December 16, 2008
Jerry MacArthur Hultin
President, Polytechnic Institute of New York
Dear Pres. Hultin:
I am writing to inform you that I have decided to offer myself for consideration for the Chaired Professorship in Physics and Chemistry at your distinguished institution. As you are no doubt aware, my father, Benjamin Post (1911-1994), held this position for many years (when the institution was known as "Brooklyn Polytechnic," or more familiarly, "Brooklyn Poly") and was an important part of the x-ray crystallography unit that helped establish Poly's pre-eminence in that field. Though I have chosen a different career path up to this point, I believe that, for many reasons I would be happy to discuss with you in person, the time is now ripe for me to ascend to the position that has been waiting for me, and I for it, all these years. I look forward to working with you and your colleagues as we embark down this new road together.
Sincerely yours,
David G. Post
(On the other hand, might she be an easier target for Republicans in 2010 than someone who actually knows what he/she is doing?)
It is a scandal that children/spouses routinely follow the footsteps of parents. See - Clinton, Bush, Adams...
And to think that Democrats make fun of Republicans for wanting to relive the Reagan glory days.
They have to take her, she's a legacy.
(It is too bad that politicians, such as Obama and Biden, are afraid to argue that they are better qualified than their opponents because they, and not their opponents, are lawyers. But that is part of the political prejudice against people who are elite, as opposed to people with whom one would have a beer -- though some of us might prefer to have a beer with an elite person.)
But I've been thinking that Caroline K. is getting a bad rap. How many senate races are exactly merit contests?
It makes as much sense to appoint a responsible member of a family with a history of public services as it does to, oh, elect Dubya as governor of Texas.
Houston, how dare you compare New York Dem Party politics to the Delta frat in Animal House.
The differences are so obvious. Just to name a few. Ahh. Ummm. Well, I get back to you on that.
My objection against her appointment is that it continues the legacy policy, which is a form of discrimination against those not in the political elite. It continues to deny everyone an equal chance at power.Lets hope Patterson see's through this (pun intended).
So this poltically-oriented family walks into this governor's office, and the father, Joe, says, "we have this public service routine we'd like to show you... the one grandson then starts giving a Lewinsky to a Central American communist dictator, another grandson actually removes his own brain and starts talking about the health threats posed by vaccination against common childhood diseases, while one of his sons drives this tiny clown car into a fountain in the foyer of the governor's office. Meanwhile, another member of the family pulls out some skis, and a football, and stands on top of a cabinet in the governor's office, while a couple others start doing blow and tequila shots with some random woman..."
Tucker, the humorous subtext of your comment aside, I agree on the merits. A name change to "The Aristocrats" would at least allow the average person to understand that the term "Democrat" is meant utterly ironically, and it's okay to bust a gut every time you see somebody like any Kennedy or John Corzine or Jeane Carnahan with a "D" after their name. Similarly, in the wake of Duke Cunningham, Ted Stevens, David Vitter, Senator Wide Stance and Jack Abramoff, I believe we are meant to guffaw at the utterly ironic name, "Republican" with its laughably disconnected connotation of respect for the rule of law. It occurs to me that for most of my life, I have not been in on the joke that is American politics. *Now* I get it.
If Paterson wants the seat to go to Kennedy, he should appoint a caretaker to the office who will not run in 2010, at which point Kennedy can make a legitimate run for the office. Even if something goes wrong and the worst were to happen, a loss in the general election, the seat would be up again in 2012 for the democrats to take back.
As (I think) Ross Douthat said, if you look at where they started and what they have achieved, Sarah Palin has a life story about six times as impressive as Caroline Kennedy's. If the Charles Frieds of the world don't speak up loudly against the Kennedy appointment, they are really beneath contempt.
You, sirs, are counterproductive partisan hacks.
Your factual basis is correct: The Democrats do have some dynasties (Clintons, Kennedys, Cuomos).
But your tone makes it seem that this is a solely Democratic party failing (or Aristocrat, if Tucker prefers).
