The Respectfully Republican Conversation

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Obama TEACH constitutional law?  Seems like he would have known about Hillary's ineligibility, right. Whaddaya think THAT says about his choice to appoint her?

What about Caroline Kennedy for Senator?  Should she replace her uncle or Hillary???

------

"

For us, this all seems to be about Ted Kennedy's illness. From what we consistently hear from people long-involved in Democratic politics, Ted Kennedy is much sicker than the media's been admitting. A suspiciously large number of Kennedy family and friends are headed to Massachusetts this year to have a big Christmas honoring the last of the Kennedy brothers - much more so than usual. It all very much reads like it will be Kennedy's last Christmas, because his malignancy is advancing much more rapidly than the public knows.

With Ted Kennedy so ill and no heir apparent, the Kennedy family needs Caroline in the Senate now. Like it or not, she needs to fill the role her younger brother would have played, had he lived into the new millennium. Caroline's aggressive campaigning for Obama (alongside Oprah, most notably in California) was a strong break from personal tradition for her - one we knew would be well-rewarded after Obama won the national election. UN Ambassador is what we pegged her for - that, or possibly taking over for Uncle Ted before the New Year, with Obama and Ted urging Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick to appoint Caroline to fill a retiring Ted's seat (just like with Obama's Senate seat and Governor Rod Blagojevich here in Illinois, a replacement should be appointed before the incoming class of Senators takes office, thus ensuring extra seniority points for the Democrats' Senate replacements).

Ted Kennedy, however, shows no sign of retiring, despite his illness - and certainly not before the incoming Senators are sworn in.

Clinton, however, has stated firmly that she will remain in the Senate until she is confirmed as Secretary of State - and that can't happen until after January 20th (and after the new class of Senators arrives in Washington). So, Clinton's replacement will have less seniority than the newly-elected freshmen.

That's an interesting piece to this puzzle to consider: whomever replaces Clinton will have to win re-election in her or his own right in 2010 in the special election Clinton's vacancy sets in motion. More seniority points means Clinton's replacement has a leg up on the other new Senators, which means, theoretically, that this person would have a slightly (but not much) easier time making a mark in those two years than someone who would come in with what could very well be the lowest rank in terms of Senate seniority (because, assuming Clinton's not confirmed as Secretary of State until a week or two after the new Senate is in session, then Clinton would not vacate her seat until that late date, and her Senate replacement would then be #100 in terms of Senate seniority, as all other Senators would be sworn in, including replacements for Obama and Biden).

Caroline Kennedy would have no trouble raising the enormous sums it will take to win Clinton's seat outright in 2012. It seems doubtful she'd have to face Mayor Bloomberg, who fought hard for a third term as New York's mayor and is thus unlikely to try for a Senate seat in 2012. Rudy Giuliani could make another bid for that Senate seat, picking up where he left off in 2000, though it remains to be seen how much he damaged his brand with his 2008 campaign strategy.

It seems like Caroline Kennedy would have no trouble winning the 2010 special election or the 2012 Senate race either (while other names being mentioned for the seat, like Carolyn Maloney or Andrew Cuomo, would not be such slam-dunks).

Governor Paterson also wants to win his own special election in 2010: and having Caroline Kennedy on that same ballot would help his own chances, we imagine. Much more so than Carolyn Maloney (who would be a great Senator, but who lacks the name recognition of someone like Kennedy). And it would be bizarre if Clinton's seat did not go to another woman, considering only 17 women sit in the Senate (and a very definite point is being made to replace Obama with another black Senator, even if that ends up being someone as repugnant as Emil Jones).

The bigger question in all of this is what Caroline Kennedy wants in the future: she's never shown any interest in elected office before, so we wonder if she intends to replace her uncle in the Senate, or if she aspires to challenge Clinton in 2016 to follow her own father into the White House. Caroline's never shown that sort of ambition.

Oddly, Richard Nixon said repeatedly that he believed, to his dying day, that the first female President of the United States was going to be Caroline Kennedy. That was, of course, long before George W. Bush - and whatever distaste that will leave in the electorate for putting another "legacy" administration into the White House. That very much remains to be seen, though we can't imagine the public holding Bush against Caroline Kennedy.

Already, in the articles linked above regarding the Senate seat, Obama followers are giddy at the prospect of Caroline taking Clinton's place in the Senate...and then taking the nomination in 2016 to become the first female president instead of Clinton. And please remember these were largely the same people who said all year that Clinton should not be president because America does not need a royal family and we should never support dynasties (except when it's a Kennedy kingdom). Now, this same crowd seems ready to hand that 2016 nod to Caroline Kennedy here and now.

We doubt the Democrats will make the same mistake the Republicans did with George W. Bush and fail to annoint an immediate heir for 2016 when the time comes. Just as Dick Cheney was never going to be the nominee in 2008 after Bush, 74-year old Joe Biden will be unlikely to run for president in 2016 (assuming Obama gets a second term - and it is obviously much too early to read tea leaves on that).

