NY-Sen: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. For U.S. Senate? Sounds Good To Me

Robert Kenney Jr. (4.00 / 1)

is not a bad choice except th...*YAWN*

THUD

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 20:25:21 PM CST

Sorry (4.00 / 1)

I fell asleep listening to a recording of him talk. God he's boring.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 20:26:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Boring? (0.00 / 0)

Just a suggestion: If we made "interesting to listen to" a requirement for our elected officials, 99 percent of them would be voted out of office or never elected. Period. Not everyone is a Barack Obama.

That said, while RFK Jr. might not have that fiery tone in his voice, he is informative. I guess we all have our tastes in public speakers. I prefer substance over style. But that's just me.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 21:59:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah (0.00 / 0)

that really is my only complaint with him. You think he could survive a primary in 2010?

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 22:37:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You mean 2012? (0.00 / 0)

Hillary's term started when she was re-elected in 2006, so her term doesn't end until 2012. That means the appointed candidate would serve out until 2012 and then face re-election. I think three-plus years as a senator would count for something, not only for RFK Jr., but for anyone who would be in that post.

My big thing is appointing a progressive. I know that Israel has had his eyes on it, but he's not the most progressive of choices. And when I heard Gillibrand's name, I had the same response. This is a great opportunity to appoint a progressive senator to follow in the footsteps of someone who, with a couple of exceptions, was and is a fairly progressive senator.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 23:17:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the gov. appoints for a 2 year term (0.00 / 0)

so the new senator would have to run for reelection in 2010 and again in 2012.  that consideration probably rules out the less energetic candidates, since there will be a non-stop campaign all over the state for for years.

---

by: marybruch @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 00:13:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Gillibrand is a terrible idea (0.00 / 0)

First, she's too conservative for the state, she'd lose a primary.

Second, her "power base" is a rather unimportant part of the state politically. My rankings: 1)NYC 2)LI 3)Westchester/Rockland 4-7) BUF/ROC/ALB/SYR 8)Orange/Putnam/Poughkeepsie 9-15)Upstate's next 7 largest cities. Gillibrand represents none of these areas.

Third, really? Gillibrand? She's #1 on my list of NY D's who are going to lost their seats the next time the wind blows to the right. The list is only 1 person long.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:37:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Really? (0.00 / 0)

#1 over Eric Massa and Mike Arcuri?

---

by: BH_Liddel_Hart @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:48:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

Which is why a Governor with the best interests of the state in mind would appoint Hinchey, a hard-campaigning progressive with an excellent record (but moderate on gun issues, to not rile the rurals), and then find somebody for Hinchey's seat from the Eastern side of his district, in preparation for splitting the Western side of Hinchey's district between Arcuri and Massa in redistricting, so that they were not competing in districts so massively gerrymandered to go Republican.

---

by: robinia @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 07:23:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

oh yeah (4.00 / 1)

I forgot about Arcuri.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:57:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree with you... (0.00 / 0)

That Gillibrand is far too conservative for a statewide race. I will say that she's a good representative for her district, but if we are going off of how progressive she is, she isn't. That's reason enough for me to shoot down her hopes, as well as Israel's.

I do disagree about her power base. Gillibrand, if I'm not mistaken, was second to only Charlie Rangel in money raised this year. She has ties all over the place, including in New York City where such ties mean something. So she has ties in this state. The question is whether or not she has enough ties throughout the state. I don't think she does. I don't think others do either, including some of the NYC representatives mentioned.

---

by: robert.harding @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:05:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

look at the election law (0.00 / 0)

Robert

i thought the same way you did but after a discussion with paul we look into the election law that staes it a gov appointment and the refers you to the public officer law wich covers it in a very complicated wording system but what paul made out of this with his legal background was if the appointment is made in a even year  the seat would have to run in 2009  or if the appointment is made in 09 the seat will be in a 2010 electtion for a two year term then agin in2012 for a six year term

---

by: scott rytlewski @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:32:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It appears... (0.00 / 0)

It appears your reading comprehension is on the same level as your typing skills scott.

If the vacancy occurs 60 days before primary election day in an even year, the special election is held that year.

If the vacancy occurs 59 days before a primary or after in an even year, the special election is held in the next even year.