The Republicans have their dynasties too - and the current ruling dynasty has worked out badly for us. Or, if you are one of the dead-ender supporters, you will have to at least admit the current dynasty worked badly for the Republican party itself in the recent election.
Notice the next sentence - BOTH parties have the problem of blind partisanship. But we should condemn it in both.
And right now, the Republican party is desperately in need of a log removal from their own eye before the criticize the mote in the Democratic side. Using the "The Dems did it too" doesn't make the Republicans more competitive.
Examples:
A Republican gets caught in a corruption scandal. Partisan hack response: "Well, Jefferson had cash in his freezer." Oops, Jefferson is gone now - as he should be.
A Republican gets caught saying something racist: "Byrd was in the Klan!" Yes. And he is a putz. But trying to excuse 2008 boneheadedness by making a comparison to fifty year old boneheadness is just excusing boneheadedness in general.
Sarah Palin says remarkably ignorant things during the course of the campaign: "Obama thinks there are 57 states!" Dude, comparing a fatigue-induced slip of the tongue to blanket ignorance still leaves you with a weak candidate. And heck, if you care about the Republican party and are making excuses for Palin, you are stepping on the gas while the party heads for the cliff in 2012. Sanford (competent, actually works for smaller government) is the future - not the Barracuda.
I already think we have so much dynastic politics in this country we're at risk of looking like a banana republic and on that basis hope Gov. Paterson finds someone else.
One of the things I like about Obama has nothing to do with his views on any issue, it's the simple fact that he came from nothing, instead of riding the coattails of his famous, well-connected relatives.
Who is her pastor? What were her grades like? Where was she born? Do we have proof of her parentage? Could Malcom X have slipped in there somehow?
But she never practiced law. Big deal -- she wrote a book. So did lots of people.
This woman did nothing at all to help Obama win his campaign, and did little or nothing to help the Dems win this election. NOw that the coast is clear, she steps in and wants the spoils! Now that's gutsy, but not is a way that makes me happy.
I've asked many people who support her, what is her agenda? What does she want to accomplish? Goals? Policies? No one can say, but somehow they all support her. Why, I don't know.
And I come from upstate NY -- Buffalo, actually. There is a wonderful congressman there, Brian Higgins, who actually knows what is going on and has a record of solid accomplishments for the region. He should be senator before Caroline, who has never even been to upstate NY as far as I can tell. She won't give a damn about Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and instead will use the Senator position to advance her causes. Well, that's great, but it doesn't do much for the people in upstate.
...Senator Flounder?
wasn't there an out if the legacy in question was a real closet case?
Will she be an articulate spokesman for her point of view?
Can she raise money?
Can she campaign well?
Will she be honest? Will she appoint a capable, honest staff?
Within the constraints of her political philosophy, will she have reasonable judgment with regard to issues and legislation?
I would anticipate voting against her, or against anyone else Patterson is likely to appoint because of disagreement with their political views. But she seems qualified enough for the job. She seems more qualified than some of the hacks whose names have been bandied about.
This NYT article has a good run-down of her "qualifications." I'm not sure exactly what angle they intended to come from here, but she doesn't come out of it looking all that great.
--Experience with bureaucratic infighting: she spent six weeks convincing the board of the Harvard Institute of Politics (on which she and Ted Kennedy sit) to choose former Nashville mayor Bill Purcell as a new director. Purcell left after just one year to become Dean of the School of Public Affairs at Tennessee State, and they had to look for a director all over again.
--Insider connections: Kennedy wrote a letter of recommendation for Rupert Murdoch's daughter to get into a tony private elementary school.
--Political maneuvering: As director of fundraising for the New York City Schools (her last paying job, with a three-day work week and a dollar-a-year salary), she successfully raised over $70 million from private sources. Although chunks of this money came from a tag sale in Central Park (!!), there is one pretty impressive accomplishment here: convincing Bill Gates to give the city schools $51 million despite his personal animosity for Chancellor Joel Klein.
--Winning elections: she campaigned for Obama for six weeks and helped pick Biden. As part of the latter role, she wrote a long memo to Obama weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate.
