Feminists like Darla Get Their Way: Kennedy Annointed Choice, Like it or not

My opinion is there should always be an election when a senate seat is vacated within x amount of time say 90days. Look at Chicago and now NY as an example.
 
Dungheap said:
Really? Bingo? Who would she run against? Schumer? Clinton? Not likely. She's seeking to be appointed because she can and she didn't run previously because it would have been a shitty decision to do so.
Click to expand...

And it's a lot easier to be elected as an incumbent.

I know that that Senate seat isn't going to be held by a conservative or anything near a conservative, I'm just tired of the Clinton's, Bush's, Kennedy's and such dominating the political makeup....getting those positions based solely on what their last name is.
 
Socrtease said:
Waaaaaa my dick hurts They are going to appoint another Kennedy to the Senate. Waaaaa she is less qualified than the certifiable retard we let McCain pick who didn't fucking know Africa was a continent. Someone get me something for my aching burning dick. I am sooooo mad that picked a woman and a Kennedy. I just woke up today and found out how politics works and I am sooooo mad. Ohhhh it burns especially right at the tip of the head. Waaaaaaaaaaa!
Click to expand...

This actually made me lol.
 
Chapdog said:
My opinion is there should always be an election when a senate seat is vacated within x amount of time say 90days. Look at Chicago and now NY as an example.
Click to expand...

I know it would come at a cost to the state but I can agree with that.
 
Chapdog said:
My opinion is there should always be an election when a senate seat is vacated within x amount of time say 90days. Look at Chicago and now NY as an example.
Click to expand...

I agree with you.

House and senate seats should always have vacancies filled by by-election. Appointment by governor may save money but that's it's only bright spot. What's worse is that if you are appointed you are almost certain to win the next election because the sheeple will vote in incumbent after incumbent for decades, so the governor appointment carries a ridiculous amount of weight and power that no governor should ever have.

But Caroline Kennedy would've certainly won said election.
 
leaningright said:
And it's a lot easier to be elected as an incumbent.

I know that that Senate seat isn't going to be held by a conservative or anything near a conservative, I'm just tired of the Clinton's, Bush's, Kennedy's and such dominating the political makeup....getting those positions based solely on what their last name is.
Click to expand...


The fact that it is a lot easier to be elected as an incumbent works both ways though. If she doesn't seek to be appointed now and instead waits for the next election she has an uphill fight against whomever is appointed. So she either seeks appointment to gain that advantage herself or sits on the sidelines and lets someone else gain that advantage. Which makes more sense?

I think these appointments should be handled the way that Governor Minner in Delaware handled that appointment: pick a placeholder with no aspiration for the office that will not seek to be elected in the next election.
 
Watermark said:
I agree with you.

House and senate seats should always have vacancies filled by by-election. Appointment by governor may save money but that's it's only bright spot. What's worse is that if you are appointed you are almost certain to win the next election because the sheeple will vote in incumbent after incumbent for decades, so the governor appointment carries a ridiculous amount of weight and power that no governor should ever have.

But Caroline Kennedy would've certainly won said election.
Click to expand...

Why bother with anymore elections. Let's just ask watermark.
 
Socrtease said:
Wow tons of Senators and Reps were elected without EVER holding a government job or position. All the members of the First Congress were. They did fair to middling. Funny how when you conservatives really want to complain about a congress not controlled by you, you whine about the fact that congress is full of carreer politicians. NOW she has done things OTHER than political office and THAT sucks. Just admit you HATE the Kennedy's, and you abhor the thought of one more Kennedy in the Senate till they decide to leave.
Click to expand...
I liked JFK, good tax cutter and supported of gun rights who was not a Liberal. And then on the other end there is Ted Kennedy the hyper-Liberal, and most of the Kennedy's since like Patrick and Caroline follow in Ted's footsteps believing government is there to take care of people with social welfare instead of JFK who inspired people to look to take care of themselves rather than going to their gov for a handout.

It's more than Conservatives upset, moderates and many Dems don't like how dynastic politicians get power. America after all, doesn't exactly have a fond historical liking for monarchistic type rule.
 
Dungheap said:
The fact that it is a lot easier to be elected as an incumbent works both ways though. If she doesn't seek to be appointed now and instead waits for the next election she has an uphill fight against whomever is appointed. So she either seeks appointment to gain that advantage herself or sits on the sidelines and lets someone else gain that advantage. Which makes more sense?

I think these appointments should be handled the way that Governor Minner in Delaware handled that appointment: pick a placeholder with no aspiration for the office that will not seek to be elected in the next election.
Click to expand...

An excellent idea.
 
Onceler said:
I think she'll be a better Senator than Palin would be, but I'm on the left.

"Qualifications" - you guys are a joke. Clinton didn't exactly have a ton on her resume when she was elected, and many - including Republicans - think she was an excellent Senator for NY.

Everyone here should do a little research & see what our founding fathers had to say about what kind of "qualifications" people needed to serve in the House & Senate.
Click to expand...

The 'qualification' comes from this whole past three months of Palin not being 'qualified' to run for VP and now a female Kennedy comes along and its all out the window.

I personally don't care who gets selected because a)I'm not from New York and b) it's going to be a liberal whether its Kennedy, Cuomo (sp) or someone else.

I don't think you heard too many on the right backing Hillary in 2000 when she first ran other than saying she's doing it based on her husband's name and accomplishments.

Just my observation but I think the real backlash against Kennedy compared to others who come from well to do situations in the Senate is that at least others had to run a campaign and get voted in by the public. Kennedy is using her name and her high end connections in trying to get this position.
 
"The 'qualification' comes from this whole past three months of Palin not being 'qualified' to run for VP and now a female Kennedy comes along and its all out the window."

You get the difference between the executive & legislative branches, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top