Skip to main content

View Diary: MO-Sen: As expected, Bond (R) is in trouble (134 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  My search is broken -- can't find. . . (0+ / 0-)

    the words "dynasty" or "hate" anywhere in this post.

    Must be Chrome -- may have to go back to Firefox.

    John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

    by LarryInNYC on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 08:35:53 AM PST

    •  Crazy, (0+ / 0-)

      but Robin thinks the voters should decide whether she serve. I know!

      And like I said upthread, I love how people like you read all sorts of nefarious double-standards when all this post does is 1) matchup the likely candidates, and 2) explain why Carnahan has appeal.

      I left out any value judgements, but you are a mind reader! Very impressive.

      •  Heh. I don't have to be a mind reader. (0+ / 0-)

        Just a word reader.  Yesterday you were condemning political dynasties for running candidates irrespective of quality of the candidates.  What does "Enough of the Clinton dynasty" mean?  It sure doesn't mean "Clinton thinks that the voters should decide whether she serves."

        If political dynasty is a bad thing then that's a reason why Robin Carnahan should not appeal -- at least to you.  Yet this is a post boosting her appeal and chances of winning.  It doesn't say "Robin has a good chance of extending her family's political dynasty for another generation" it says she's a good candidate.

        What's the difference between Robin Carnahan and Caroline Kennedy?  Is the election vs. appointment issue?  Do you only object to dynasties by appointment?  Is it that Missouri is a tougher electoral climate for Democrats?  Do you only hate dynasties in safe seats?

        I actually agree with the logic you laid out in the comment above -- regardless of her political lineage, Robin Carnahan should be free to put herself forward as a candidate and she should be judged on her own merits.  The same for Kennedy, the same for Clinton, and yes, even the same for Bush (notwithstanding that the judgment there should be considerably harsher).

        If that's what you believe, I just want to know who wrote that post under your name yesterday?

        John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

        by LarryInNYC on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 10:39:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What the heck are you babbling about? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I don't like political dynasties, and this apparent desire of the American people for our own royalty. It makes zero sense for me. You may want your camelot, I think that's bullshit.

          Again, I polled the likely candidates for this Senate race, explain why Robin look this strong, and you somehow think that repudiates my post yesterday? Funny.

          Now if Caroline Kennedy wants to run for that seat in 2010, all the power to her. If the people of NY want their monarchy, they can vote for it. Patterson should appoint a caretaker senator and open it up to the voters in 2010. Let Caroline enter the fray. Just like in Delaware, having Beau run for the Senate seat in 2010 will look much better than being appointed to it. Either way, it's annoying to me, but if the voters want their royalty, that's democracy in action.

          But there's no need to appoint them to such seat.

          The last time we did that -- Jean Carnahan in Missouri no less -- cost us that seat two years later.

          •  I'm working hard to figure out. . . (0+ / 0-)

            how "I hate political dynasties -- the Bushes, the Clintons, the Kennedys" on Monday can become "fine with me, as long as it's not an appointment" on Tuesday.

            Those are not at all the same thing.  What changed since yesterday, or what's different about the Carnahan / Salazar / Udall clans?  Real question that -- at this point I think it's clear that you don't feel the same way about them as you do about the Kennedys or the Clintons.  How come?

            Obviously folks should get to elect who they want.  But to write about Robin Carnahan (a candidate that, according to your royalty analogy ought to be referred to as "Princess Robin") without even mentioning that 1) she's part of a dynastic succession and 2) you (presumably) oppose her election in the primary is kind of odd.

            As far as the practical political aspects (whether an appointed candidate has a better or worse chance of retaining the seat in an election and whether it "looks" better for Beau to inherit his father's seat by election rather than appointment) I agree that those are all interesting issues, and exactly the kind of thing that I like to read about on the front page.

            But they're fairly irrelevant if your policy is "political dynasties are inherently bad, and I hate them".

            John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

            by LarryInNYC on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 11:15:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Umm, Robin Carnahan is an eminently capable (0+ / 0-)

              public servant. She's smart and can give a speech and work a room and most importantly, she can do her job.

              •  So? (0+ / 0-)

                What does that have to do with the issue of hating political dynasties?  Plenty of political kids / relatives can do the job.  Hillary Clinton has certainly been a very good Senator from New York.  Ted Kennedy has been a good Senator from Massachusetts.

                The point is, if political dynasties are inherently evil on Monday, what happened so that on Tuesday it's not important to even mention the dynastic aspect of the Robin Carnahan candidacy?

                John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

                by LarryInNYC on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 12:33:58 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wasn't Markos' point about Caroline Kennedy (0+ / 0-)

                  that it was objectionable to appoint her to the position on the basis of her name and little else? Robin Carnahan doesn't have that problem.

                  I would have argued that her brother Russ would, but he's actually turned into a pretty good congressman.

                  •  Nope. (0+ / 0-)

                    Markos' point, expressed yesterday and previously, is that all political dynasties suck and he hates them.

                    Nothing about appointments, nothing about Kennedys in particular.  Simply that he hates the idea of someone holding office if that person has a relative who previously held office.

                    John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

                    by LarryInNYC on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 01:57:57 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Kos said he hates dynasties (0+ / 0-)

                      in the context of quoting someone else discussing why Caroline Kennedy probably shouldn't get the Senate seat.

                      •  Nope. (0+ / 0-)

                        Markos has made this point before well before this Senate seat became vacant, and his diary from yesterday is quite clear.  It has nothing to do with Kennedy, or any details of this particular case:

                        I hate political dynasties. Hate them.

                        It's quite clear Markos feels about political dynasties as Gollum feels about Hobbits.  Except, of course, when he doesn't.  It'd odd, and I'm curious what happened to change his mind overnight.

                        John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

                        by LarryInNYC on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 02:32:50 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site