So, to recap, she:
--Convinced the small board of an institute at a school named for her father to pick her choice for director, who subsequently left after a year.
--Wrote a letter to the school she went to as a child urging them to admit Rupert Murdoch's daughter.
--Convinced Bill Gates to give the NYC schools a lot of money (again, I think this is a pretty good one).
--Campaigned for Obama for six weeks.
--Helped Obama pick Biden, in part by writing a long research memo, something first-year associates at law firms are expected to do.
From a country that elected George W. Bush and Barack Obama president, the thought is amusing.
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.
That's it. There's nothing about having attended Harvard Law (though she may have for all I know) or being a wise judicious person or highly experienced in public affairs. If Gov. Patterson trusts her judgment to be a Senator, that's good enough for me. Highly educated, well connected, highly experienced jackasses have proved very good at running the country into the ground over the last several years, and the financial sector bailout does a pretty good job of showing how clueless the smartest guys in the room actually are. Even though I disagree with Ms. Kennedy's politics, what I know of them from her limited public persona anyhow, I'm willing to give the amateur a shot. She may surprise us, and at the very worst, she's starting from the position of merely being incompetent for the position, rather than having a proven track record of being incompetent and corrupt, like so many of her would-be colleagues.
That's Senator Blutarsky.
Randy R. (who wrote the above), do you mean to imply that if she had helped Obama or other Dems win the election, that should be a factor in whether Patterson should select her? That may be how politics works, but it shouldn't be, because she should be selected on the basis of her qualifications, not as a payback.
Smallholder, it's remarkable you got that much out of a 17-word post.
Nah I am sure Bluto was elected--probably in the Watergate fallout election of '74. He and Babs, if I remember correctly, bought a co-op in Georgetown next to Sally Quinn.
The problem is, if those are your values, then what does that say? Wouldn't it be terrific to appoint someone who has carefully demonstrated the ability and character, yet who perhaps wouldn't normally have access to the race precisely because of no name recognition? You know, someone who actually gets the job done rather than seeking the spotlight? That would say something to me about good values.
This is what I dislike about the appointment. I have no doubt she's well connected and that she can use those connections to make that happen that a nobody might not be able to do. But this is essentially an argument that we Senators should be chosen from among the class of well connected people, which really grates on my republican sensibilities. I don't want a Senate filled with the friends of Rupert Murdoch (or any other billionaire). I want someone who can 1) hold the seat in the next election 2) understand the issues 3) articulate his/her positions on the issues and defend those positions under vigorous questioning and 4) has a genuine interest in questions of policy. He/she doesn't have to agree with me on every issue, just on a few fundamentals.
But Uncle Robert was. In fact, RFK held the very same seat. It's getting to the point that the seat is an entry-level elective office for relatives of famous politicians. Goodell and Moynihan are the only holders of the seat since 1965 who don't fit that pattern (although it could be argued that Sen. Buckley's brother Bill wasn't really a politician, despite having run a campaign for mayor in 1965).
How do I get one? I want one!
When President-elect Kennedy announced the appointment of Caroline's uncle as AG, he said it was because he thought it was a good idea if Bobby got some experience as attorney general before he went out and practiced law.
My point exactly. Moynihan was a better senator than any of those relatives of famous politicians.
Funny that these same people are against the rest of us inheriting just plain old assets, and want to tax them away at death.
Funny that these same people are against the rest of us inheriting just plain old assets, and want to tax them away at death.
If the government is going to take my money, I'd much rather they do that after I'm dead rather than while I'm still around to spend it.
It's common sense. They know the voters disagree.
We were voting on who would be President, not the Attorney General.
First, Hillary hates her. She is completely independent of the Clintons. This is a very good thing. It means that the Clintns get no protection from her being theer
Second - or further on this point - she is a great admirer of teh book "Profiles in Courage" and even wrote a book about that and founded an award about that. Now her ideas may not be so good but she has the idea of independence. Of course she wouldn't be indeendent from Ted Kennedy very much but that's not much of a loss. It would have be a Democrat anyway, right?
Third, Obama called her a "dear friend" He would like her theer. This is probably good for New York.
