CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
Dec. 26, 2008 – 12:05 a.m.
Bob Benenson’s Jigsaw Politics: Why Not Caroline Kennedy?
By Bob Benenson, CQ Staff
Caroline Kennedy’s desire to succeed New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton , after the latter’s expected confirmation as secretary of State in the Barack Obama administration, has gotten plenty of media attention. It has also prompted gusts of blowback from critics.
What, they argue, is Kennedy’s claim on the appointment, which Democratic Gov. David A. Paterson will soon make to fill Clinton’s seat until a special election that will be held in November 2010?
Kennedy is a Columbia law school grad who heads the foundation associated with the JFK presidential library in Boston. She has raised money for public schools in her longtime home of New York City and has been involved in other charitable and civic activities. But even though Kennedy has been famous since she was a little girl frolicking in the Oval Office during the presidency of her father, the late John F. Kennedy, she is first seeking to enter the political fray at age 51.
New York is one of the most Democratic-dominated states in the nation, in which the party will hold all major statewide offices, 26 of its 29 U.S. House seats, legislative control even in the New York Senate that long was the most resilient of the state’s Republican bailiwicks, and most major local offices. A number of elected officials have stated their own interest in obtaining the Senate appointment or are being touted by allies for the position. What, then, is Kennedy’s qualification besides the celebrity attached to her famous name?
The answer to that question may be found in a glance at the recent roster of senators who have held this newly contested seat. As a native New Yorker and a longtime reporter on the state’s politics, I had been under the impression that a famous name and no previous elective experience WAS the major qualification to hold that seat.
The only one of the five most recent occupants of the seat who did not fit that description was Republican Charles E. Goodell, who had spent more than eight years in the U.S. House. And he was appointed following the June 1968 assassination of Democratic Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.
RFK, a brother of the slain president and uncle of Caroline, had been a Senate staffer and U.S. attorney general under JFK, but had never run for public office himself before his 1964 victory over one-term New York Republican Sen. Kenneth B. Keating. Goodell ran for a full term in the seat in 1970, but was upset by New York Conservative Party nominee James Buckley — a lawyer, businessman and brother of much-better known conservative journalist William F. Buckley — whose only previous candidacy was as a third-party also-ran in the 1968 New York Senate race.
Buckley lasted just one term before he was defeated as the 1976 Republican nominee by another celebrated non-officeholder, Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan. A renowned intellectual and author whose appointed positions included ambassador to India and the United Nations under Republican presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford, Moynihan, too, struck political gold in his first bid as a candidate.
Moynihan settled in for 24 years, a four-term tenure that is the longest of anyone who has ever held that seat. But when he decided not to seek re-election in 2000, New Yorkers opted not for one of the many experienced officeholders in the state. Instead, they elected Clinton, still first lady to President Bill Clinton, and someone who had never run for office before. She wasn’t even a New Yorker — she established state residency for the first time in her life shortly before launching her Senate campaign.
Yes, Clinton and most of her predecessors were deeply immersed in politics before they became full-fledged politicians in their own right. But the famous names they brought into their initial races were obviously key to their election successes. And the same argument being made by many against Caroline Kennedy — that she lacks the legislative experience to hit the ground running in the Senate — was made against several of the seat’s previous occupants, and voters shrugged.
New York, of course, is not the only state where celebrity has proven a political charm. California in 1966 elected an actor and first-time Republican candidate named Ronald Reagan as governor, setting him on a trajectory that landed him two terms in the White House. The current Republican governor is another former movie star, Arnold Schwarzenegger , who happens to be part of the extended Kennedy clan as husband to Maria Shriver, Caroline Kennedy’s cousin and a longtime TV newswoman.
When Texas voters in 1994 gave their governorship to Republican businessman George W. Bush , son of former President George Bush, his only previous political experience was losing a U.S. House bid in 1978.
