1? Hi LHP!

Dugg right here — please join me!

Her grandfather was an ambassador, her dad was president, her mother was First Lady, her Aunt Jean was an ambassador. I can’t imagine there’s anyone in America better suited to the job. I only despair that she’ll be posted to the Vatican; I’d rather Obama leave that billet vacant.

Why can’t Caroline be Ambassador to France, or the Queen of England like her grandpa?

I agree with this.

Teddy:
Have those two positions been filled already? Given the present times though, the ambassadorship to the Vatican is a high profile gig and not one you can leave unfilled. Is Caroline pro-choice and pro-gay marriage? If she is that would be perfect. Make Benedict stew.

To explain why some people would write viciousness like Pareene’s, you have to understand that some people who are pretty much useless resent the fact that other people are more capable than they are. They lack the capacity to achieve anything worthwhile; they realize their ineptness; and the only way they can maintain any sort of self-respect, if you want to call it that, is by trashing those who they envy. Then there are people who just lack the ability to achieve great things, but have accepted it and support those who are able to accomplish.

This case is but one of many. Rush is a blatant example of the syndrome in action. He has made his whole being dependent on tearing down those who are able to accomplish something because he lacks the ability to build anything positive and worthwhile. What we have in this example is but a smaller edition of the syndrome.

Thanks lhp.

Agree with all of the above.

I can’t think of many things, however, that would piss off the church mice in the Vatican as much, however, as having to deal with a woman ambassador from the U.S. It especially shines a light on their refusal to ordain women as priests.

Citizen looseheadprop:

I would rather not have a Vatican ambassador…that was one of the multitude of things that Ronnie Reagan did that put us on the coarse to theocratic politics. Obama would do well to turn down the invite to speak at Notre Dame and pull the ambassador to the Vatican and appoint Caroline ambassador to Luxemborg.

Being Ambassador isn’t a right.

And that would mean? If it’s tacky, don’t tell me.

It means it would be a wonderful opportunity for her, not something she’s entitled to. Looseheadprop seems to be framing this in terms of rights.

tru dat

I think Caroline would have been a great Senator. Hell if a douche like James Inhofe or Orin Hatch can do it, anyone can.

This is an idea with much more merit than her inheriting a Senate seat. She is not a professional diplomat, but then few remain after Mr. Bush. She is more qualified than many of the typically wealthy non-diplomats from both parties, who buy a few years as an ambassador to various typically smaller posts, the Benelux, a tax haven or the Vatican.

Ms. Kennedy might be especially good in Rome. She is quietly assertive, and on the progressive wing among American Catholics. She plays well in the NE, with a large Catholic population. She could be busy. The pontiff has put his silk slipper in his mouth frequently this past year, putting him at odds with American Catholic and American governmental interests.

Good luck to her. Can’t wait for all the hypocritical wingnut apoplexy about not sending career diplomats out to do diplomacy. Bush didn’t believe in diplomacy at all. He sent out arrogant extremists like John Bolton to trash diplomacy like a pre-wagon Bush on a bender.

i agree with you ,look who we got now a bluedog

Thank you.. anyone know if she is pro choice or open about gay marriage?

Though Norske is right… we shouldn’t have an ambassador to a church in any manner.

JohnBolton for Amb to Greece…Platos Retreat calls

runfastandwin April 10th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
13

my15 was to you

yum BelgianWaffles every day

Comparing to two of lowest common denominator’s like Hatch and Inhofe is not a good scale with which to go on.

Anyway, I don’t know if Caroline would have done well or not as senator of New York but she is certainly qualified on a highest common denominator level for Ambassador to the Vatican

Not that I have a say on who gets appointed, but I do feel some reserve on appointments and Caroline Kennedy.
Wasn’t Joe Kennedy a terrible ambassador?

Caroline Kennedy favors marriage equality (which, incidentally, is the term preferred by those who favor what some call gay marriage).

This is an idea with much more merit than her inheriting a Senate seat. She is not a professional diplomat, but then few remain after Mr. Bush. She is more qualified than many of the typically wealthy non-diplomats from both parties, who buy a few years as an ambassador to various typically smaller posts, the Benelux, a tax haven or the Vatican.

Helluva an endorsement. She’s not John Bolton.

She’s not Mel Sembler. So I guess that’s good too. She is poised, very poised.

(which, incidentally, is the term preferred by those who favor what some call gay marriage).

That should be a more well known fact. It makes sense put that way.

ditto, ditto, and HERE HERE!

i completely agree with ya, lhp.
She HAS class and style.
Seems that’d be a perfect place for her.
I’ll bet they’d LOVE her to pieces.
thx!

I guess the pope doesn’t like same-sex marriage. Too bad. I honestly think a lot of the catholic brass (sorry to use military word) has become too conservative for a lot of (at least most catholics I know) Amerian catholics.

What to wear? Dashing parties, and that kind of thing?

The daughter of America’s only Catholic President? Could be a good choice to represent America on all the tricky questions like clerics who are fugitives from justice and similar issues. Were it up to me we would not recognize the Vatican, it was one of the many things Reagan did that I did not approve of, but if we are to have relations, she would make a good Ambassador.

I’d have to agree, Caroline Kennedy in one of those top embassies would be a grand slam, something like UK or France preferred as some have said, but Vatican if it would do some longer-term good.

(And I might add, the blogger lhp wrote about seems to have no idea how those posts get filled; I think there’s nothing at all unprecedented or improper about a person their interest in such a slot known. Not only was the post rude, it was also uninformed.)

OT page to earlofhuntingdon: I left a reply for you at the end of masaccio’s midday post.

I would like to agree wholeheartedly with LHP here in this post.

I don’t think our Ambassador gets to have relations with the Pope

I’m of two minds on us having diplomatic relations with a church. But the fact of the matter is that the Pope and his minions have an inordinate amount of influence on the politics of countries around the globe. That’s the reason I think some sort of relations with the Vatican are important – for the political bit.

I also agree that Caroline could/would be an asset here – if nothing else to annoy Bennie (her being a woman and all) and if she is pro-choice – so much the better.

BTW, they just don’t send people to Ambassadorships if they aren’t currently a part of the Foreign Service. She would/will undergo training in all the stuff she needs to know. She’s smart – won’t take her long to get up to speed. And her ’star power’ in the position will be an asset – much the same way Hillary’s star power is an asset. Why not take advantage of this since she’s expressed an interest?

She could start with the Vatican and then move up. That’s common in the Foreign Service – you get your probationary posting so to speak to a smaller country, and then if you perform well, the following year you get moved up.

UK or France? doubt it unless she stays in the FS for a long period of time. Those posts are usually taken by career people and they don’t get replaced until they either retire or die – whichever comes first.

There’s no question that she (and her uncle) deserve something; their boffo endorsement of Obama in the primary changed the dynamic like nothing else.

Can we please get some universal health care to reward Uncle Ted, before it’s, you know, too late?

UK & France have historically gone to contributors to the incumbent’s campaign, iirc. Not sure when there has ever been a career officer in either of those jobs. Russia either.

I did not endorse Ms. Kennedy with the comment that, “at least she wasn’t John Bolton.” I said that unlike Mr. Bush and his top “diplomats”, like John Bolton, Ms. Kennedy believes in diplomacy and is more talented than many non-professional diplomats that are appointed by both parties to mid- and sometimes senior ambassadorial posts.

If you don’t like Ms. Kennedy, or the idea of her appointment as an ambassador, feel free to express it in your own words; don’t misstate mine. Thanks.

I wouldn’t trust John Bolton to park my car.

Oh for god’s sake – what has she done to deserve _anything_? Being born a Kennedy = cushy government job?

Aren’t the biggest catastrophes in this nation’s history traceable directly to the child of a former president?

You’re going to give this poor, poor child of a former president a pretty sweet gig (after she bungled her first attempt at getting into politics), just because her dad was hot back in the day and/or slept w/ Marilyn Monroe (whichever it is for you)… gotcha.

Do us all a favor, please stop voting – your lack of judgement makes me think that you’re the reason we’re in this mess.

Well, giving her this slot makes way more sense than about 99% of all the appointments made by the last two GOPer preznits. It also makes more sense than several of the Current Occupants appointments as well.

Let’s face it, there is an elite in this country, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. The people who comprise the elite class (both Dems and Rethugs) are the ones who will be appointed. Some schmuck from backwoods is not going to get this job or any other.