If the vacany occurs in an odd year, the special election is held in the next even year.

http://www.tenant.net/Other_La...

I anxiously await your poorly typed response scott.

---

by: BH_Liddel_Hart @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:43:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

that what i said (0.00 / 0)

so tell me, if the appointment is made in 2008 in dec whats the election process  if its made in 2009 in the month of january

---

by: scott rytlewski @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:54:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

DUH (0.00 / 0)

If its made in December 2008 or January 2009 the special election is in 2010. Man you are slow.

---

by: BH_Liddel_Hart @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 11:11:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

r u sure i think your wrong if in 08 it will be in 09 (0.00 / 0)

you r slow why do u call me names u r mean jackass

---

by: scott rytlewski @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 11:16:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG (0.00 / 0)

Let me spell it out slow for ya:

If a vacancy occurs in the office of United States senator from this state in any even numbered calendar year...

on or after the fifty-ninth day prior to the annual primary election, or thereafter during said even numbered year...

the governor shall make a temporary appointment to fill such vacancy until the third day of January in the year following the next even numbered calendar year.

In even easier terms:

Senate Vacancy?

60 days before Primary in even year?

Yes? Special Election that year.

No? Special Election next even year.

---

by: BH_Liddel_Hart @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 11:56:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

On filing the unexpired term (0.00 / 0)

I thought this article explained it well which said..... if she leaves her Senate seat by the end of 2008 Paterson appoints a replacement who serves until January 3, 2010. There would be a special election in Nov 2009 to fill the remainder of Clinton's term, which runs through 2012. If, however, the vacancy doesn't occur until January 2009 the replacement serves until January 3, 2011 and so a special election would take place in Nov 2010 to fill the (short) remainder of the Clinton term.

---

by: TruBlu @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 11:48:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

thank you (0.00 / 0)

that some it up pretty simple

---

by: scott rytlewski @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:15:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well not so fast (0.00 / 0)

although the article I found says it clearly (MSM doesn't always get it right). So I just went and looked for myself at NYS Public Offices Law Article 3 (mostly because of the exchange going on between you two and me not wanting to put out any misinformation).

Well, the article contradicts the Law. BH is right. You end up at a Nov 2010 election to fill the unexpired term either way. If she goes in 2009 (since now or next month is well after 59 days ahead of primary day) the election is then. And if she goes shortly after the new year you land in the same place.

---

by: TruBlu @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:33:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

very interesting -- thanks (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Exile on Ericsson St. @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:38:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

then thers that odd or even year stuff (0.00 / 0)

time will tell

---

by: scott rytlewski @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:40:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg would be a wonderful Senator from NY (0.00 / 0)

...that is if Hillary Clinton does become Secretary of State.  
1. Strong supporter of President-elect Barack Obama
2. A liberal Democrat
3. Highly intelligent
4. A fresh but respected face in American politics
. . .just my thoughts . . .

---

by: otsegoblue @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 16:52:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not gonna happen (0.00 / 0)

RFK2's fanatical stance on the vaccine/autism issue and his failure to yield to the avalanche of scientific evidence was a colossal blunder. We don't need a person that sees the bogeyman under every rock in an executive position at the EPA.

His heroin addiction and arrest will come into play, like it or not, rehab or not, and would prove a not so teeny road-bump to be overcome should this supposed nomination ever happen.

---

by: BushyTailed @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 17:22:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

here I was celebrating (0.00 / 0)

a coming occupant of the White House not named Clinton or Bush, and here you go wanting to inflict even another dynasty on us.

I do think these discussions demonstrate just how thin the NYS Dems bench is, but a Kennedy?  Didn't we have (and heck, even import) his father as Senator in the 1960s?

He's done a lot of interesting things, and a lot of good - but does concentrating our government in a few families make any sense at all?

Sorry - it's really time for a new cast of characters, and I don't just mean a new generation.

---

by: simonstl @ Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 20:34:12 PM CST

Trading on your relatives (0.00 / 0)

I, too, sincerely believe that having well-known relatives should not be a boost into high public office.

But, I am also not interested in promoting somebody without a lot of elected experience into the job of Senator of NYS.  I don't think our bench is thin at all, and I think that David Paterson will have trouble choosing only because several NYers would make excellent choices.  Elevating somebody who "isn't a politician" to Senator is a way of telling every ambitious young person running for City Council that their dreams are not worth working for.  And, honest, there really are some learned skills to doing good work as an elected official.

