Now, to the sedan chairs

what, no pony?

Revoke the 17th Amendment

which is precisely what will get us even more appalling appointments like this

"Democrats seem to lack a common man who can just win a good, old-fashioned election," said Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.), the former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "They've got seat-warmers, seat-sellers and the making of pillows for the seats of royalty. No wonder the public wonders what's going on in Washington."


Um, that's pretty tough talk coming from the party who just lost elections to the Democrats all over the place this year.

"No wonder the public wonders what's going on in Washington."

We don't wonder, so much as we fear and loathe.

Kennedy: Obvious
Biden: Really?

What's wrong with several members of a family working in government? Are there people complaining about how several generations of the same family might work for a certain industry like mining or autoworking or farming?

All the people in congress are either elected or appointed by people who were elected. If you don't like the law regarding filling senate seats then by all means try to get it changed but I'm sick of people whining just for the sake of whining.

"Democrats seem to lack a common man who can just win a good, old-fashioned election," said Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.), the former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "They've got seat-warmers, seat-sellers and the making of pillows for the seats of royalty. No wonder the public wonders what's going on in Washington."

I see Clubber Lang found a new career after boxing. "Come on, Democrats! When you gonna run in a real election? I'll beat you anywhere!"

7of7: I'm sick of people whining just for the sake of whining.

Uh, kind of like posting a complaint in an internet thread?

7of7: Are there people complaining about how several generations of the same family might work for a certain industry like mining or autoworking or farming?

Yes. People complain about nepotism. Many companies have strict policies aimed at preventing it.

rodeofrog: Yes. People complain about nepotism. Many companies have strict policies aimed at preventing it.

There's a difference between nepotism and what the article is talking about. Nepotism is giving members of your own family advantages in hiring or advancement. This article is just throwing out how members of certain families keep running for and being elected to government. The only case close to nepotism is that of Biden's seat.

WTF kind of hacks do they have writing at Politico? Beau Biden already said he wouldn't accept a senate appointment (pops) a month ago.

Elections will sort this all out.

People don't want them in, they won't vote them in. Simple as that.

And for the record, I've never biatched about Bush because of nepotism. I wish there had been a little more of it, he would have listened to his sane father.

7of7: rodeofrog: Yes. People complain about nepotism. Many companies have strict policies aimed at preventing it.

There's a difference between nepotism and what the article is talking about. Nepotism is giving members of your own family advantages in hiring or advancement. This article is just throwing out how members of certain families keep running for and being elected to government. The only case close to nepotism is that of Biden's seat.

Caroline Kennedy isn't running. She's lobbying for an appointment to Hilary's seat. And is Salazar's brother running, or will he be appointed as well?

In before snarky reference to "change".

Hibno: "Democrats seem to lack a common man who can just win a good, old-fashioned election," said Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.), the former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "They've got seat-warmers, seat-sellers and the making of pillows for the seats of royalty. No wonder the public wonders what's going on in Washington."


Um, that's pretty tough talk coming from the party who just lost elections to the Democrats all over the place this year.

He must be talking about the historic Obama family legacy in politics.

Shouldn't this get a fascist PITA designation?

So POLITICO is just now figuring out that we have an arisocracy? What have they been living in a cave or something?

FTFA: "His secretary of state will be Hillary Clinton, the wife of the former president."

Was I asleep for the last 8 years? Has she not been a Senator for a term? Did she not gain the tacit approval of 17 million Americans (almost as many primary votes as Obama) to run for the highest office in the land? Say what you want about her politics and policies, but doesn't she have some INSANE qualifications? Before that, had she not benefited from 8 years living in the seat of world power (and being involved in her own policy-making ventures. Even when they fail, you learn), from 6 years' service in the Senate?

Fark you if you still think her only qualification is that she has the Presidential Staff in the First Vajayjay.

// hardcore Obamanite, but BJ Clinton is my homeboy

albo: Revoke the 17th Amendment

which is precisely what will get us even more appalling appointments like this

I'd say revoke 17 and add a new one placing term limits on Sens. and Reps.

/say 2 for senators
//4 for representatives

Lundah: WTF kind of hacks do they have writing at Politico? Beau Biden already said he wouldn't accept a senate appointment (pops) a month ago.

This.
Just read the article
is being pursued
may go to
could end up being
could go to

We could have fun here, for example:
CHARLES MAHTESIAN may be a child molesting cannibalistic furry.
CHARLES MAHTESIAN could be taking up the @ss from the USMC.

Vote for the name you know.

albo: Revoke the 17th Amendment

which is precisely what will get us even more appalling appointments like this

I remember getting into this argument in college. I explained to them that Massachusetts is not going to pick another Charles Sumner - they're going to pick someone like William Bulger. Alabama isn't going to pick another Hugo Black, they're going to pick some jackass like Roy Moore. And that's not even counting the nepotism.

/It is terrible, this idea

7of7: This article is just throwing out how members of certain families keep running for and being elected to government.

Elected in states where the election is a foregone conclusion once the party nomination is granted. Hillary picked New York because the Democratic nominee is a lock to win since the state GOP is an atrophied mess. She sure as hell wasn't going to run back in Arkansas or anyplace that didn't hand her the party nomination on a silver platter.

