Who cares (4.00 / 3)

I am not a fan of Caroline or her senate aspirations, but this is a non-story.  So she didn't vote in some mayoral primaries over the years when she was a private citizen?  Big f--ing deal, join the club with the other 90% of society.


John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

---

by: FuzzyDunlop @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:01:28 AM CST

Differing opinion (4.00 / 3)

I actually kind of feel this is a disqualification factor. If you don't give eanough of a shit to vote, then how commited are you? Once or twice ok, but she made a habit out of this.

And I was a fan of her getting the seat until I saw this. For me, this is a HUGE deal. Democratic candidates would win by HUGE margins if we could only get more like 90% turnout.

---

by: benjamink @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:17:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

As Chris .. and others have pointed out ... (4.00 / 1)

the higher the turnout .. the better chances Democrats have .. besides .. in NYC .. primaries are obviously the more important elections .. since except for the mayor .. NYC is generally a one party town(just like most big cities ... like Philadelphia)

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:29:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

NYC is Dem., but (0.00 / 0)

it's been a loooong time since there was a Dem. Mayor.

---

by: howardpark @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 10:54:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I know .. (0.00 / 0)

part of the reason is .. the Dems keep putting up sucky candidates .. the other part is .. City Council is heavily Democratic ... so some people vote Republican for mayor as a check on City Council(just my guess)

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 12:08:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

Voting for Giuiliani was a based on race...he wasn't David Dinkins, the first African Ameiican Mayor.....and Giuiliani acted racially throughout his mayoralty from never speaking to a single black elelcted official to the the shooting death of Amadou Diallo and others by the police.

Bloomberg is 2 different things....One,  he spent 70 millions dollars in his first race....about 400-500 dollars per voter.  Second he was the inadvertant beneficiary of Sept 11th, which was primary day in NYC. That primary, which Mark Green was on track to win, was rescheduled for 2 weeks later.  It then turned into a runoff 2 weeks after that between him and Fernando Ferrer.  Ferrer lost, in a very angry fashion.  He didn't endorse Green.  

Giuiliani had endorsed the Republican Bloomberg, but prior to 9/11 his reputation was in tatters, after 9/11 his endorsement became golden.  Between that endorsement, 70 million dollars and Hispanics angrily voting for Bloomberg agaisnt the Democratic nominee, Bloomberg narrowly won.
   

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 17:29:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

She was 32 in 1988 when she regostered and had lived in NY her whole life (0.00 / 0)

Where had she voted or registered to vote before?...There were 14 years before that in which she could have voted.

Did she?  If so where?  And why was she registered elsewhere if she had registered to vote elsewhere.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 17:34:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The good news, however ... (4.00 / 3)

... is that we now know exactly what kind of Democrat she promises to be:

Asked to situate herself relative to Hillary, she described herself as "a Kennedy Democrat, a Clinton Democrat, Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama -- all of these are leaders whose values I share."

Model of clarity, that.

---

by: Adam B. @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:09:35 AM CST

It's clear enough (4.00 / 2)

It's a promise of mediocrity, of middle-of-the-road lack of substance, with a bit too much affection for high finance and none of the wonkiness of the individuals she's name-dropping.

Herb Kohl in a bluer state is what that says to me.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:33:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

ha! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:55:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Here's the thing (0.00 / 0)

I don't know if she's deliberately playing coy, or if she honestly doesn't have a well-formulated policy vision yet.  How does a Schumer-Obama-Clinton-Kennedy Democrat view free trade? Wall Street regulation?  

---

by: Adam B. @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 10:07:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

sweet (0.00 / 0)

that is just fucking perfect. schumers is a fucking lying crony capitalist. and the clintons aren't much better.

this person doesn't have a clue. she's just rattling off familiar names of people who have been around a while. which i guess is more names than bo-tard Sarah Palin could pull together when asked to name some newspapers she reads. so Caroline is looking at least better than Sarah.

like another person above I think the voting record is a non-issue, but I agree deeply with Matt that Ms.Kennedy doesn't have a clue how to handle herself in the big boy game of national politics. she stammered and looked around on camera when her aids told her to dodge the qualification question. I think she's in deep trouble. and rightfully so, she's only in contention right now because of her last name, and she's pretty.  

~* the * Will * to go on *~

---

by: ObscureName @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:57:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Attacking the messenger? (4.00 / 2)

Honestly, Matt, I think you're off target here.

1) "Kind of scummy"? -- It's true that The Daily News is in tabloid format, and not nearly as self-important as the first-draft-of-history Gray Lady, but neither is it the fallen-from-grace Murdoch Post.  The News is known for solid reporting, and is especially strong on NY, as opposed to national, politics. The reporting itself in this story is based on homework. That's a step up from the celebrity interview or b.s. polling that seem to be the basis of much of what passes for reporting on this subject.  