Of course the name recognition and the family help would help her run a campaign.
So this is not too bad. What are the alternatives?
Yeah, that's my question.
Re: the civility-in-comments issue, we should have people register for red, blue, or purple borders based on partisan bias, and then everyone can just read the comments in their own color.
Anderson -- bringing you a better America, one idea at a time.
I wouldn't deny it, but why do you think it applies only to Democrats?
Weren't 4 generations of Tafts enough?
Because one of the top 3 GOP rules is that all *class* issues must be redefined as *party* issues.
There is no elite in America -- just elitist Democrats, and the godfearin', hardworkin' Republicans who try to reclaim the country for the Common Man.
Or Lebron James.
No sense of humor, Anderson. No sense of humor.
~
Anderson's suffering from class envy. What are we to read into the normal/comment/white great/comment/black class subtext?
Given that Kennedy is the famous one of the "authors" in each case, my guess would be that she hasn't done much actual writing, but I don't personally know.
That doesn't mean I am in favor of disqualifying those with famous forebears. My understanding is that Lisa Murkowski is a much better Senator than her father and Jeb Bush was effective as Governor of Florida (and to provide bipartisan fairness, Jay Rockefeller hasn't been a bad Senator for West Virginia, either).
Tammy Bruce, the radio talk show host, noted today that Caroline Kennedy has done something that, in itself, is fairly impressive: she has spent her entire life in the public spotlight and has never embarrassed herself or her family (and that is particularly remarkable since she is part of a family that seems to thrive on embarrassing themselves and each other).
I am agnostic on the choice--but I do agree with Bruce that Carolyn Kennedy appears to be a person of honor, which means, if nothing else, that New York could do much worse.
That's gonna leave a mark. :-D
It's not as though qualifications matter anyway. That point has just been definitely established. People just put into the Oval Office someone completely devoid of anything even remotely approaching executive qualifications or experience.
If Barak and Hillary count as "qualified," Caroline certainly does.
Agreed. But we also know that there are certain realities in political life.
Her qualifications are non-existent next to several other people who would actually do a decent job. Brian Higgins is no hack -- he knows upstate very well, negotiated some tough issues for the benefit of the citizens, has pushed local politicians to get off their ass and actually do something, and enjoys widespread respect through out the community. He would make an excellent Senator. Jerrold Nadler is also high on my list. Both these guys have proven themselves in a way that Caroline has never had to.
To those who support Caroline, I will ask once more: What is her agenda? What is her platform? What does she want to accomplish? For New York? For the Country? WHY does she want to be a senator? So that she can write lots of letters on behalf of the rich and powerful to get their kids into the right schools? Please tell me what she plans to do and why you support that.
When I see proof that Caroline can spell and pronounce Skaneateles correctly, then I'll believe she's in it for the people of NY. Until then, she's just another lightweight -- like Sarah Palin, but without the religion. I don't see how this helps the dems.
She was at best a mediocre governor, and was ousted by a Republican.
Tell me again why Caroline deserves to be Senator?
Quick factual correction. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend was Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, not Governor.
She did run for Governor in 2002, but lost to Bob Erlich.
Alternately Gov. Patterson could appoint Elliot Spitzer to the seat, since it's about time we start rehabilitating him.
When I made that comment, I acknowledged that the argument would not go over well because it "is part of the political prejudice against people who are elite." It is also, of course, part of the prejudice against lawyers. But superior candidates might give some thought to raising the public to their level instead of lowering themselves to the public's. That is what Obama did in his Rev. Wright speech: he spoke to the public as if it were made up of adults.
I'm not sure how you determined that. Florida is much worse off after Bush's tenure than it was before.
Wasn't it clever of Obama to find Hillary a job where he could send her out of the country all the time? I've often felt that way about diplomats in general. All my interactions with the State Department have made me think that I wanted to send the people I was talking to to Borneo.