Too bad. New York's senate primaries and races used to be no-holds-barred slugfests. You had to have your shiat together to win, and as a result we got senators like Pat Moynihan and even Schumer and D'Amato. You may not like those last two but you can't say they didn't pay their dues and take their lumps.

Shostie: albo: Revoke the 17th Amendment

which is precisely what will get us even more appalling appointments like this

I'd say revoke 17 and add a new one placing term limits on Sens. and Reps.

/say 2 for senators
//4 for representatives

Votin' for this. I'd be happy just with term limits though.

Nabb1: Caroline Kennedy isn't running. She's lobbying for an appointment to Hilary's seat. And is Salazar's brother running, or will he be appointed as well?

The problem is that the states have the seats being filled by appointment. However, the voters chose the outgoing senators and haven't changed the law to allow for a special election. As such there is no wrongdoing here. The only point in running such a story is to insinuate that there is some sort of wrongdoing happening.

We've had real laws being broken for 8 years now without so much as a whisper yet now all of a sudden the tiniest things are being raged about.

7of7: We've had real laws being broken for 8 years now without so much as a whisper yet now all of a sudden the tiniest things are being raged about.

You're so right. I haven't heard any complaining about that in the past eight years, and you'd think that the party responsible for that would have suffered in the last couple of elections. It's so appallingly frustrating.

Spade: Shostie: albo: Revoke the 17th Amendment

which is precisely what will get us even more appalling appointments like this

I'd say revoke 17 and add a new one placing term limits on Sens. and Reps.

/say 2 for senators
//4 for representatives

Votin' for this. I'd be happy just with term limits though.

Living in Illinois, I'd rather NOT leave our senate seats up to the state legislature to fill, TYVM.

Knowing my state legislator, I want him to have as little say in deciding my Senators as possible.

Nabb1: I see Clubber Lang found a new career after boxing. "Come on, Democrats! When you gonna run in a real election? I'll beat you anywhere!"

Heh.

You funny.

MasterThief: /It is terrible, this idea

state legislatures are massvie crony machines and would make Senatorial appointments so obviously bad you could play yakkety sax during the vote

Caroline Kennedy: "Uncle Ted, I'm bored...can I have a senate seat?"

Entitled skankass Caroline isn't qualified to scrape dogshiat off the street.

Nabb1: You're so right. I haven't heard any complaining about that in the past eight years, and you'd think that the party responsible for that would have suffered in the last couple of elections

yeah. you'd have thought there would been a least of couple of impeachments and hangings from meat hooks

NYZooMan: Entitled skankass Caroline isn't qualified to scrape dogshiat off the street.

Of course not. That's union.

Lundah: WTF kind of hacks do they have writing at Politico? Beau Biden already said he wouldn't accept a senate appointment (pops) a month ago.

And everyone knows a political figure's word is gold.

Shostie: albo: Revoke the 17th Amendment

which is precisely what will get us even more appalling appointments like this

I'd say revoke 17 and add a new one placing term limits on Sens. and Reps.

/say 2 for senators
//4 for representatives


I would rather have the following:

1. No consecutive terms in office -- you have to sit out at least one election cycle between terms.
2. No campaign contributions or campaigning while in office.
3. No lobbying two years before running for office and for two years after leaving office. (If you are going to run again in the next election cycle, you can't lobby your potential or former colleagues.)

This would bring in new blood, allow current office holders to concentrate of legislating rather than re-election, and encourage people to do something other than running for office (like continuing education, teaching, or writing).

I Said: Kennedy: Obvious
Biden: Really?


Apples to Oranges to Mangoes to Bannanas:

1)Kennedy, has said she wants it, that DOES NOT mean she'll get it.

2) Beau Biden, who is Delaware's AG By the way, so hardly a poltical neophyte like Kennedy has already said explicity he does not want, nor will he accept, the seat he's a little busy with hs current day job serving with his unit in Iraq.

3) Jesse Jackson Sr is not any form of elected official and never has been (closest he came was a term as an unofficial "Shadow Senator"(a lobbyist paid by the DC government)for DC. Therefore giving JJ Jr. the seat is not perpetuating any sort of political dynasty (and it's a pretty reasonable move to go from US Rep to Us Senator of the same state)

4) same Deal with the Salazars, and again noting that brothers don't count as political offspring

5) And that goes double for the Udalls who were both ELECTED by their relative constituencies

The Biden Dynasty? Really?

ComicBookGuy: Shouldn't this get a fascist PITA designation?

No, just like Fox News, this site is Fair and balanced.

/The meter proves it

I Said: Kennedy: Obvious
Biden: Really?

Came here to say this. Kennedy is a dynasty. Bush is a dynasty. Clinton has the potential to become one. But Biden? Nope. I thought Beau even turned it down to deploy. Means he'd still have to win his in an election. Granted that is still a realistic possibility, but I think it's a bit premature to start talking about a Biden dynasty.

Hibno: "Democrats seem to lack a common man who can just win a good, old-fashioned election," said Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.), the former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "They've got seat-warmers, seat-sellers and the making of pillows for the seats of royalty. No wonder the public wonders what's going on in Washington."

