenberger and Rudy Boschwitz (who Wellstone beat in a surprise upset). Granted Durenberger ended up with some ethical issues in the Senate, but still.

ETA: The point being that I don't think it is that uncommon for Senator to be someone first political office.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 01-27-2009 04:53 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 379178)
I see. So if she had run state auditor and lost once you would be okay? And how is one run for auditor "other offices statewide?" Perhaps I am misremembering.

But if you want other examples, a bit of internet research reminds me that other two other Minnesota multi-term Senators were also neophytes: Dave Durenberger and Rudy Boschwitz (who Wellstone beat in a surprise upset). Granted Durenberger ended up with some ethical issues in the Senate, but still.

I thought there was more than one, but am not from MN, so I'll defer.

She might have been a wonderful Senator - and all credentials are is a way to say there's good reason to make that bet. But I'd rather bet on Gillibrand for the job myself - even though I probably agree with Kennedy (from what I can ascertain) on more issues.

If I saw Caroline Kennedy out there running a good election, the way I believe Wellstone did, it would increase my comfort level. It certainly increased my comfort level with Deval Patrick, for example, though he still stumbled (now looks to be recovering).

Adder 01-27-2009 05:07 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 379179)
If I saw Caroline Kennedy out there running a good election, the way I believe Wellstone did, it would increase my comfort level.

To I think everyone's great surprise, Wellstone was a top-notch campaigner. Built an envied grass roots campaign and was an energizing and engaging speaker.

I really don't care one way or the other about Caroline. As mommylawyer has pointed out, I think there is ample room to have defended the pick if it was needed. But for most part, the criticisms of her are her are noise that is meant to cover for either an instinctive dislike of Kennedies, or aversion to perceived dynasties.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 01-27-2009 05:09 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mommylawyer (Post 379159)
Come on now..so because she didn't run for school board and city council, she's not qualified? What lower level position did Hilary have? Wife can be a 'job' that requires the patience of Job, but it isn't A job. (apologies for the biblical reference to any non-believers on the board) Heck, isn't the Senate basically the corporate board of America?

I think the difference is you're pointing to people who were elected. It's one thing for a majority of voters to elect a goofball (see, e.g., (maybe), Minnesota), it's another to have a governor appoint a goofball.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 01-27-2009 05:15 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 379180)
To I think everyone's great surprise, Wellstone was a top-notch campaigner. Built an envied grass roots campaign and was an energizing and engaging speaker.

I really don't care one way or the other about Caroline. As mommylawyer has pointed out, I think there is ample room to have defended the pick if it was needed. But for most part, the criticisms of her are her are noise that is meant to cover for either an instinctive dislike of Kennedies, or aversion to perceived dynasties.

I've probably voted for more Kennedys than anyone here, and have hung with a few Roosevelts in my time. Perhaps you can find some other knee-jerk bias that I'm masking?

Adder 01-27-2009 05:17 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 379181)
I think the difference is you're pointing to people who were elected. It's one thing for a majority of voters to elect a goofball (see, e.g., (maybe), Minnesota), it's another to have a governor appoint a goofball.

If she was, say, Vanilla Ice, maybe the distinction between elected and appointed would matter. But she isn't Vanilla Ice, and, honestly, I don't think you can objectively call her a goofball.

mommylawyer 01-27-2009 05:17 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 379173)
I didn't specify curators or administrators. I think that, for example,Mari Carmen Ramirez is quite politically shrewd in her own sphere, but her sphere is limited in focus, if not scope (Latin America is huge).

I don't know much about what Kennedy did at the Met. But I know a lot about museums. Working on the administrative side of museums, especially large encyclopedic museums, requires knowledge of the community that you're in, the ability to tap resources and develop partnerships, an ability to cultivate and retain donors without pissing them off, and a deep understanding of the current political climate in the community. Museums are often regarded by the public as, well, a public resource, and as such, they're administered quited politically. I think a museum administrator, like a University administrator, is probably well qualified to run for political office. And they may even be qualified to skip the school board or city council.

Did some simple digging, began as research asst in film/tv at MoMA and became liason officer between museum staff and outside producers/directors. No idea what that means but she didn't stay a research assistant and was there for several years...

Adder 01-27-2009 05:19 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 379182)
I've probably voted for more Kennedys than anyone here, and have hung with a few Roosevelts in my time. Perhaps you can find some other knee-jerk bias that I'm masking?

I wasn't talking specifically about you. Your beef seems to be you want a proven political operator, which seems like a legit, if somewhat uncommon, thing to value.