2) As for the substance of the piece, don't you consider at least showing up to vote to be a pretty minimal standard of participation in the process? The concern which has -- legitimately -- arisen of the appearance of royal entitlement is only reinforced by CK's frequent failure even to vote. As if, maybe, actually voting is just for the little people, or "only when it counts".

3) More to the point, there are good people out there who have made public service their life's work, and shown both humility and a respect for learning the craft of politics by working their way up through the ranks.  Whether prior elected position is a prerequisite for a high office is an argument that can be made to the voters, and is made whenever a first-timer runs for office.  But none of the first-time electeds as predecessors in this seat in recent memory was both appointed and without any prior record of some form of public service.  Sen. Clinton RAN for the seat, and earned it on the strength of both her prior public record, and an extended pre-announcement campaign tour.  Sen. Moynihan RAN for the seat, after serving in the Cabinet.  RFK RAN for the seat, after serving as Attorney general.  

4.  One of the things that progressive Democrats work for is the promotion of good Democrats.  Certainly, appointing a bystander to the Senate wouldn't do anything for moving Democrats with solid credentials up through the system, as would, for example, the appointment of a sitting Congressperson or other elected. Suppose, for instance, Gov. Patterson were to appoint Rep. Slaughter. An experienced legislator, an upstater and a woman, she easily meets several relevant criteria. This would open her House seat for the advancement of another Dem; moreover, as a senior, she might well take the Senate appointment only for the interim, to cap her career in public service, which would set up an open primary in 2010, which might not be a bad thing either.

5.  Finally, as long as we're playing fantasy politics,  I have to ask what would be the benefit, and to whom, of a CK appointment (other than, of course, jump-starting a previously non-existent career for CK)?  How would NY benefit by the appointment of an inexperienced celebrity fund raiser to the Senate? For that matter, how would the Governor benefit, politically or otherwise, from such an appointment? How would it advance either his agenda or his career?

If we're going to talk about this, let's do so in a way that reflects our values.  

---

by: NY Spotlight @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:31:28 AM CST

How would it benefit? .. (0.00 / 0)

5.  Finally, as long as we're playing fantasy politics,  I have to ask what would be the benefit, and to whom, of a CK appointment (other than, of course, jump-starting a previously non-existent career for CK)?  How would NY benefit by the appointment of an inexperienced celebrity fund raiser to the Senate? For that matter, how would the Governor benefit, politically or otherwise, from such an appointment? How would it advance either his agenda or his career?

Quid Pro Quo(unspoken of course) .. it would earn him good will among all the people who wish for the return of Camelot .. also .. it would help him in fund raising for his 2010(and I gather 2014 if he wins in 2010) election .. since she obviously knows a lot of movers and shakers .. of course we don't know exactly what people they are .. but don't tell me you don't know how Paterson would benefit

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:46:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

HOW DOES ANYONE KNOW HER POSITION ON ANYTHING ? DOES SHE (0.00 / 0)

 

It is assumed she is a progressive. However we have no knowledge of her positions on ...

Nafta,
Cafta,
Labor,
Net neutrality
Economics,
Health care
Taxes
Civil liberties
Civil rights
Gitmo
DOJ
Farm supports
Upstate milk prices
EFCA
Copyright
Voting rights
Verified voting
Bankruptcy
Bailouts
US auto industry
Wall street regulation
Reregulation of other industries  
or Deregulation
Privitization
Foreign policy
Women's rights domestically
Women's rights nationally
Guns
Progressive taxation
Milk price supports (NY issue)
Tax ememptions on farm land(NY issue)

NY has so many immigrants and scores and scores of ethnic communities..a NY Senator actually has to have positions on foreign policy for domestic NY reasons.

Is she an aggressive Democrat in terms of pursuing policy or a take it slow Democrat? Bipartisan, I assume, after working with her social equal, Michael Bloomberg.

Her cousin Kerry Kennedy (ex wife of Anfrew Cuomo, came on Hardball and admitted she didn't know her cousins position on abortion becasue they had never discussed it...and by implication many other matters of public moment...What does that say about her involvemnt in political matters?  It is likely that she even will not truly know her own  positions on these issues,  because give her uninvolvement as indicated by her lackof voting history it pretty likely she's rarely thought in any hard, discriminating way about many of these issues.

Having gone before the voters means one respects the democratic process. Given her lack of voting history which only seems to begin at the age of 32;  what did she do in terms of voting between 1974-1988 when she was between the ages of 18-32?...it certainly indicates both next to no interest or mental attention given to political issues.