RFK, Jr. does good work and should be commended.  But, our new Senator should be somebody who has paid their dues and learned the ropes, not somebody who inherited a mantle or used the fame they happened into in a good way.  And, yeah, I did say the same thing when Hillary wanted to run for Senate here... although I eventually voted for her, and I think she has done a good job.

---

by: robinia @ Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 20:52:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Learned the ropes? (0.00 / 0)

I disagree. It's not like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is oblivious to the political scene. He is a progressive. Would you want someone like Kristen Gillibrand or Steve Israel - both Blue Dogs and both people whose names have been tossed around as replacements - who will be moderates or would you rather have someone who you know will vote for our causes? That is where I stand here. I'm not all for the status quo. Paying your dues is fine in some work environments, but in politics it just means you have been adjusted to the way of life of your particular office. That isn't good to me. I don't think Barack Obama believes in that either. In fact, I know he doesn't. He said as much.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 22:14:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Subtle differrence between electeds and appointeds (0.00 / 0)

I agree with BO regarding elections-- if an "outsider" can convince the electorate s/he has the stuff, that is great, and s/he probably does.  But, an appointment to Senator is a different story.  That is just handing something over to somebody who did not work their way up with the support of the people.  And, ya know, Barack actually DID work his way up from lower office... and was a community organizer in the same turf before that.

The trend toward dynasticism in this country really concerns me, as do things like Bloomberg leveraging his rich-business-dude status into being Mayor without running for lower office first, and, yeah, Hillary being Senator (or President) based on the experience she got being married to Bill.

As for Gillibrand or Israel, I'm really hoping that Paterson has enough progressive bones left in his body to not do that.  

---

by: robinia @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 07:30:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

An appointment to senator isn't different... (0.00 / 0)

Barack Obama went from state senator to U.S. senator. Did anyone argue that maybe he should have ran for the House of Representatives first before making such a leap? I think not. RFK Jr. isn't exactly some fool who is oblivious to what is going on. My point here is that appointing him gives us a progressive representative who is a fresh face instead of giving it to someone who paid their dues. Quite frankly, there are a number of our New York representatives whose voting records don't impress me, and some of those same representatives have been mentioned as possible appointees. I would rather pick the progressive RFK Jr. than someone who put in their time.

That said, the only other person I'd be willing to back is Cuomo, but if Paterson keeps heading down this road, we might see a Cuomo-Paterson primary in 2010. If that were to happen, I know who I'm backing.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:12:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't care about dynasties... (0.00 / 0)

As long as that person gets the job done. Bill Clinton led this country through great economic prosperity. Are we going to complain because, God forbid, he and his wife have created a dynasty? I'm not. I won't even complain about the Bush dynasty because George W. Bush wasn't the son of George H.W. Bush that was supposed to become president. That is more of an accidental dynasty. But I think we read too much into dynasties. I think you are doing the same.

As for our "thin" bench, define thin. There have been at least a half-dozen names listed as possibilities plus names that are just being tossed around as people who are already elected officials who might be appointed. This is New York. Our bench is huge. That comes with the territory (territory in this instance being a very, very blue state).  

---

by: robert.harding @ Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 22:05:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

sure, it's thin (4.00 / 1)

Look, why was it even possible for Hillary to move into NYS in 2000 and take Moynihan's seat, with barely a rumble of challenge?  RFK had set a precedent, but not one that was uniformly beloved.

Schumer took over Senator Pothole's seat and is mostly proving himself to be another, more progressive, Senator Pothole, bringing home pork for all 62 counties.

Hillary took over Daniel Patrick Moynihan's seat.  Think for a moment about Moynihan - the experience he'd had before he became Senator. The "worked in Kennedy - Johnson - Nixon - Ford", the well-known though certainly not always loved public intellectual.  

Now I know Moynihan was exceptional, but this is one of the largest states, surely home to exceptional people and politicians.  Except that, well, it's gone pretty quiet.  Our legislature trains people to stay in line.  Our major city governments have all kinds of problems, and our largest city can't even manage a Democratic mayor in 16 years despite like a 5-1 registration advantage.

