Charles Krauthammer, columnist skewers legacy/ dynasty candidacy of Lady Kennedy

Bravo to Charles Krauthammer, columnist of Wash Post, for his column:

My opinion Charles Krauthammer : Caroline Kennedy bid reflects disturbing trend
My opinion Charles Krauthammer
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 12.19.2008
advertisement
"I don't know what Caroline Kennedy's qualifications are. Except that she has name recognition, but so does J-Lo."
— U.S. Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y.
WASHINGTON
Right idea, wrong argument. The problem with Caroline Kennedy's presumption to Hillary Clinton's soon-to-be-vacated Senate seat is not lack of qualification or experience. The Senate houses lots of inexperienced rookies — wealthy businessmen, sports stars, even the occasional actor.
The problem is Kennedy's sense of entitlement. Given her rather modest achievements, she is trading entirely on pedigree.
I hate to be a good-government scold, but wasn't the American experiment a rather firm renunciation of government by pedigree?
Yes, the Founders were not democrats. They believed in aristocracy. But their idea was government by natural — not inherited — aristocracy, an aristocracy of "virtue and talents," as Jefferson put it.
And yes, of course, we have our own history of dynastic succession: Adamses and Harrisons, and in the last century, Roosevelts, Kennedys and Bushes.
Recently, we've even branched out into Argentine-style marital transmission, as in the Doles and the Clintons.
It's not the end of the world, but it is an accelerating trend that need not be encouraged. After all, we have already created another huge distortion in our politics: a plethora of plutocrats in the U.S. Senate, courtesy of our crazed campaign finance laws.
If you're very very rich, you can buy your Senate seat by spending as much of your money as you want.
Meanwhile, your poor plebeian opponent is running around groveling for the small contributions allowed by law. Hence the Corzines and the Kohls, who parachute into Congress seemingly out of nowhere.
Having given this additional leg up to the rich, we should resist packing our legislatures with yet more privileged parachutists, the well-born.
True, the Brits did it that way for centuries, but with characteristic honesty. They established a house of Parliament exclusively for highborn twits and ensconced them there for life. There they chatter away in supreme irrelevance deep into their dotage.
Problem is that the U.S. Senate retains House of Commons powers even as it develops a House of Lords membership.
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Caroline Kennedy. She seems a fine person. She certainly has led the life of a worthy socialite helping all the right causes.
But when the mayor of New York endorses her candidacy by offering, among other reasons, that "her uncle has been one of the best senators that we have had in an awful long time," we've reached the point of embarrassment.
Nor is Ms. Kennedy alone in her sense of entitlement. Vice President-elect Biden's Senate seat will now be filled by Edward Kaufman, a family retainer whom no one ever heard of before yesterday. And no one will hear from after two years, at which time Kaufman will dutifully retire.
He understands his responsibility: Keep the Delaware Senate seat warm for two years until Joe's son returns from Iraq to assume his father's mantle.
This, of course, is the Kennedy way. In 1960, John Kennedy's Senate seat was given to his Harvard roommate, one Ben Smith II (priceless name).
He stayed on for two years — until Teddy reached the constitutional age of 30 required to succeed his brother.
In light of the pending dynastic disposition of the New York and Delaware Senate seats, the Illinois way is almost refreshing.
At least Gov. Rod Blagojevich (allegedly) made Barack Obama's seat democratically open to all. Just register the highest bid, eBay style.
Sadly, however, even this auction was not free of aristo-creep.
On the evidence of the U.S. attorney's criminal complaint, a full one-third of those under consideration were pedigreed: Candidate No. 2 turns out to be the daughter of the speaker of the Illinois House; Candidate No. 5, the first-born son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
Caroline Kennedy, Beau Biden and Jesse Jackson Jr. could some day become great senators. But in a country where advantages of education, upbringing and wealth already make the playing field extraordinarily uneven, we should resist encouraging the one form of advantage the American Republic strove to abolish: title.
No lords or ladies here.
If Princess Caroline wants a seat in the Senate, let her do it by election. There's one in 2010.
To do it now by appointment on the basis of bloodline is an offense to the most minimal republicanism.
Every state in the union is entitled to representation in the Senate. Camelot is not a state.
Write to Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post Writers Group at letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Lady Kennedy answers questions from the NY Times

Lady Kennedy, duchess of Hyannis, of the dynasty of Kennedy, aspirant to receive her duly endowed legacy position of Senator from Gov. David Paterson, has answered (generally, brief) questions, from the NY Times, so as to appear to be speaking to we, the commoners:

Q. Does she support state or federal legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage?

A. Caroline supports full equality and marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples.

Q. Would she oppose legislation that would require minors to notify a parent before obtaining an abortion?

A. Caroline believes that young women facing unwanted pregnancies should have the advice of caring adults, but this should not be required by law.

Q. Does she support any state or federal restrictions on late-term abortions?

A. Caroline supports Roe v. Wade, which prohibits third-trimester abortions except when the life or health of the mother is at risk.

Q. Do you support amnesty for undocumented workers?

A. Caroline believes all undocumented workers should be required to legalize their presence in the United States and that we must create a way for them to do so. Undocumented workers should pay a fine, learn English and go to the back of the line behind those who came here legally.

Q. Has the North American Free Trade Agreement worked?

A. Caroline believes that Nafta has had unintended, negative consequences in some regions of New York, and that is why she agrees with President-elect Obama that we need to take a careful look at the agreement and pay particular attention to its impact on jobs and wages in American manufacturing communities. She also believes that we must ensure that American communities and workers benefit as we craft new trade agreements.

Q. Do you support any federal or state restrictions on gun ownership? If so, which ones?

A. Caroline Kennedy is a strong supporter of gun control. She supports New York City’s and New York State’s gun control laws. On the federal level, she support the Brady Law, and other measures to keep guns out of the hands of minors and criminals.

