Article: We Should be Cautious of Caroline Kennedy

There are many who think that Caroline Kennedy should be appointed to fill Senator Clinton's outgoing seat in New York. Indeed, we are told that it's "a done deal," and that only certain formalities need to be followed before it happens.

I recognize that the outcome of this decision might ultimately be good for New York, and America. But I still think it would be a bad idea to do this, because we have only limited information at hand about what she might do as Senator, and I am not convinced of her qualifications to act in that capacity.

In short, I think she would be better off staying where she is, where she has proven herself to be a force for good within the community, than to be moved into the Senate where things don't work like they do on the boards.

This is not meant as a lambasting of Caroline Kennedy. She seems like a decent person, and has demonstratively spent her life doing good things for others. She is obviously a smart, capable and intelligent person. And who knows? Maybe she WOULD be a good replacement for Senator Clinton's seat in the Senate?

The problem is that's a pretty big "maybe." And while any candidate is a crap-shoot--just ask the far left what they think about Obama now--when it comes to appointments, we have to be especially careful.

It would do the public a world of good to be represented by someone who has been directly involved with political matters for some time, and that has actually spent time serving an electorate to the best of their ability: crafting laws, shaping public policy, and working with people they don't agree with on compromises where possible, and outmaneuvering them when not.

That someone is not Caroline Kennedy.

Nowhere in her list of accomplishments is there anything saying that she can do these things, or that she's demonstrated the skills needed to do these things. All we have to go on are her values, her intelligence, and, ultimately, her name.

The name is not inconsequential. It's her connection to our beloved Sacred King, JFK, that has given her the life she's had, and the opportunities she's enjoyed. And she has worked hard to make something positive out of those opportunities.

But it's not right for her to just slide into a Senator's seat on the backs of those opportunities, or her name. I'd prefer the next person to occupy that position to actually know how to make laws happen from personal experience, or from having some concrete idea on how its done.

Somehow, I don't think hanging around Ted Kennedy and attending state funerals is the best barometer of that ability.

Could she someday be a good candidate for the post? Maybe she would. She's smart, she's capable, and she knows how to get things done within a certain sphere of influence. Those are good qualities to have in preparation for that kind of a job.

But I'd rather see her work up the ranks, like anyone else without a famous name. I'd rather see her be elected to local office, then state. I'd rather she prove that she's not just a fundraiser, author and attorney, but someone who can navigate the gruesome world of politics, and make it work for her without losing her soul.

I'd rather go with someone who's got the skills to make it work, instead of having to learn it on the fly--thus almost guaranteeing she'll be led around by an entourage of advisors who might not have New York's interests at heart.

The Senate is not a toy, nor a bauble to be handed over to fortunate sons and daughters. The Senate ratifies treaties, appoints Federal judges and members of the Supreme Court, confirms cabinet positions and other appointments, and tries impeachments.

The Senate may be called upon to make a decision that fundamentally affects the well being of America, and possibly even the world.

Put it this way: you have to send someone into harms way, in a war zone, and you have two candidates for the selection. One of the candidates is an unknown in the National Guard who hasn't taken part in any actual big-time combat yet, but has been trained for that eventuality. The other isn't even in the guard, but his father was a four star General, he hangs out with officers in and out of his family tree, and likes to play first-person shooters a lot.

Who would you send if your child's life depended on that someone being on the ball in a combat situation: the well-meaning but unprepared legacy, or the trained unknown?

And that's what it comes down to.

It's time to stop thinking of what's best for Obama, or the liberal wing of the Democratic party, and start thinking about what's best for the Senate, for New York, and for the country as a whole.

And at this time, that's not Carolyn Kennedy--not that can be proven with deeds or words, anyway. All that 'proves' the opposite are parts of her resume, some of her statements, and, ultimately, her name.

That's just not enough for me.

As for those less skeptical--you're free to stare at the stars and be blinded by their light, if that's how you'd like to pick the people representing you on high. But don't forget that every star is a black hole in the making. If you don't ask questions about age and stability before hitching yourself to one... well, there you go.