Caroline Kennedy’s skeptics are absolutely right to raise questions about whether she is the best-suited among the many would-be appointees to the Hillary Clinton Senate seat. They are right to demand that she be more forthright about where she stands on the long list of issues with which the new Congress will be dealing in this particularly difficult time in the nation’s history.
And they are right that there is no Kennedy family entitlement to whatever office its members decide to pursue. That, in fact, has been proven by voters. Though Edward M. Kennedy is in the 47th year of a very successful career as senator from Massachusetts, he failed in his one try to follow the presidential path blazed by JFK, his challenge to incumbent Jimmy Carter for the 1980 Democratic nomination. While Ted Kennedy’s son Patrick has represented a Rhode Island district in the U.S. House since 1995 and Robert Kennedy’s son Joe was a Massachusetts congressman from 1987 to 1999, Maryland-based cousins Kathleen Kennedy Townsend lost a race for governor and Mark Shriver lost a Democratic House primary, both in 2002. Sargent Shriver, the father of Maria and Mark and founding director of the Peace Corps, took a losing ride as the vice presidential nominee on the 1972 Democratic ticket headed by George S. McGovern.
So the celebrity of her last name alone is not a qualification for Caroline Kennedy to be appointed to the Senate.
But it sure isn’t a disqualification, either.




Comments
The argument, then, that Caroline should run for election, or that having run for previous elective office is a qualification, is fundamentally ungermane. Officials trained and experienced in the House of Representatives learn both the necessity of immediate response to issues as they arise and then tend to to respond to the raw majoritarianism that rules that House of Congress (appropriately, I should add). But neither of those approaches is supposed to apply to the Senate. Having been a Member of the Lower House is actually closer to a disqualification than a qualification. The Senate is not supposed to be simply a glorified House of Representatives; that's especially true for this particular Senate seat, where neither of the two immediate predecessors, Patrick J. Moynihan and Hillary Rodham Clinton, had ever held elective office before taking that New York Senate seat. It's as if the quiet life Caroline has lived for the most part since her childhood is a bad thing. Nah uh. It's a good thing. Those are precisely the kinds of lives the Founders and Framers expected and desired prospective Senators to have lived. Does Caroline appear to possess a steady and settled personality? Of course. Does Caroline have a wide view of public issues? Of course. Examine the wide variety of issues involved in the winners of the JFK Library's "Profiles in Courage" Awards, which she has administered since their inception (trivia: What Obama cabinet pick is on that list?). Is Caroline comfortable in the corridors of power? Of course. She's spent her entire life in and out of those corridors--and up and down those steps, as the photo above of her father's funeral demonstrates. More here: I'm for Caroline! and Other Stentorial Ruminations
Your reasons ring hollow. Give us a leader! This is a fund raiser and I am disgusted. Where Have All the Leaders Gone?
The resistance to Carolilne Kennedy's appointment is just that - it would be an appointment of someone who would be jumping ahead of the line of other possible appointees who have devoted years of public service in elected office. Kennedy has said that she become interested in public office while campaigning for Barack Obama - she said she "enjoyed" that. If she found a new calling while campaigning for Obama let her run for office instead of seeking an appointment. Robert Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Patrick Moynihan all ran for office - they didn't decide to graciously accept an appointment. There seems to be a sense of entitlement at work here that many people like me find offensive.
Usually the biggest factor in selecting a senate candidate is name recognition, particularly in a state as big and diverse as New York. Caroline Kennedy has that in spades and would probably be the front runner in a democratic primary in 2010 for the senate seat. Angling for the appointment is just the opening salvo in that primary race. If the other candidates are so sure of their political astuteness, fundraising prowess and name recognition, they'll have an opportunity to test themselves in the 2010 primary. Kennedy is just exercising the usual Kennedy instinct by going for the jugular right out of the box. The alternative would be for her to sit back, let someone else get the appointment, then run against them in 010. She'd probably win, but I can't see that as the most effective political strategy.
I don't believe that anyone should be considered for a senate seat based on the fame of her family...She should run for the senate seat like everyone else proving herself qualified and capable of this public office position.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: