Kennedy Pro/Con; Brown v. The Forces of Darkness

Ellen Goodman has written an essay at Truthdig that is pro-Caroline Kennedy for appointment to the U.S. Senate seat that will soon be vacant in New York. I've already voiced my opinion on the matter a few times, but Goodman does so much more eloquently than I could:

'But I find myself unable to dredge up even a modicum of outrage at the idea of this Kennedy bumping to the top of the list of Senate candidates. Her résumé shows no more chutzpah than Al Franken’s. Her celebrity is no greater than that of her cousin-in-law Arnold Schwarzenegger, “Kindergarten Cop” and governor. Is she any less entitled to this post than the business leader who decides that his acumen at widgets qualifies him to lead a country?

There is something refreshing in seeing a mother and public citizen auditioning for a second act. Beyond that, there is something tender and timely in seeing this particular woman coming home to the family business.'

...............

'I don’t know if Kennedy is tough or politically talented enough for the back-to-back races she would face to win a full term. Appointed candidates do not have a high rate of success in elections. But I do have a sense that this woman is less focused on the Kennedy legacy—perhaps even less than the rest of us—than the Obama beginning.

She described her reasons for supporting Obama, saying: “My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined.”

So are the reasons for seeing her as a Sen. Caroline Kennedy. Pick Caroline and you are not choosing the latest scion of a dynasty. You are choosing the emblem of a generation—and maybe a country—coming back to life. Public life.'

Truthdig also has an essay up by Joe Conason on the same topic that isn't entirely anti-Caroline Kennedy, but does raise some key questions about such an appointment:

'Aside from money, celebrity and tradition, what else does Kennedy need to propel her candidacy? New York Gov. David Paterson, who will actually make the interim appointment, may have asked himself that question when she called to inform him of her interest. As he told reporters, “She’d like at some point to sit down and tell me what she thinks her qualifications are.”

In the governor’s remark, there is an edge that expresses what many politicians may be thinking. Unlike members of Congress who want the promotion, Kennedy, a nonpracticing attorney, has little familiarity with the legislative process. Unlike them, she has never tested herself in the brutal arena of electoral politics. And unlike many of them, she has lived in a world of privilege quite remote from the concerns of most voters.

It is not hard to imagine the difficulties Kennedy might confront in a race against someone like Rep. Peter King, the first Republican to declare his intention to run for the Senate seat no matter whom the governor appoints. How would the soft-spoken lady from the Upper East Side hold up in a debate against a self-styled populist from Long Island?

Nobody who knows Kennedy doubts her intellect or her commitment. But beyond her endorsement of Barack Obama at a crucial moment in the Democratic primaries, nobody knows much about her positions on public policy. Presumably, the governor will explore that question when they meet.

The same criticism—that she’s only where she is because of her name—was leveled at her Uncle Ted when he first ran for the Senate. Then again, we know how he turned out. If that is what she means to become, New York could do much worse.'

On another subject, California's Attorney General Jerry Brown surprised everyone today by submitting a brief to the state Supreme Court arguing that Prop 8 should be overturned.

'In a brief submitted to the court Friday, Brown’s office said the measure should be invalidated because it deprives people of the right to marry—an aspect of liberty that the Supreme Court has concluded is guaranteed by the California Constitution.

“Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification,” Brown’s brief said.

Brown argued that in order to invalidate such a fundamental right, the court “must determine that there is a compelling justification to do so.”

But in the marriage cases that the court ruled on earlier this year, striking down the ban on gay marriage “the court found that no such compelling justification exists. Accordingly, Proposition 8 must be stricken,” the brief said.'

Brown personally opposed Prop 8 last month but was still largely expected to argue in favor of upholding it in his position as Attorney General.

I applaud Jerry Brown for doing the right thing. No Majority should ever get to decide a basic rights issue for any minority. That's not equality and it's not democracy.

Those defending Prop 8 have recruited the odious Ken Starr to present their case before the court. You know, if I was a prop 8 supporter, just having Ken Starr on the same side as me would be enough to make me change my mind!

The case isn't going to be heard until March at the earliest, but all eyes are on California.