Just say no

Let’s see, the economy is imploding with no rational end in sight (and if you want to give further pause, google a Reason article about trying to kick start things with public works projects ala Japan’s experience in the 90s; do you really think that your friends and neighbors being laid off in the financial sector will translate their skills to pouring concrete?). First few questions deal with gay marriage and abortion. Folks, think we have bigger fish to fry than this…

Wow.Ambassador to Never-NeverLand…maybe. Rupert, where are you?

Talk to Deval Patrick about getting rid of gubernatiorial appointments.He was hinting that he supported changing the Massachusetts law back to what it was pre-John Kerry running for president just in case Sen. Kerry was offered a cabinet position.

I’m predicting that Caroline Kennedy will be appointed and will make a great U.S. senator. We’re not exactly talking nuclear physics here. There are no qualifications except age and residence. The best U.S. senators are inquisitive, open minded and responsive. They come from all walks of life and are open to ideas that they’ve never considered before. And they’re courageous. She’ll be excellent; I called it.

Hey, Dan, if I may recall your point about candidates being no better than their campaigns, don’t you think this “crapola” reflects (badly?) on Caroline Kennedy and perhaps on how she might fulfill the job of senator?

DK – In point of fact, I don’t think there’s even a length of time requirement for residency; I think it’s like the Mass. Senate where you just have to be a resident on the day you are elected. That’s how Hillary was able to run – personally, I was terrfied she’d choose Mass.

We lose a vote in the Senate if both of our Senators are not in attendance, so there is an argument to be made about appointing an interim Senator to satisfy our right to representation. I recognize that our Governor’s motives and interests are not necessarily the same as ours in selecting a Senator, so it is imporant that an election be scheduled, relatively promptly. If the original senator’s term was schedule to end in two or fewer years, then the timetable is already satisfactorily set. If the seat is scheduled to be voted upon in more than two years, I would schedule the vote to happen on Tuesday in November at the next Congressional election, 2008, 2010…You’ll recall our own governor recently wanted to change the law AGAIN from a special election to Gov’s choice to replace a Senator. I was shocked, shocked I tell you, that a Democrat would change law for partisan gain. You don’t think he was going to appoint himself do you? If so, at least he was elected to statewide office at least once. November 10, 2008Dear Governor Patrick There is talk on Beacon Hill by some Democrats about changing a 2004 law that took away the power of the governor to appoint a temporary replacement for any U.S. Senate seat that becomes vacant in Massachusetts and instead requires that a special election be held within 145 and 160 days. There is some talk by Democrats of repealing the 2004 law and giving the appointment power back to the governor.The Governor should announce he is against a change in the law because good policy is good policy and bad policy is bad policy, regardless of an advantage it might give to partisan politics. One election should not decide two races. Democrats got it right four years ago. How can they argue that they are getting it right, now? They cannot. It would be purely partisan law making and we in the Democratic Party MUST stand for something greater than party. If anything, the Governor should have the ability to temporarily appoint an interim Senator, so that our vote is not lost, and insure that the campaign is long enough to attract the best candidates. In addition, we have better candidates for the Senate seat, if either should open up. Our integrity is more valuable than any short-term advantage.

Kennedy might make a fine senator but she’d be a terrible Democrat, if you will, because she’ll get eaten alive at the next election; the campaign for which is less than two years away. That means we have a Democrat warming the seat for barely a year and then realistically the Democrats will be down at least one more senator in 2010.Fortunately there is SOME cushion in the Democrat margin in the Senate, but even so…every person counts.There’s likely no one in the NYS Democratic party who could have the skill and chutzpah to challenge a Kennedy in the primaries, so almost certainly there’d be a strong Republican candidate. And I can promise you, that Republican WILL win because most of NYS outside of NYC and Long Island is either solidly “red state” or is solidly “blue dog Democrat”. Hillary won re-election by cannily appealing to the latter while her pedigree picked up the downstate crowd. But upstaters hate everything the Kennedys represent on general principle. Starting with the money and running all the way to the nobility. I don’t see how Caroline will ever win much of anything north of the Catskills.ESPECIALLY since the Democrats have also taken over the State Senate; historically the state Democratic Party has treated upstate very poorly…that’s why Republicans have managed to hold on to so many seats in Albany, and the only reason they lost so many this year was “Republicans=Bush Hatred”. That’s going to backlash in 2010 as the state’s economy goes completely to hell in a handbasket under a Democratic Governor and a Democratic State Assembly and a Democratic State Senate.Having only lived here a year, I don’t have anyone in particular I’d prefer to be one of my two US Senators. But I didn’t leave Massachusetts to be followed by a Kennedy, dammit! 🙂

“Isn’t there something blatantly anti-semitic in Caroline Kennedy’s decision to first embrace her married name of Schlossberg, then repudiate it”No.

Dan – Fully agree. Elect the senators. There is no other rational choice.

FISH: Just to be clear here: You look at the actions of someone who married a Jewish person, and question whether the actions are anti-Semitic?