This argument that she shouldn’t get ANY job at all because she’s the child of a former preznit is a straw (wo)man and is not an argument.

Ms. Kennedy is not a self-made woman in the sense of the character in Working Girl. Neither did she spend her first four decades drunk or stop drinking when she turned forty only because her spouse threatened to leave with the kids unless she dried out.

Ms. Kennedy has talents that could be wisely used by the right administration. It’s not like we have a surfeit of bright wealthy people willing to chip in and help us out on their own dime. (Yes, diplomatic posts are compensated by the State Dept., but they inevitably involve considerable personal expense.)

Oh for god’s sake – what has she done to deserve _anything_? Being born a Kennedy = cushy government job?

Aren’t the biggest catastrophes in this nation’s history traceable directly to the child of a former president?–pkpk

Your first sentence says it would be crazy to recommend her for the ambassadorship because you think the only reason anyone wants to do that is because she’s related to a former president.

Your second sentence says that we’d be crazy to applaud consideration of her for the job because some other totally unaffiliated bozo who wrecked stuff had been related to a former president. What’s the connection between Caroline Kennedy and the two George Bush’s that you aren’t telling us about. Because if there isn’t one then your two sentences make no sense standing each alone or in sequence.

Good grief. Please unwad yer panties there.

For a nation that supposedly has no royalty, why should we care if she is related to a whole dynasty of political hacks. All the more reason not to trust her. The Kennedy’s are one of the many families who seem to view politics as a birthright. Basing any decision on who she’s related to is nonsense.

But, if you want to send a relatively inexperienced politician to a backwards theocratic dictatorship that is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the modern world, by all means do so.

Basing any decision on who she’s related to is nonsense.

Has it occurred to you that her relatives are not what we’re basing her qualifications for an ambassadorship on?

Example from Looseheadprops post:

I did not think she was qualified to become a senator from a standing start, but in no way, shape or form do I think that she is somehow unfit for any public role at all.

Gee, last I saw, the Kennedys have been ambassadors, senators, presidents, congressmen, founded numerous social programs and organizations, including Head Start, VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action, Upward Bound, Foster Grandparents, Special Olympics, the National Center on Poverty Law, Legal Services, Indian and Migrant Opportunities and Neighborhood Health Services, and directed the Peace Corps. Others’ professional lives have spanned law and politics and dedication to educational and charitable work as well as co-authored books on civil liberties and Constitutional law.

Oh yeah, and two of them have been assassinated for their public service. I am certain that people like you have done more and are much more worthy. Jeebus.

Thanks bmaz. Unlike some people (Bush, Cheney, et al) the Kennedys seem to understand the meaning of noblesse oblige. And the entire family has certainly contributed massively to our civil society.

Too bad all the naysayers seem to come out in droves when another Kennedy wants to contribute something. Don’t see any Rethugs of any stripe, or many Dems either for that matter, family dynasties volunteering the way this family has and continues to do.

Royalty, not. But certainly a set of ‘family values’ worth emulating.

But, if you want to send a relatively inexperienced politician

Job experience for Ambassador does NOT include political experience. In fact – politics is actually a drawback as the diplomat is expected to follow the policies of who ever is President, and that may not be a member of his/her own party. They are also to remain apolitical regarding the host country, and it’s way better for them to be apolitical about this one as well.

So no, being a politician is not a job requirement. I like it better that she is not a politician if she is considering this job.

Oooh, a bitchy Gawker piece dishing on “she wants a pony” Caroline Kennedy? Wow! Unheard of!

(Psst. Have you cleared this piece with Jane?)

Oh, that villainess Ms. Kennedy! Why, we all know all she does is get her nails done, because we have it on good authority from Jane. Thank goodness someone is keeping tabs!

At least she’s a woman and we know that would go over well with the Pope. Heh.

Isn’t he in favor of blowing the top floor off of every car he parks? Sort of a weird prejudice in favor of convertibles I guess.

If she is not picked, they will just pick somebody that is no better and is more conservative.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02……html?_r=1

What happened to that lunkhead Ray Flynn?

I think that appointing someone like her is Obama’s way of telling Ratzinger and the Opus Dei clique that they can now STFU about Notre Dame.