Um, that's pretty tough talk coming from the party who just lost elections to the Democrats all over the place this year.

Indeed. In response to Mr. Reynolds, "Republicans seem to lack anyone who can just win a good, old-fashioned election."

7of7: What's wrong with several members of a family working in government? Are there people complaining about how several generations of the same family might work for a certain industry like mining or autoworking or farming?

All the people in congress are either elected or appointed by people who were elected. If you don't like the law regarding filling senate seats then by all means try to get it changed but I'm sick of people whining just for the sake of whining.

1. Americans are coded to mistrust dynasties. Ever since the revolution.

2. It isn't so much the dynastic factor in this case, so much as appointing a senator who has zero experience, and until now has expressed zero interest in being a public official.

But then it isn't my state, so, eh.

7of7: What's wrong with several members of a family working in government? Are there people complaining about how several generations of the same family might work for a certain industry like mining or autoworking or farming?

Nothing, if they win a fair election. But why on earth should Caroline Kennedy be appointed to a Senate seat? What exactly has she done, other than have a famous last name?

As a guy on NPR put it, "If name recognition is all that matters, why not give the seat to Angelina Jolie?"

7of7: The problem is that the states have the seats being filled by appointment. However, the voters chose the outgoing senators and haven't changed the law to allow for a special election. As such there is no wrongdoing here. The only point in running such a story is to insinuate that there is some sort of wrongdoing happening.

It's completely legal, I don't think it's wrongdoing, but... more sane to have people at least informally compete for the seat based on their resumes, don't you think?

Heck, even with the Illinois seat being vacated by Obama, before the corrupt governor decided to try and SELL the damn thing, most of the talk on the street was about candidates who were likely to be appointed (so, Democrats, yeah) in terms of their qualifications or if they'd make a good Senator or not. All of the contenders are public figures in politics, for better or for worse.

Meanwhile, the news stories on Caroline Kennedy all seem to say she's been out of the spotlight for years, not being involved in politics. So seriously, what does she have other than the name?

/not got a problem with appointments
//just wonder why her

7of7: rodeofrog: Yes. People complain about nepotism. Many companies have strict policies aimed at preventing it.

There's a difference between nepotism and what the article is talking about. Nepotism is giving members of your own family advantages in hiring or advancement. This article is just throwing out how members of certain families keep running for and being elected to government. The only case close to nepotism is that of Biden's seat.

Both assignments are stupid. Lets not be partisan about this; Biden's son denied any senate selection because he's not equipped, and his denial alone proves him a better candidate than Caroline.

One of the pungent points about Obama was a new sort of politics. Hillary in his cabinet is fine, because she'll need to accept what he has to say and it really unites democrats under one white house (save Nancy). The other appointments are kind of spiritual celebrations of return, a "welcome back" that shouldn't be accepted.

A Bush or Clinton has been in the white house for nearly 3 decades.

/team america, f yea

@ 7of7 What's wrong with several members of a family working in government? Are there people complaining about how several generations of the same family might work for a certain industry like mining or autoworking or farming?

What correlation could possibly exist between several generations of the same family working in a certain industry, and these political family dynasties?. In many, if not most states, a job is "at will" employment and one can easily be replaced for lack of performance, unlike in politics. In the case of ownership of companies, if the company is private, let them pass it down to generations, their family either started or grew the company. The same can be said for public companies, if started by a strong leader. There are boards of directors and voting stock holders as a checks and balance. But an elected position is supposed to be just that, elected. Your comparison is inane and totally unsupported, if not indefensible.

All the people in congress are either elected or appointed by people who were elected. If you don't like the law regarding filling senate seats then by all means try to get it changed but I'm sick of people whining just for the sake of whining.

Regardless if you are talking about the bloggers, pundits, editorials or fellow Farkers commenting here, what you call "whining" is actually keeping the commentary going, and making sure people who might not be aware of the subject are made aware. That is one of the clearest and easiest ways to enact a change one feels is necessary. First one must at least expose the opinion and generate a groundswell of similar opinion, or at least strike fear of reprisal into the heart[less] and soul[less] who feel that a one time elected position becomes a dynastic or familial entitlement.

I can tell you that most of the African American clergy, politicians and media in Chicago are saying things like "keep the seat black, at all costs" regarding Obama's vacated Senate seat. That is repugnant because in the case of Obama's senate seat, African Americans are not even close to the majority of the constituents. Personally, I find this "keep it black, at all costs" speech to be racist, and factually in error in Obama's case, considering Obama isn't truly African American, he is, by any definition I've seen, multi-racial at most.

Another example demonstrating that cons don't actually talk to, read the comments of or expose themselves to views of actual progressives. I guess it's much easier to take down imaginary opponents.

If they had checked the big progressive blogs such as Kos or Hullabaloo they'd see there's quite a bit of biatching going on about Kennedy for just the reason sited- it's not a coronation.

So, we want term limits so that every Senator/Representative is always a n00b AND we're outraged because Ms. Kennedy has thrown her hat in the ring but she has no experience.

My head aspolde.

I'm agin it.