Q. Do you believe that an undivided Jerusalem must be the national capital of the State of Israel?

A. Yes, Caroline believes that an undivided Jerusalem must be the national capital of the State of Israel.

Q. Do you support the auto industry bailout package passed by the House of Representatives earlier this month?

A. Yes, Caroline supports the auto industry bailout package passed by the House of Representatives earlier this month.

Q. Should there be a cap on local property taxes in New York State?

A. Caroline believes that is an issue for the legislature and the governor to decide.

Q. The president-elect proposes higher taxes on the wealthy to help pay for government programs. Governor Paterson is opposed to increase the state income tax on the wealthiest New Yorkers. Who is right?

A. Both President-elect Obama and Governor Paterson are showing tremendous leadership during these tough times. David Paterson has led the fight in Washington to increase aid to the States. If his efforts are successful it may change the tough choices that he currently has to make in terms of budget cuts and revenue increases. In terms of specifics of the Governor’s budget, it was just released last week and Caroline believes it is up to the Governor and the legislature to work out the details.

Q. Do you support a two-state peace solution for Israel?

A. Caroline supports a two-state peace solution for Israel, so long as there is a true partner for peace in the Palestinians, and so long as Israel’s security is assured.

Q. Do you support the federal Employee Free Choice Act, otherwise known as the "card-check" bill?

A. Yes, Caroline supports the federal Employee Free Choice Act.

Q. Do you believe that school vouchers should be offered to parents of children in New York City public schools?

A. Caroline’s priority is to help the public schools improve so that all children have the opportunity to attain an excellent education. She does not support private school vouchers.

Q. Do you want to maintain mayoral control of New York City schools as currently practiced, or do you favor modifying it? If the latter, how?

A. Caroline supports maintaining mayoral control and believes the mayor should be held accountable for the education that our children receive. She is always open to new ideas on how to make the law better so long as they don’t prevent the Mayor from taking the actions he thinks are appropriate and for which he will be held accountable.

Q. Do you support closing the Indian Point nuclear power plant?

A. Caroline supports the state’s efforts to close Indian Point, while recognizing the need to develop alternative sources for the critical energy it currently supplies to New York City and the Metropolitan area.

Carolyn or Nydia, not Caroline

The idea of Caroline Kennedy as Senator should rankle some veteran politicians that have put in their time in public service.

The high office of U.S. senator should be a reward to someone with a demonstrated record of committed service, hard work and a record of positions.

Both Nydia Velazquez of Brooklyn and Carolyn Maloney of Manhattan have put in a decade of service in the House of Representatives.

Velazquez has a very solid, very liberal voting record in the House. She should be the first person on Gov. David Paterson's short list of Senate appointment candidates to replace Hillary Clinton.
The "Lost in the Ozone" blog adds:

Velazquez offers the tantalizing possibility of killing two political birds with one stone by appealing to Hispanics and women - both critical voting blocs.

"They think she's a twofer," said the source close to Paterson, who would get to pick Clinton's replacement. "She's a woman and a Latina and therefore a home run. He's feeling tremendous pressure in western New York, which he has to win to win the general election. But the closer pressure he's feeling right now is from the Hispanic community."

Picking Velazquez might help Paterson win favor with two members of the so-called Gang of Three who are withholding support from current state Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith and preventing him from becoming the majority leader.

The author at the blog site, "The Confluence," made several good points, specifically pointing out that our political offices should not be political sinecures, handed down, in legacy fashion within one family clan or political dynasty. It is obvious, if Caroline's last name were not Kennedy, she would not be commanding such attention as a potential U.S. senator.
{For disclosure, this post is from the PUMA movement. Remember that this was the tasteless group of bitter losers that threatened to support John McCain. Their motto was "Principle Before Party;" but they conveniently ignore that there are deep differences of principles and values between the major parties. It is very interesting that they have ignored Nydia Velazquez from their recommendations. Could it be that she is a Latina? They stressed how voters elected Maloney eight times; actually, Vela}

Key points from the Confluence post:

1. She’s not a politician. Never has been. She’s never run for political office, never advocated for legislation (that I know of), never even expressed an interest. If Hillary were close to an election cycle, one might justify appointing Caroline as a symbolic gesture. But Hillary has four years left in her term. That would make Kennedy a rather strong incumbent. She hasn’t earned it.
2. The Senate is not the House of Lords. I know the argument against dynasties has also been made against Hillary’s run for president. But in Hillary’s case, she did the whole campaigning thing. She’s worked on health care throughout her tenure as first lady. She went into the senate having *earned* her seat through a legitimate election and her own accomplishments. We saw her on the campaign trail for president. She is smart, tough, assertive, unflagging, eternally optimistic. We *like* her. Just because her husband was a president doesn’t mean we had to deprive ourselves of the best presidential candidate in the past 15 years. But in Caroline Kennedy’s case, the name is everything. She is the closest thing we have to an American princess. She’s an aristocrat and nothing more. Oh, sure, she’s a lawyer and she’s published books. But for her, it almost like finishing school. She chose to lead a more private life. Good! Let her enjoy it.
3. There are other women who would be passed over who would be legitimately and righteously indignant. Kirsten Gillibrand and Carolyn Maloney are perfect examples. For the upstate vote, Kirsten is the way to go. She’s young, intelligent, well liked. She’s very much in the Hillary model. For experience, go to Carolyn Maloney, who has been elected from her Manhattan district *eight* times. She has a track record of championing women’s issues. For either of these true politicians who have earned their way to be queue jumped by Caroline Kennedy is a real slap to the face.

But the bottom line, what are Kennedy's positions? votesmart.org gives us Velazquez's and Maloney's positions.