It’s not going to be D’Amato, and here’s why:

1) He enjoys being a lobbyist waaay too much
2) He got a divorce from his first wife but I don’t think he ever got the annulment he wanted from the Church.

According to Rob Boston at the anti-theocracy site Talk2Action, the Vatican has already rejected at least three candidates for the ambassadorship that the Obama administration has put forward because they don’t toe the church’s mandatory line on the issues:

The Washington Times reported yesterday that the Holy See has rejected at least three candidates put forth by President Barack Obama to be U.S. ambassador. The prospects were apparently blackballed because they hold pro-choice views on abortion. . . The Times, citing an Italian journalist, reported, “Papal advisers told Mr. Obama’s aides privately that the candidates failed to meet the Vatican’s most basic qualification on the abortion issue.”

Under these circumstances I don’t think Caroline Kennedy or anyone else should be appointed to this post; it should be left vacant. No foreign entity should be permitted to have a veto over the selection of diplomats based on their personal views on contentious domestic policy issues. In fact this would be a good time to end the practice of formal relations with the Vatican, as other commenters have suggested above.

Gee, last I saw, the Kennedys have been ambassadors, senators, presidents, congressmen, founded numerous social programs and organizations, including Head Start, VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action, Upward Bound, Foster Grandparents, Special Olympics, the National Center on Poverty Law, Legal Services, Indian and Migrant Opportunities and Neighborhood Health Services, and directed the Peace Corps. Others’ professional lives have spanned law and politics and dedication to educational and charitable work as well as co-authored books on civil liberties and Constitutional law.

Oh yeah, and two of them have been assassinated for their public service.

… and a third was killed in action defending our freedom (for real) during WWII.

Traditionally, every host country has the right to accept or reject any nominee as ambassador to their country. If the ambassador has been nominated in good faith, rejections are ordinarily rare. For starters, they are, well, undiplomatic.

If the Vatican has already rejected three nominees because they don’t like the ambassador’s sex, pedigree or credentials, it raises the question of who is ambassador for whom. The Vatican would be playing hardball, while losing popularity and support. It’s not a high-confidence move, but a desperate one. The Vatican is seeing how hard it can push the new kid.

Someone like Ms. Kennedy would be a compromise. On the one hand, the Vatican would prefer a more conservative man, who agrees with its views on the subordinate role of women and on abortion. On the other hand, someone like Ms. Kennedy gives Obama the representation he wants – someone who is pro-choice and a moderate advocate for women’s rights, but someone who comes from the Catholic aristocracy in America.

Mr. Obama should keep nominating people who represent the face of the America he sees, not the one the Vatican wants to see.

I don’t buy all the negative press about Caroline Kennedy. She was new to politics and was slow to defend herself, and never really went on the offensive. Lots of politicians are born on third base, but the fact that they did not hit a triple is rarely used again as strongly as it was with Caroline Kennedy. Look at “W”, look at all the other and second and third generation politicians all over America. Where’s the outrage?

The Senate appointment is over. It went to the daughter of a powerful NY lobbyist, a longtime friend of another powerful NY lobbyist Al D’Amato. That’s not to say that her father (who by the way has done a lot of good over the years) was the only reason. Sen. Gillibrand also has a long professional relationship with Al D’Amato. She was even an intern in his office back when she was a Republican. Both Sen. Gillibrand’s father and D’Amato are big supporters of Gov. Patterson.

“Mr. D’Amato surprised many TV viewers, especially liberal Democrats, when he appeared alongside Mr. Paterson two weeks ago as the governor announced his selection for United States senator, Kirsten E. Gillibrand. The 71-year-old Mr. D’Amato, for whom Ms. Gillibrand had interned, beamed like the father of the bride, positioning himself on the dais more prominently than sitting members of Congress, legislative leaders, and even the senator who had ousted him, Charles E. Schumer.”

For what it’s worth, on Friday Rev. Federico Lombardithe (an official Vatican spokesman) said there was no truth to reports that the Vatican had rejected her as a candidate.
Link

If she is nominated it will be interesting to see the Vatican response. I’ll also be curious to read what is gleaned by Vaticanologists such as Sandro Magister.