What? You mean like dirty her precious hands in the slimy waters of politics? Oh no -- not Caroline! She's much to high minded, writing books about Big Important Issues of Our Day to actually know what life is like for the rest of 99%. She might even have to travel to such unhip places like Syracuse and Jamestown! Wouldn't that just be godawful to have to do such a thing? Heck, I suspect even the upper west side just isn't good enough for her.
quite right, Dave N. So much for the dynasty -- they can't even win a governorship for a second rate state. But we are all supposed to bow down before the Kennedys? Please someone -- tell me why!
10. Protestant
9. Republican
8. Elitist
7. Conservative
6. Meritocracy
5. Responsibility
4. Won't
3. Don't
2. Can't
AND THE #1 WORD YOU NEVER SAY TO A KENNEDY:
1. No
Tell it to the Minnesotans, where the choice about senator is now in the hands of 200 people who can't or won't follow the complicated instruction to mark a ballot by filling the circle.
isn't Chelsea 30+ yet?
No to both questions (Chelsea will be 29 next month, so she's about the age Joe Biden was when HE decided he would be a pretty swell U.S. Senator).
Why the scorn for Maryland, the Free State? And Teddy's kid, the one arrested for driving around the Capitol while seriously intoxicated, went to Rhode Island for a House seat didn't he? Similar scorn for the Ocean State, which has proven itself no slouch in political corruption either?
Ugh.
Are you really making competence argument? Really? The defenses that you point out (a) have nothing to do with competence and (b) are meant to show that the supposed issues of corruption, racism, and stupidity(?) cross party lines (but maybe blind bias doesn't...).
When have "the republicans" been caught saying something racist? It seems to me it comes from the left side of the aisle far more frequently than the right side of the aisle.
If you're going to campaign on corruption (see: 2006), then maybe you should make sure your house is clean first.
If stupidity/ignorance is evidenced by slips of the tongue a(style is > substance, i guess), you should make sure your tongue has unimpeachable traction.
thanks. i know Hillary doesn't get an official say in who replaces her, but was asking if the political climate in NY is such that the Clintons might be able to somewhat influence the decision.
I suppose she could. The question is that if she had any political ambitions at all over the past few years, why hasn't she done so already? I can only assume that she has a total lack of interest in anything happening outside of Park Ave and mid town manhattan. Aside from the occasional speech at the Dem convention, what other political activities has she engaged in?
Or -- she just thought about becoming senator only after she found out that Hillary was picked for State. If so, then how isn't this just a lark for her? Why should we take anyone seriously who just decides, hey, the position is open, I'm a Kennedy, I'll take it!
But it gets back to what is her reason for being Senator? Has she shown ANY concern at all for her fellow new york staters? Does she know that there actually is an upstate new york?
She is treating this like she is running for class president -- you know, you just do it for the fun factor and prove how popular you are. But the issues facing our country are much too important to leave to a class president.
I'll ask again: What is her position on anything at all? What is her plan to revive the economy of upstate new york? What are her positions on the auto bailout, gay rights, outsourcing, education, taxes, historic preservation, the war in Iraq, terrorism?
At least Hillary had a track record and a plan when she ran for senator, and she had to hustle for her votes. Caroline doesn't even believe she owes us that much. We should just give her the position, and it's not for us peons to ask what she'll do with it.
If appointed, will you run for re election when your term is up?
If her answer is no, then that proves she isn't serious about this. She would be a lame duck from the moment she takes the oath of office, not taken seriously, and she is accountable to no one and therefore a loose cannon. Why would I want that for my state?
If she answers yes, I would press her: Who would she have as her chief of staff? What sort of campaign would she run? How will she raise money? If she gives vague answers, then she hasn't thought about the office seriously, and I would give her the boot.
Here's why this is important: If she doesn't run for re election, the seat becomes open, and it's much easier for a Republican to take the seat. Why, as a democratic gov. would I want to risk that? If she does run for re election, does she have any idea how to be a politician? She has no record whatsoever, therefore, it's not likely she knows how to run a campaign, and that makes her re- election much more problematic. AGain, why would I want to risk that?"
The only possible good outcome is that she a) is an excellent senator, good enough to please most of the electorate and b) she runs an very well organized campaign and wins re-election.