But, if he does get a second term, Democrats would be smart to signal who'll lead the party next.  We obviously want that to be Hillary Clinton in 2016, but no one knows if she'll even want to go through all of this again. Considering how vile the media behaved for the past 2 years, we would not blame Clinton if she never wanted to run for anything else, and instead considered herself retired after her tenure at State.

There are definitely a lot of possibilities and what-ifs floating around...so a lot of things really do come down to who ultimately lands in Clinton's Senate seat.

We don't believe we'll have an answer on that until well after Obama's inauguration.

We'd love to get Oprah on a rocket to Mars well before then, though. 2009 is a launch window to the Red Planet, and Oprah's special blend of New Age quakery seems tailor-made for a diplomatic post as far off into space as we can possibly send her."

$$$  will comment

mke ...... I think Pelosi is evil ..... I live in California and she doesn't help us here!  Look at our budget and tell me that California is being served well by it's leaders.  Even our governor is an idiot .. Arnold!!  I am sorry, the Rep party has to get some better choices! 

No, I am not so cute ..... I am a 45 year old woman who had bc, lopsided chest now but thanks anyway.  That pic was taken in the morning before church ..... don't even wanna see me on a Friday after work!!!!!! 

Washington file

Neil Macdonald

Dear neighbour, about what's going on in Canada

Last Updated: Wednesday, December 3, 2008 | 9:00 PM ET Comments213Recommend791 By Neil Macdonald CBC News My dear American neighbours,I see the political crisis in Canada has finally made it into the Washington Post's Foreign Briefs column.So, anticipating a flood of interest from all of you at the dog run in the morning, let me try to give you some idea of what's happening up there.A few weeks ago, we had an election in Canada, a couple of weeks before yours, actually. A political party known as the Conservatives won.Well, sort of. They didn't win in the sense that most of you understand winning. I'll get to that in a second.They also aren't what most of you would consider conservative.They support what you call socialized medicine, they believe in protecting a Canadian-controlled banking system, they believe in government as a vehicle for transferring wealth between regions, and they've actually muzzled party members who tried to make abortion a campaign issue.In fact, instead of making his Sunday trip to church a photo opportunity, our Conservative leader refuses to discuss his faith in public. (Like many Americans, he's an evangelical Christian).Different kettle of fishSo our Conservatives are a bit different from yours. Down here, you'd probably call them Democrats. And fairly liberal ones at that.But, as I said, they won our last election, which is a pretty low-key affair compared to yours. The campaign lasted a few weeks instead of two years.What's more, they won with only 37 per cent of the vote. Now, you can do that in Canada because our Parliament has three other political parties: The Liberals (again, pay no attention to the name, they tend to adapt their worldview as needed), the Bloc Québécois (a Quebec party that says it wants to break up the country, but hasn't actually done much about it for many years), and the NDP.I'm not quite sure how to explain the NDP. The other parties like to call them socialists. Some of their more doctrinaire members would like the government to nationalize or take a large financial stake in things like banks and manipulate the national economy by spending huge amounts of public money. You know, the sort of thing President George W. Bush has been doing this year.I know, I know, it's confusing.Funny old world, isn't it?So. The Conservatives won our election and formed something called a minority government.That means the Conservatives can basically be tossed out of office by the opposition parties whenever they feel like it, which usually happens after a year or two. Then there's an election.This time, though, the opposition parties decided to throw out the government before it really even started governing. But instead of forcing another election, the opposition parties made a deal: they formed a surprise coalition and now they want to take power without consulting voters again.Americans might have a hard time understanding this sort of thing, but it happens all the time in places like Israel and Italy. Wait, though. Uh, wake up. We're getting to the really interesting part.The CBC connectionTo take over, the opposition parties have to convince our head of state that they can govern effectively. President Bush is your head of state, at least until Barack Obama moves in.But our head of state isn't elected. It's the Queen. And she's represented up there by someone called a governor general, who is appointed. Voters don't have anything to do with it.Except for not being elected, a governor general is a lot like your vice-president. Sort of ceremonial. Our governors general travel a lot, cut ribbons, declare holidays for school kids and try to set a good example.The current office holder, Michaëlle Jean, used to be a CBC reporter. Like me.Actually, the one before her was once a CBC reporter, too. So were two others in the recent past. In our country, any CBC reporter can dream of becoming head of state.Letting a journalist decideLike your vice-president, sometimes a governor general becomes unbelievably important. Right now, for example. Sooner or later, this former TV reporter is going to have to decide who runs Canada.Now, the Conservatives aren't taking this state of affairs lying down.They've been talking about shutting down Parliament for a while until they can think of some way to prevent the opposition parties from throwing them out. But they can't just do that. They'd have to convince the Governor General to let them.It's all very dramatic, you have to admit. Right? Don't you? Hello?I mean, we Canadians don't have all those big-mouthed cable anchors that you have, but you can imagine what they'd do with a situation like this.It's the economyWait a second. I forgot to explain why all this is happening. Bear with me.You see, Canada's economy is in trouble. Just like everybody else's.So when the Conservatives won, most people expected them to turn on the spending taps, the way every other country in the developed world is doing.But Prime Minister Stephen Harper, for some reason, decided not to.In fact, last week he had his finance minister announce that the government intends to run a surplus in its next budget. Meaning the government intends to take more in taxes from Canadians than it needs to run the country.(I know President Bush has never run a surplus. But Canadian governments have, every year for more than a decade, even when the supposedly spendy Liberals were in charge.)Anyway, in the middle of an economic crisis, Harper's plan didn't go over well with the three opposition parties and they saw their chance.So that's what's happening.Actually, if you think about it, our prime minister is doing exactly what President Bush keeps saying he'd like to be doing, instead of authorizing another trillion or so every week in new bailouts.Maybe it's not such a funny old world after all.