Dan, I didn’t get the memo on the day she dropped Schlossberg, so I don’t have the exact date of conversion, but to you and Me the Sheeple, PLEASE! Believe it or not, I admired Caroline for embracing the obviously Jewish name of her husband at the time of her marriage. Although I disagree with him on almost everything, I would tip my cap to John “Kerry” if he reverted to the truer Jacob Kohn.If Jews and spouses of Jews continue to run away from their ethnic names, it serves only to send a signal that their heritage is something to be ashamed of. As “Angelo”, the Italian caller to Larry Glick (proud Jew) used to say, “Don’t be ashamed, everything a nice.”

Self-hating Jew? Not sure. Embarrassed to be a Jew (Jacoby), absolutely. Why else would Jerry “Williams” and so many entertainers of his era try to hide it? At least old man “Kerry”, I mean Kohn, did it to preserve his life. Caroline Schlossberg should explain her reasoning in 2008. Were there threats by modern day Nazis or something?BTW, what’s the difference between saying “this Jewish synagogue at the end of my street bothers me, so I will remove it” to this “Jewish moniker at the end of my name bothers me, so I will remove it?” Pray tell.Prejudice toward Jews, including Jewish names, is anti-Semitism. I’ve never heard a caveat that a spouse of a Jew is immune to this malady. The acrobatics here in trying to say otherwise are hilarious.

I’d go with the opportunism interpretation, and compare it to Hillary’s embrace of simply “Hillary Clinton” (not “Hillary Rodham Clinton”).And, Fish, I think it’s more about fear than shame that leads people to anglicize their names here.

I would add this, about fear on account of anti-Semitism. World War II was not that long ago, Jews still get treated by their Christian neighbors in my neighborhood differently from the way the Christian neighbors treat one another. The fear is that that situation can all too easily be ignited by an untoward event or a demagogic leader.

Call a person what they wish to be called. A woman may have many reasons for sometimes using and sometimes not using her husband’s name. If we judge people, and especially women, on that basis it says more about us than it says about them.

Ahem. Caroline Kennedy may be married to a Jew, but that doesn’t make her Jewish. Kind of a key distinction. Saying she’s running away from what isn’t even her ethnic name is an exaggeration of Biblical proportion. Where’s the outrage over why Schlossberg isn’t taking her surname? I’m oh-so-sure he’s never traded in it.My eyes can’t roll enough over this.

Fish: There was a time not so long ago that it was nearly impossible to go on the radio (or television) with an obviously ethnic name, especially a Jewish name. The idea that Jerry Williams was embarrassed by his ethnicity is laughable to anyone who remembers listening to him.I still recall an afternoon when I was driving on 128 and Alan Dershowitz called in. The Dersh apparently knew nothing about Williams, because he accused him of anti-Semitism of some sort. Dershowitz got quite worked up. But Williams — unlike today’s talk-show hosts, who lack the brains and talent to do this — pretty much went silent on him, until Dershowitz was reduced to saying, “Hello? Hello?”I’ve never heard a radio host who could play the silences the way Williams did, a skill that I attribute to his being a musician earlier in his career.

Ani, you are often the voice of reason in these discussions, and I always take your thoughts seriously. Yes, I suppose there is a difference between judging someone and using their actions to better understand them. But I say there is no reason known to any of us to doubt that Caroline Kennedy is not exactly what she says she is. Honestly, if I were she I would want my Kennedy name to be out front in any political venture that I entered, and I venture to say that anyone else responding to this blog feels the same. Anti-semitism? Ethnic embarrassment? Ridiculous.

O-Fish,Lookd like Angelo might change his slogan for you. “Be ashamed…” for bringing up this abusrd and laughable point about Caroline Kennedy and which last name she chooses to go by. Since “Kennedy” is probably the most recognized political name in the country, perhaps that might have something to do with it?Anyway, “Zingoz” has already proved you a fool. Careful regurgitating Sean, Bill, Rush’s talking points. You might get burned.

Fish, never try to change the mind of a “progressive”. Waste of time. Besides, their rhetorical support of Rep. Patrick Kennedy is so much fun to watch. Be thankful that they stopped having kids by the dozen, otherwise we might have to endure a constitutional amendment to enlarge Congress.

I know Patrick Kennedy on a professional level, and there’s not a whole lot of there there.

Aaron projected:*Everyone would be berating her for “rejecting everything the Kennedy family stands for”.*”I’ll bet if you polled the entire US, you’d find at least” half would say that rejection would be bad, how?This would be the ultimate political backdoor bs. She has zero chance of winning this seat in an election by sending out a flack to play 20 Questions with the media. The rest of the clan is only able to use the tired “do you know who I am”? She is about to invoke the show-stopping “Do you know who my daddy was?”

I’m interested in the assumption that Caroline Kennedy would lose an election of the U.S. Senate. Last time I looked, Kennedys haven’t lost too many elections. Their W’s pretty heavily outnumber their L’s.