Of the people I've heard mentioned, Andrew Cuomo is the only one with a national profile - and that largely for dynastic reasons, yet again.  I can't say I'm fond of him, but I'll readily admit he's proven his ability to get things done at the state and national levels.

Steve Israel and Brian Higgins are both fine.  They'd both have a lot of growing to do to become Senators, though.  Neither of them has statewide name recognition, much less a national presence.  (Charlie Rangel does, though he's 78, and Louise Slaughter sort of does, but she's 79.)

We New York Democrats damn well should be able to better that this.  You'd think we'd at least have someone of the caliber of Jacob Javits (yes, R) or Herbert Lehman ready for the job.

An active political culture might get us there.

---

by: simonstl @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 13:49:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

well said (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Exile on Ericsson St. @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 14:13:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

How can you say it's thin... (0.00 / 0)

When, according to my own count, there have been about eight names being mentioned for the post? That's not "thin." That is actually pretty good.

Andrew Cuomo has a national profile because he served in the Clinton Administration, not because of his father. He also has a national profile because of his duties as attorney general. Yes, he is Mario Cuomo's son. But Andrew has made a name for himself. I don't think that can be debated. So using the dynasty argument (which is becoming old real fast) isn't relevant here. Andrew has forged his own path. I think that is pretty clear.

While Higgins and Israel don't have statewide name recognition (I have acknowledged that), it won't take long for that name recognition to develop should they be appointed. That's the nice thing about an appointment. The only person who has to know you is the governor. Then when they face election, they will have name recognition. We just have to make sure that the appointee is the right person from the get-go.

---

by: robert.harding @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 14:43:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the ranks may not be thin - the quality is (0.00 / 0)

Yeah, great - we have eight people out of like 19 million who are on your list for Senate.

But take a serious look at their qualifications.  Then take a look at even a few past Senators:

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Jacob Javits
Herbert Lehman
Robert F. Wagner

Clinton was an import.  The others actually came up through New York State, often through multiple levels, though Moynihan had kind of a side route through academia.

All I can say is, we don't make them like we used to.  I don't think it's any great lack of will - I think it's that our farm system, aka our legislature, is so badly broken that coming up through it leaves people who might otherwise have been capable adrift.  A few survive - most just get bland.

(And I think that goes for both Democrats and Republicans at this point.)

---

by: simonstl @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 18:21:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

i'm not a fan of RFK Jr. (0.00 / 0)

He spearheaded all that bs about the autism-vaccine link (which all scientists reject). I've never been able to respect him after that.

I'd rather go with Louise Slaughter, even though I'm not that crazy about her either.  

---

by: Exile on Ericsson St. @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:26:43 AM CST

Ew...he supports that? (0.00 / 0)

Fuck him.

Lets find someone who not fucking insane.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:47:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Louise won't happen... (0.00 / 0)

She's almost 80 years old. She is bound to retire soon.

As for the autism-vaccine link, I think you need to do a little research on that. He's not arguing that, in general, vaccines cause autism. In some cases, there are vaccines with a high level of mercury in them, which can lead to certain issues. Of course, I know a number of different families who have children with autism and each case is different. Some families have different theories and different reasons why their child or children have autism. This is just one of those causes.

So calling it "BS" is, well, BS. Not every family buys the argument, but some believe that is the cause. In fact, almost 5,000 families were involved in a lawsuit about it. So there is more to it than just a blanket "autism-vaccine link." It has more to do with what is in the vaccines, like mercury.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:21:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You're killing me Robert (4.00 / 1)

Exile hit my #1 issue with this.

Nothing - Nothing - gets me as worked up as hearing someone pretend that there is even a wisp of merit to this garbage. People have no idea how harmful spreading these lies is.

People sued - big deal. 909 Americans drank the Koolaid at Jonestown, hell 59 million people voted for Bush - the point being that just because there are a lot of people who are wrong doesn't make them right.

There is no link. There was no link between mercury and autism. They took Mercury out of every vaccine 7 years ago.

What happened? Kids kept getting autism at age 2! Holy crap really? Well, the wackos thought, it must be a different additive in vaccines. So they found this "Study" of 12 children - 12!!!! - that found they were diagnosed with autism soon after their MMR shots. Because Autism shows at 2 years, which is when MMR happens anyways.

Are you kidding me???

So we've (along with every European government) spent millions and millions of dollars over the last decade producing hundreds of studies, every last one of which shows no link. Meanwhile, children die.

Now I'm just sitting here steaming. I need to go do something else. Why oh why aren't the Bills playing today...

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:50:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

bingo (0.00 / 0)

People have no idea how harmful spreading these lies is.

Exactly.  

---

by: Exile on Ericsson St. @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:31:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

it's total BS (0.00 / 0)

I've done a lot of research about this including talking to autism researchers and what he said was total nonsense.

He will not have my vote.  

---

by: Exile on Ericsson St. @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:28:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's right... (0.00 / 0)

Because single-issue voters make sense, right?

Here's an example: If you were strongly pro-choice, would you vote against Darrel Aubertine because he was against choice? If that's your sole issue, whatever floats your boat. Just don't get angry because the alternative ends up being a lackluster representative on all the other issues you decide to think about after the fact.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 14:45:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That depends how pro-choice you are (0.00 / 0)

People vote against their stances on all sorts of issues all the time, because Other issues matter more to them.

Would I vote for a Republican for Senate? No. But I sure would campaign hard against this guy in a primary.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 14:59:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

i love how people "reject" candidates base on one idea (0.00 / 0)

they find one thing they dislike and don't look at anything else... then when someone they "like" comes along, they don't even really know why.

Seriously, not liking RFK jr because of the autism-vaccination link idea?

Does that mean you'll never look at Jenny McCarthy posters or watch a Jim Carrey movie? Because they believe that too.

how do you know other candidates don't believe that? can you prove all scientists reject it? because Jenny McCarthy wrote a whole book on the subject that was assisted by dozens of doctors who believe in it.

Doesn't mean I believe in it, but I'm not going to hate someone for it.

Vote for Powers on the WFP line November 4th !!!

---

by: NY 26 Voter @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:36:07 AM CST

Fearmongreing is a perfectly good reason (0.00 / 0)

not to support someone.

It's been completely rejected by all manner of scientific testing. Kids get vaccines around age 2, kids develop symptoms of Autism around age 2. These are coincidental, not linked. A lot of kids skin their knees when their 5, but its not because they started school.

This crap is insane and CHILDREN DIE EVERY DAY because their parents were too scared by these nut jobs to vaccinate them. So yeah, I can't support RFK2 for anything, because he kills children. And I really do see it that way.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:52:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

So you say fearmongering isn't a good reason... (0.00 / 0)

Then say you can't support RFK Jr. for anything "because he kills children."

You are really smarter than I thought...

---

by: robert.harding @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:29:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That's my view (0.00 / 0)

Fearmongering is he's going to kill YOUR children.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:34:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

OY! (4.00 / 1)

I think you should dial it back a bit.

Yes, Junior can be soporific.  Yes, Junior can be very single-minded about the environment, and would probably not be very helpful in terms of industrial job creation, etc.

But just because he latched onto a theory, doesn't make him unqualified for the appointment.  People are entitled to be wrong - but you can't win hearts and minds by attacking.  He may be wrong, but as an uncle with a nephew just outside the range of Asperger's, I would love to know IF, and there is nothing wrong - given the massive misspending of dollars on far more trivial things - with a little money dedicated to researching the potential causes of neurological/developmental issues in young (mostly) boys.  

Whether thimerosal or some other factor, we should know - how we get there doesn't matter as much to me.

Now, you make several other good points, but I wanted to respond to this first.

---

by: Lead Dog @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 11:24:40 AM CST

there's been tons of research on it already (0.00 / 0)

And it all points to there being no link with vaccines.

I do see your point about not voting against him based on this one issue.  And I'm not saying I think that others should vote against him based on this alone.  But I would vote against him based on this alone personally.  

---

by: Exile on Ericsson St. @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:33:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So if someone like... (0.00 / 0)

Peter King from Long Island ran for the Senate seat as a Republican, you would vote for him over RFK Jr. (in a hypothetical matchup, of course)?