Shape Shifter 01-27-2009 05:23 PM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Kennedy Removes Self From Senate Consideration

One day before New York governor David Patterson made his selection, Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of President John F. Kennedy, has withdrawn her bid to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate. What do you think?


http://www.theonion.com/content/file...o5.article.jpg
Scott Gallivan,
Systems Analyst

"It's about time the Kennedy family's string of good luck ended."

http://www.theonion.com/content/file...o4.article.jpg
Erin Phirman,
Warehoue Supervisor

"I guess at this point she just goes back to being a Level Two Kennedy."

http://www.theonion.com/content/file...o3.article.jpg
Cody Lofgren,
Electronics Tester

"That's all right, she's already done so much to help this country by having John F. Kennedy as a father."

http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo...lf_from_senate

mommylawyer 01-27-2009 05:23 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 379182)
I've probably voted for more Kennedys than anyone here, and have hung with a few Roosevelts in my time. Perhaps you can find some other knee-jerk bias that I'm masking?

Maybe/maybe not ... I'm from MA too, just don't pahk my cah by the rivah when I visit my friend Linder

lol

Penske_Account 01-27-2009 05:26 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 379168)
I wasn't a fan of hers, and I really don't like the idea of family dynasties.

That said, it's well past time that you lay off this one. I mean, do you think she's less qualified than Fred Grandy was when Rs elected him to Congress?

I am laying off. I went to a 2 hour lunch. I will say, in specific response to the last part of your post above, that all of my criticism is based on the concept of the selection of an appointee to temporarily fill an otherwise elective office. As for someone throwing their hat in the ring, running and being elected, the only qualifications are the minimum reqs in the Constitution. After that its up to the will and stupidity of the electorate, eg Fred Grandy.

Penske_Account 01-27-2009 05:28 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 379169)
I haven't seen you here before. Have you had much contact with Penske? He's still questioning the existence of air pollution from cars.

Dissent. I refined my response to note that her life experience existed, but i find it sparse. Is the above you meant by an ad hominen attack.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-27-2009 05:29 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 379188)
I am laying off. I went to a 2 hour lunch. I will say, in specific response to the last part of your post above, that all of my criticism is based on the concept of the selection of an appointee to temporarily fill an otherwise elective office. As for someone throwing their hat in the ring, running and being elected, the only qualifications are the minimum reqs in the Constitution. After that its up to the will and stupidity of the electorate, eg Fred Grandy.

So you'll support Russ Feingold's constitutional amendment?

Penske_Account 01-27-2009 05:30 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 379170)
I don't recall having seen you on this board before. Have you had much experience with Penske?

The ad hominem attacks ARE the point of the discussion. For him. When talking about Dems.

Don't take that away from him -- it's really all that he has left.

Is the above what you mean by an ad hominen attack? OTOH, my dissent is not based on ad hominen attacks, its based on the sparsity of her experience, which, would not place anyone else in the ring for such an appointment, which proposal was based seemingly entirely on her name and connections.

As for the D comment, aren't you tired of that partisan shite yet? I supported, in particular order Gillibrand, Cuomo, Maloney, and Lowey for the appointment. Aren't they all Ds?

Penske_Account 01-27-2009 05:33 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 379175)
also, when replying to penske better not to raise rounded images when talking about female pols as it might well bring out his lactation lover sock.

That sock is pre-occupied, its submitting its resume for an intern position with Gillibrand.

Penske_Account 01-27-2009 05:34 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 379176)
Wellstone built up his constituency over more than a decade, running for other offices statewide and running other campaigns statewide. He was immersed in state politics for a long period of time.

Kennedy had every opportunity for a lot of years to do that. There are many political candidates who would have welcomed her involvement and participation. She just showed no interest until she wanted one of the top jobs.

There's a reason for cutting your teeth somewhere - in Caroline's case, for example, a run for Congress would have undoubtedly ironed out some of those little speaking quirks that got picked out and left her better prepared.

Isn't the other (significant?) difference that Wellstone got elected, not appointed, to the Senate?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 01-27-2009 05:34 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mommylawyer (Post 379187)
Maybe/maybe not ... I'm from MA too, just don't pahk my cah by the rivah when I visit my friend Linder

lol

Think age; I've been pulling that levah longah.

Penske_Account 01-27-2009 05:35 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 379178)
I see. So if she had run state auditor and lost once you would be okay? And how is one run for auditor "other offices statewide?" Perhaps I am misremembering.

But if you want other examples, a bit of internet research reminds me that other two other Minnesota multi-term Senators were also neophytes: Dave Durenberger and Rudy Boschwitz (who Wellstone beat in a surprise upset). Granted Durenberger ended up with some ethical issues in the Senate, but still.