Otherwise I think these kinds of unearned  attempts to game political office is like a canary in the coalmine for our future....this is  where republics go when they become both plutocratic and oligarchical.  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 17:52:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

LOL! (0.00 / 0)

Okay, so I don't care who's appointed to the Senate seat in New York, but I've generally been turned off by the vitriolic response Kennedy has gotten in the blogosphere.

That said, Caroline seems to be shooting herself in the foot at every turn... no need for outside criticism whatsoever.

---

by: potus2020 @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:43:47 AM CST

voting is a basic obligation of citizenship (4.00 / 3)

I understand poor people who are too discouraged to vote, but I have no use for those who think that they are too important and too rich to take notice of elections.

Should she run she will be asking for help from many of the local elected officials she was too good to vote for. It is like this obligation only runs in one direction. We are obligated to support our betters who have no obligation to us.

It is truly lame, just plain lame, that she did not care enough about the welfare of her city to do her part to see to it that it was well governed.

---

by: AliceDem @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:49:35 AM CST

Actually, not so bad (0.00 / 0)

My first reaction was disbelief how so many aspiring politicians don't take to vote in every single election, since it so easy to look bad if you don't.

My second reaction was that she probably was not aspiring to elective office when she missed votes.  Further, not voting in a primary for a mayor is something that I think most New Yorkers could readily understand.  And in 1994, who knows what happened?

So I don't really think there is a substantial pattern here of avoiding her civic duty to vote, at least not enough of a pattern for me to change my opinion of her (which admittedly is pretty good).

---

by: Jim Neuman @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 10:08:47 AM CST

No, these primaries matter (4.00 / 4)

Koch-Dinkins in 1989, in particular, was a bloodbath.  (Messinger-Sharpton in 1997 was interesting as well.)  To not vote in these primaries suggest you don't care.  It makes you a bad citizen, whether or not you're aspiring to vote at that time.

---

by: Adam B. @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 10:24:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Besides (4.00 / 3)

it's Leadership 101 -- never ask someone to do something you are unwilling to do yourself.

You can't come out and say "vote for me" when you've never lowered yourself to vote for anyone else.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 10:37:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Never voted? (0.00 / 0)

But she HAS voted most of the time. And no matter how important some might view those particular elections she missed, my hunch is that most New Yorkers will not consider it to be disqualifying, or to raise major issues for them.  

---

by: Jim Neuman @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 10:56:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not a New Yorker (0.00 / 0)

but it is definitely a disqualifier for me.

Voting is inconvenient and boring. So what. If she is too busy and important to put herself through that, she does not have the right stuff to represent us in the Senate.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 11:04:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Well... (0.00 / 0)

The only person whose vote Caroline Kennedy is asking for is the Governor's.

---

by: unertl @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 14:06:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In NY primaries are often the election (0.00 / 0)

Since 1988 she has only voted half the number of times.  And she left Harvard Law School in 1979. returned to NY.  In 1979there were city wide elections.  Was she registered....When she registered in 1988, if she had registered she had voted so little, ie not at all that according to NY City policy she was deleted fromt he rolls.  Unlike other states NY removing people from the rolls is rather lenient...you have to miss 2 national elections.  That would have been 1980 and 1984.

People who care enough about the political world and th ecommunity they live in vote. She didn't vote in the 2002 gubernatorial race.  That was pretty recent.


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 23:39:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not voting in city primaries is (0.00 / 0)

no more than a minor ding on her record.  If she were seeking to become NYC mayor instead of US senator, it would count more against her.

The one non-vote in the 1994 midterms is a slightly bigger ding, and somewhat embarrassing since CK just received the blessing of Moynihan's widow.

If this is all there is to diss her in her voting habits, it's probably a one-day story.  Big deal -- a non-perfect voting record mostly from municipal primary no-shows.  

Meanwhile, I was pleased to read the other day of CK showing up in 1998 to be heard publicly at the NYU School of Law as she spoke out against the Impeachment madness of that year.

(Not every public person on the left stood up for Bill at that time -- in fact, plenty of annoying progressives took the opportunity given by the Rabid Repubs
to kick Bill while he was down.  A few even called for him to step down ...)
 

---

by: Brodie @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 11:20:41 AM CST

Kennedy's Presentation Style or Lack of Style (0.00 / 0)

What has really surprised me about Caroline Kennedy is her dull, washed-out presentation style. She seems to be sleepwalking through her message points. Wake up! This is New York!

---

by: vincereardon @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 14:01:52 PM CST