See, this is why single-issue voters make me laugh. It is easy to back them into a corner and show them the stupidity of such a narrow-minded decision. Go ahead and vote against him if he's the one. Just don't complain about the outcome.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 14:56:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I would vote third party (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Exile on Ericsson St. @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 20:27:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well put... (0.00 / 0)

The key is that it is a theory. He could be right. He could be wrong. That is the beautiful thing about theories. Remember, there was a time when we attacked those who thought that the sun was the center of the universe. So I'm not one to attack someone over a theory that they support. My dad has a theory that the plastic from a milk container causes diseases like cancer. It is an interesting theory and one that there isn't much information on. But it is a theory that can be proving right or wrong.

My problem is when people attack an individual and say things like "I will never vote for him" over one issue that would have very little relevance should he be appointed to the U.S. Senate. I don't think too highly of single-issue voters because I find it ignorant and stupid to vote for or against someone because of one issue.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 14:53:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There's a theory (0.00 / 0)

that the sun revolves around the earth too.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 15:01:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

frankly (0.00 / 0)

This kind of "it's only a theory thing" is more what I expect from the religious right than from fellow progressives.

This whole conversation has depressed me greatly.  

---

by: Exile on Ericsson St. @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 20:27:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

It seems that the time to judge whether or not we would vote for whomever Paterson appoints as Senator is some time after they have been functioning as a Senator.

As far as children and immunizations, I have nieces and nephews who were not immunized (religious "theories," not theories about the cause of autism).  Several of them caught pertusis-- none died, thank goodness, but there was some permanent lung damage.  I believe that "settled medicine" for public health good-- like immunizations-- deserves tremendous respect.  There are huge repurcussions when people put their own "theories" ahead of the scientific consensus.

---

by: robinia @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 21:48:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

yes, you're right (0.00 / 0)

On both counts.  

But I hope that someone other than RFK Jr. is appointed.  I'd be okay with Israel ow Weiner.  

---

by: Exile on Ericsson St. @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 22:04:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

imus will be happy (0.00 / 0)

don will be happy if rfk jr gets the national lite

---

by: scott rytlewski @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 14:20:54 PM CST

is there peace in the family (0.00 / 0)

We where,  just going thru a box of old picture and found the picture of my family and andrew cuomo family his frist wife rfk jr sister i wonder if this would play a part in the behind the scene jockeying??

---

by: scott rytlewski @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 15:02:53 PM CST

This has got to have been (0.00 / 0)

the Busiest Sunday in TAP history and I think Phillip missed the whole thing.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 22:06:26 PM CST

what about paterson appointing himself? (4.00 / 1)

the times said that possiblity is being floated around, and especially in light of the potential primary challenge he could face in the gov's race.

i like the idea of RFK, Jr., think it rolls well off the tongue, Senator Kennedy.  a progressive, an environmentalist and somehow an intellectual who may not be electable on his own, but should be re-electable as the incumbent.

---

by: Senor Wylie @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 22:48:36 PM CST

RFK Jr, heroin conviction, (0.00 / 0)

I skimmed the replies and didn't see it mentioned. Sorry if I missed it. He was convicted. That's not like "hey I tried heroin once in college." It was a big deal and still is after all these years. Unfair given the circumstances of his childhood? Doesn't matter.

---

by: LOBlue @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 06:47:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure how much (0.00 / 0)

People in NYS will care about his prior drug conviction.  I'm not a fan of RFK Jr. either way.  

---

by: Exile on Ericsson St. @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:39:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Let's get the facts straight here... (0.00 / 0)

His heroin conviction was after he was busted with 183 milligrams of heroin. This is the New York Times article on the conviction.

The arrest was 25 years ago (on Sept. 11, 1983) and his conviction came in March 1984. I'm not big on using past indiscretions against someone, especially when they occurred 25 years ago. RFK Jr., by all accounts, has rehabbed himself and has been sober since that point. He has become a very productive member of society. Would his drug conviction be mentioned? Perhaps. But I doubt anyone would care about something that happened a quarter-century ago.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:12:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Doubt anyone would care about a heroin conviction? (0.00 / 0)

Gee, I don't see that.  Can't think of one person in public office (even local) I know who has that in their background-- in some states, I think it would even disqualify you from voting. (Not NY).  

I'm sure he's a wonderful guy, Robert, but he doesn't seem like somebody we would want for Senator.  I think that the heroin conviction explains his non-electoral path to influencing public policy.  There are a lot of ways to use the recognizable nature of your family name to influence public opinion.  I'll be real surprised if Paterson, who needs a safe pick what with everything else he is dealing with, goes with your suggestion.