Since she is a total unknown quantity for both, the likelihood of her achieving both is rather small. At best, it's a highly risky move.
Her positions...none that would be too different from uncle Ted's or otherwise suprising. (Historic preservation?!)
What sort of campaign and raising money...no reason for concern on either of those scores. Her name is Kennedy and you can be sure there will be plenty of highly competent pros to guide her at every step of the way. I can see her doing something of a Princess Di, floating above the fray and leaving her opponent whoever it might be to flail futilely.
Next ambassador to Ireland...no, she wouldn't go along with the implied stereotyping. The ambassadorship to Ireland may have satisfied her aunt, but JFK's daughter has her sights set on what her two uncles have had, the United States Senate. (Her grandfather was ambassador to England, but so much was different about him and the times and that assignment.)
I could use this hereditary-career argument to get myself into the wallpaper-sales business! HUZZAH!
Perhaps because the state song includes this lyric:
She is not dead, nor deaf, nor dumb-
Huzza! she spurns the Northern scum!
(I've now used "Huzza(h)" in consecutive posts. Do I get some sort of prize?)
Anyway, the ambassador to Ireland is sort of a joke, but not really. You're right — only a Kennedy would consider such a position demeaning. Me, I'd jump at the chance, and I'm not even Irish!
Caroline no doubt thinks that being senator is pretty easy — you show up, and you vote for bills you like, and vote agains bills you don't like. Heck, any idiot can do that! Then you have a media post to spout off on the topics that concern you, like making sure the kids of the rich and famous get into their school of choice.
Sean:
Nah I am sure Bluto was elected--probably in the Watergate fallout election of '74. He and Babs, if I remember correctly, bought a co-op in Georgetown next to Sally Quinn.
Obviously, Joey, you don't understand politics. Bluto married Mandy. Babs went to work for Universal as a tour guide.
This is very important, since Babs was played by actress Martha Smith, who is best known as being the July 1973 Playboy (US Edition) Centerfold.
Query: How many of you think that Caroline Schlossberg should be appointed US Senator from NY? Anyone who lives on Park Avenue in Manhattan's Upper East Side obviously understands the problems that working people are now facing.
Sonny:
According to the recent NYT bio piece on her (last paragraph), she's still married to Schlossberg, and he's still alive. Either a divorce or his death would probably be a surprise to him.
1. She can raise some $50 million dollars despite Wall Street being tight and the Dems over-extended in 2010. And do it again for the 2012 reelection she will also face.
2. She enjoys a close trust relationship with the President-elect about to dole out untold amounts of cash to states with politicians he likes.
3. She is also the favorite of the Senate Majority Leader and has overwhelming influence on the her uncle, generally considered the most influential member of the Senate. (Both of these are pretty big assets when you consider that NY's new Senator will be #100 in seniority.)
4. She is an "clean" outsider who is free of the tarnish that New York's time-serving hack class have in the face of unbelievable government deficits. She is also free of a long and nuanced legislative record ripe for picking by opposition researchers.
Let's face it, with a resume like that she would be top of the list if her name was Caroline Fred Muggs. She is not the one obsessed with the name, it is all you resentment-fetishists.
(By the way, like many woman these days, Kennedy uses her maiden name for professional activities. It is called equal rights. you may want to look into it.)
Kennedy has explicitly said that she will be a candidate in 2010 whether she is appointed or not. In fact, this is one of the major points of controversy because many people (other hopefuls, their supporters, the Governor's staff) have been reputed to feel boxed in by this commitment of hers to compete. they are afraid that if the Governor does not appoint her, whoever gets the job will face a strong, well funded primary challenge from her.
Here in New York, the charge is that she is muscling herself in via the implicit threat of running against the establishment on a reform crusade in 2010 rather than that she expects to be given what she won't fight for. In other words, that she will fight rather than behaving like a good school girl and waiting her turn.
I hold no brief for Kennedy and am still undecided, but I have nothing against her. You haters, on the other hand, don't even know what you hate her for! Seems to me like rather than her being all about her her parents were, you are - hating her because you didn't like them.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.