ETA: The point being that I don't think it is that uncommon for Senator to be someone first political office.

Is it uncommon for someone's first political office to be an appointment rather than an election? Is there some substantive difference between election and appointment?

Penske_Account 01-27-2009 05:37 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 379190)
So you'll support Russ Feingold's constitutional amendment?

Cite please?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 01-27-2009 05:39 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 379193)
Isn't the other (significant?) difference that Wellstone got elected, not appointed, to the Senate?

I don't care about that distinction for the same reasons you do. For me, that's mostly about the calculus as to whether the appointee will get themselves reelected and help the rest of the ticket, not whether I think they will be a good senator.

Adder 01-27-2009 05:39 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 379188)
I am laying off. I went to a 2 hour lunch. I will say, in specific response to the last part of your post above, that all of my criticism is based on the concept of the selection of an appointee to temporarily fill an otherwise elective office. As for someone throwing their hat in the ring, running and being elected, the only qualifications are the minimum reqs in the Constitution. After that its up to the will and stupidity of the electorate, eg Fred Grandy.

How do you feel about Muriel Humphrey's service after Hubert was elected as VP?

Atticus Grinch 01-27-2009 05:40 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 379144)
FWIW, museum politics are pretty cut throat.

As Henry Kissinger is alleged to have quipped, there is no politics quite as vicious as academic politics, because there is so little at stake.

Adder 01-27-2009 05:42 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 379193)
Isn't the other (significant?) difference that Wellstone got elected, not appointed, to the Senate?

So you objected when Gov. Ventura appointed Dean Barkley to fill out Wellstone's term? Or was his experience as repeat third party candidate and advisor to the Ventura campaign enough to meet your standard?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 01-27-2009 05:43 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mommylawyer (Post 379187)
Maybe/maybe not ... I'm from MA too, just don't pahk my cah by the rivah when I visit my friend Linder

lol

You don't pahk a cah in the rivah, you pahk your cah in the ocean.

Adder 01-27-2009 05:44 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 379195)
Is it uncommon for someone's first political office to be an appointment rather than an election? Is there some substantive difference between election and appointment?

No.

Cletus Miller 01-27-2009 05:45 PM

The Geithner Defense
 
Already being hauled out:

KERIK EYES 'GEITHNER' TAX BREAK

"In new court papers, the former police commissioner complains that the feds want to send him to prison for the same sort of problems that officials overlooked in Geithner, whom the Senate confirmed yesterday as treasury secretary."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01272009...eak_152201.htm

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 01-27-2009 05:46 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 379204)
No.

So you're saying elections are a sham that simply allow voters to choose between the party elite's hand-picked favorite son or daughter?

Penske_Account 01-27-2009 05:46 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 379180)
But for most part, the criticisms of her are her are noise that is meant to cover for either an instinctive dislike of Kennedies, or aversion to perceived dynasties.


Interesting thing to note, after your assumptions, I actually have a soft spot for the Camelot mystique and grew up with a fond idealisation of John and Bobby. My first campaign work was for Dodd, who, while not a Kennedy, fashioned a Kennedyesque head of hair for himself, and also, based on some first hand observation was able to stay drink for drink with Teddy.

That said, I assume the living Kennedys, while all or mostly Ds (is Schwvarzanegger an honourary K?), have some diversity in to their positions, so I can't say I have a dislike of all of their politics, although I dislike a lot of Teds (however, keep in mind, his presidential campaign was my second endeavour in working on a campaign). Personally, to the extent that I have met any kennedys, and I have, they seemed like decent folk, so no instinctive dislike there either.

I do, however, have an aversion to political dynasties and acheivement by legacy and/or nepotism, although that's probably my bias of having grown up at the bottom of the ladder and not having had a name or family wealth to leverage. If I had the latter, I would probably look down my nose on all of you proles.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-27-2009 05:46 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 379196)
Cite please?

Quote:

On Sunday, Feingold, said he plans to introduce an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to end appointments to the Senate by governors. Feingold, who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, will advocate a special election instead.

“The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end," he said in a press release.

He added: "In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators. They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid-term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people."

Feingold plans to introduce the amendment this week.
CNN

Penske_Account 01-27-2009 05:47 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mommylawyer (Post 379184)
Did some simple digging, began as research asst in film/tv at MoMA and became liason officer between museum staff and outside producers/directors. No idea what that means but she didn't stay a research assistant and was there for several years...

Sounds like intro to middling positions. Not really a foundation for an appointment as a US Senator.

ThurgreedMarshall 01-27-2009 05:48 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 379174)
Uh huh.

But I'm not sure that being around the Kennedy clan (ETA: among other things) is less of an political education than, say, the experience of recent Senators from Minnesota such as college professor (Wellstone), one term as state auditor (Dayton), one term as a country prosecutor (Klobuchar) and tv personality followed by one term in the House (Grams).

Granted, I don't think Dayton or Grams particularly distringuished themselves, and Klobuchar hasn't been around long enough to say, but Wellstone (the only one who never held elected office) did pretty well for himself.

Wellstone was a professor of political science, so I don't think he works in your analogy.

TM

Penske_Account 01-27-2009 05:49 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 379199)
I don't care about that distinction for the same reasons you do. For me, that's mostly about the calculus as to whether the appointee will get themselves reelected and help the rest of the ticket, not whether I think they will be a good senator.

My post-partisan persona dislikes that calculus. No offence. HOw about good government for good government's sake, not one party's advantage over the other.....? Am I too idealistic?

Atticus Grinch 01-27-2009 05:50 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 379200)
How do you feel about Muriel Humphrey's service after Hubert was elected as VP?

Mary Bono (R-Ca)
Lindy Boggs (D-La)
Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo)
Lois Capps (D-Ca)
Doris Matsui (D-Ca)

These women were, however, elected following the deaths of their incumbent spouses, which I contend is healthier than appointment, though personally I can't see myself voting for a candidate who pledged to carry out the so-called legacy of anyone. That sounds like a prescription for trouble.

Penske_Account 01-27-2009 05:51 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 379200)
How do you feel about Muriel Humphrey's service after Hubert was elected as VP?

As a concept I dislike it, but it was thirty years (when politics stil had more of a back room old boys network bent to it) and lasted for less than a year.

Gattigap 01-27-2009 05:52 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 379207)
Interesting thing to note, after your assumptions, I actually have a soft spot for the Camelot mystique and grew up with a fond idealisation of John and Bobby. My first campaign work was for Dodd, who, while not a Kennedy, fashioned a Kennedyesque head of hair for himself, and also, based on some first hand observation was able to stay drink for drink with Teddy.

That said, I assume the living Kennedys, while all or mostly Ds (is Schwvarzanegger an honourary K?), have some diversity in to their positions, so I can't say I have a dislike of all of their politics, although I dislike a lot of Teds (however, keep in mind, his presidential campaign was my second endeavour in working on a campaign). Personally, to the extent that I have met any kennedys, and I have, they seemed like decent folk, so no instinctive dislike there either.

I do, however, have an aversion to political dynasties and acheivement by legacy and/or nepotism, although that's probably my bias of having grown up at the bottom of the ladder and not having had a name or family wealth to leverage. If I had the latter, I would probably look down my nose on all of you proles.


It's hard to reconcile the above with my earlier understanding of things Penske.

Sure, some look at it and call it "post-partisan," but I think that superficial labels such as these only obscure the underlying reality of what's going on, and it's time we just came out and say it: until I saw it with mine own eyes from a Penske post, I had no idea about the transformative qualities of an in-office bidet.

ThurgreedMarshall 01-27-2009 05:53 PM

Re: Sheeeeeeyit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 379179)
I thought there was more than one, but am not from MN, so I'll defer.

She might have been a wonderful Senator - and all credentials are is a way to say there's good reason to make that bet. But I'd rather bet on Gillibrand for the job myself - even though I probably agree with Kennedy (from what I can ascertain) on more issues.

If I saw Caroline Kennedy out there running a good election, the way I believe Wellstone did, it would increase my comfort level. It certainly increased my comfort level with Deval Patrick, for example, though he still stumbled (now looks to be recovering).

Does having Ted Kennedy's contacts and influence and the ear of the President count for anything?

I'm pretty ambivalent when it comes to Caroline being a Senator (although I really like what she's done for education in New York). But at some point it comes down to the following question: What can you get done for the constituents of the state of New York? And she probably surpasses most incoming Senators in terms of contacts and influence.

TM

Adder 01-27-2009 05:53 PM

Re: The Geithner Defense
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller (Post 379205)
Already being hauled out:

KERIK EYES 'GEITHNER' TAX BREAK

"In new court papers, the former police commissioner complains that the feds want to send him to prison for the same sort of problems that officials overlooked in Geithner, whom the Senate confirmed yesterday as treasury secretary."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01272009...eak_152201.htm

Damn! It's too bad we have a legal system in which whatever a defendant says is automatically the law.

ETA: I better tell some clients that this is how it works now. They will be very happy. Hopefully the message reaches the right federal judges.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:26 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com