---

by: robinia @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:48:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Of course... (0.00 / 0)

I'm not doing this for Governor Paterson. My suggestion is based on my own opinion. RFK Jr. is a great progressive voice. His heroin conviction was 25 years ago when he admittedly had problems. But he addressed those problems and has gone on to live a very, very productive life. If we used the past against every politician, we wouldn't have some of country's best leaders. Barack Obama admittedly did cocaine and used drugs during his younger years. Sure, he didn't get convicted, but does that make it any better?

Frankly, as you will see in a post coming soon, I knew this would be a long-shot because there are elected officials who are front-runners. But I have enjoyed watching how quickly opponents of this man came here to knock him down with a wrecking ball. It's amazing what it takes to set off some nerves with people.

Of course, there is one thing lacking in this conversation: I proposed a replacement to Sen. Clinton. No one else did. Everyone shot down RFK Jr., but no one else proposed a replacement.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:39:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

My suggestion-- (0.00 / 0)

--Congressman Hinchey-- is in a couple of other threads.  I think he is progressive, effective, can appeal to both upstate and downstate, has a district that needs to be reconfigured... and not as old as Louise Slaughter (who also chairs the Rules Committee...).  As I said in the other threads.

---

by: robinia @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:08:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'd nominate... (0.00 / 0)

NYCO!

I know it's a long-shot, but she's one of the few folks I've seen really looking at New York State's possibilities, the upstate-downstate divide, the role of class in our state and our country, and the challenges we face.

(Robinia might also be a good choice that way.)

I could live with Israel or Higgins or Cuomo.  I fear that we just plain don't have an excellent candidate coming out of our political ranks, but those folks are good.

There are other folks I like, but they seem to be 70+.  It's not a disqualification, especially for an appointment, but I'd really like to see New York have a strong Senator with a good chance to be around a long while.

(Hillary Clinton is 61; Chuck Schumer is 58.)

---

by: simonstl @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:30:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'd nominate... (0.00 / 0)

NYCO!

I know it's a long-shot, but she's one of the few folks I've seen really looking at New York State's possibilities, the upstate-downstate divide, the role of class in our state and our country, and the challenges we face.

(Robinia might also be a good choice that way.)

I could live with Israel or Higgins or Cuomo.  I fear that we just plain don't have an excellent candidate coming out of our political ranks, but those folks are good.

There are other folks I like, but they seem to be 70+.  It's not a disqualification, especially for an appointment, but I'd really like to see New York have a strong Senator with a good chance to be around a long while.

(Hillary Clinton is 61; Chuck Schumer is 58.)

---

by: simonstl @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:30:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

apologies for the double-post (0.00 / 0)

That seems to keep happening to me lately.

---

by: simonstl @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:31:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

60 comments (0.00 / 0)

i hope it rfk and somebody when ever the primary happens. you would think by all the action  yesterday we where in the middle of a primary  

---

by: scott rytlewski @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:24:48 AM CST

How about Shelly Silver? (0.00 / 0)

It would serve the purpose of getting him out of Albany, and as a junior Senator in DC, he wouldn't be able to create any additional dysfunction down there.  And he is good on all the issues, so his voting record in the Senate would be solid.  

---

by: Roatti @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:55:31 PM CST

when I saw the title I was outraged (0.00 / 0)

but it's a fun point.

However, I suspect that given the current state of the Assembly, a new "Sheldon Silver" would emerge who was surprisingly like the current model.  

There's more that needs to change than just the leader, and I hesitate to reward Silver's way of running things in this way in any case.

---

by: simonstl @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 13:29:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

i was waiting to hear Shelly's name floated (4.00 / 1)

I agree he shouldn't be rewarded but if that's what it takes to get him out of the Assembly, I'm for it.

---

by: Exile on Ericsson St. @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 13:48:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What are the chances that Patterson would appoint a (0.00 / 0)

Republican such as Bloomberg?

---

by: JML @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 13:01:10 PM CST

I can answer that? (0.00 / 0)

"What are the chances that Patterson would appoint a
Republican such as Bloomberg?"

I can see two chances of this: slim and none.    

---

by: Exile on Ericsson St. @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 13:51:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]