What disturbs me is how President Bush is blamed for this whole economic disaster because it happened on HIS watch. 

I don't think anyone needs experience to run for the Senate, or to be appointed.  Look at Al Franken.  I'd be surprised if Caroline takes it though.  I'd rather see one of Bobby's kids get appointed because a few of them seem more politically minded.  They might need to reside there so that could be a problem.

Over the years I've paid some attention to politics and what it takes to be a successful politician.  Experience really isn't one of them, sadly.  This is what I observed:

1. Admit to nothing

2. Ignore all criticism about yourself

3. If you must say something about personal criticism blame anyone else

4. Crying is good if all else fails

5. Show up to vote and vote your party line.  PERIOD

6. Be mindless in voting down the party line, just do it.

7. Always take part in impeachment hearings no matter who is being impeached.  Hopefully, it's the other party.  There could be cameras there.

8.  Get any seat on any committee even if you sleep through it.

9.  Hire good people to read the resolutions or bills for you, or a lobbyist will do it for you for free

10.  Get to know all the lobbyists.  Leave none out.  Campaigns come frequently.

11.  Write as many mindless bills or resolutions that you can.  Someday you might run for President and it will look good.

Did I forget something?  Oh, yes I did.  Earmarks, get as many in any bill as possible.  Some bills get passed without actual voting on them. They can be voted on by consensus in back rooms.  That happens all the time.

 badboob67 wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Obama TEACH constitutional law?  Seems like he would have known about Hillary's ineligibility, right. Whaddaya think THAT says about his choice to appoint her?

Ah-ha...Badboob...from the NYT above blog here's what Mr. Reines, a spokesman for Hillary says:

Philippe Reines, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said she and Mr. Obama had anticipated the issue and were prepared to resolve it. "This is a Harvard Law grad nominating a Yale Law grad here, so all parties involved have been cognizant of this issue from the outset," he said. "But putting frivolous lawsuits by fringe groups aside, this issue has been resolved many times over the past century involving both Democratic and Republican appointments and we're confident it will be here too."

Elitist?  Above the law?  We'll just "fix" it?  It's no big deal?  The Clintons get what they want and so does Obama. This is the most inexperienced president to ever been elected to run this country.  And Barney is now telling him to STEP IT UP and Obama isn't the prez YET.  President Bush is being too nice!  But, you see, President Bush cares about our country and he's willing to give Obama all the space he needs.  I mean...Obama is making radio comments per YouTube, I believe.  He's held many press conferences which I really haven't paid attention to YET. 

That was a very good summary Summer but you left out a few things. It was hardly just the prospect of budget surplus that sent the other parties off to form a coalition.

Linda, we know who are the crooks.  We just can't get rid of them.  Their constituents continue to vote in these idiots!  $$$$

Ya know...what will turn me off about Obama more than Obama himself is the creepiness of his followers.  Even though he's made numerous promises which WE all (the repubs) knew he couldn't keep, they're just being patient with him. 

OMG, you guys are funny..........Shirl, you had a one woman show goin' on for a bit ...

Sherri, you and I are thinking the same thing and posting almost at the same time.  I had not read your post until I posted mine...LOL

Roctobermom, yep it gets mighty lonely around here.  So, I just post to myself. LOL

Shirley

One thing I do agree with is getting our infrastructure repaired.  In this country it should be an outrage that bridges fall down because of lack of funding for repairs.  Levees breaking? 

For Obama's plan to work to alleviate unemployment it would have to be massive work projects that hire quite a few.  On the best day of road paving, how many workers do we see?  One holding a sign, one running the machine and 5 standing around giving advice.

How many on building sites?  Then there's that pesky problem that the job gets finished.  And those white collar folks laid off, who wonder why people would own a hammer, let alone actually use it for something.  What to do about them?

FDR had the same problem.  He had massive public works projects, dams and such and it still didn't help the economy.  The people who did work on those projects were very happy for a job, but they didn't employ enough people.