What Do You Think?
Lots of people sent me the story yesterday about Fran Drescher wanting to replace Hillary Clinton as the US Senator from New York. I replied to everyone who sent me the story saying that I just didn't know what to say. But, I thought about it overnight, and although I have something to say, I just still can't decide if it is a good idea or not. I'm not opposed to a sitcom star becoming a politician. I think most politicians are just actors anyway. So, I don't have a real issue with that. The appointment is for two years. After that there would be a special election for the remaining two years of the term.
Part of mew says that she really can't do any more damage to the system than other politicians do on a regular basis. In addition, many times the spouse of a politician is appointed for the remainder of a term when the politician dies and she probably wouldn't do any worse than them.
She says she is serious and I actually think she would do well enough to give her a chance for the two years. If she sucks, the people in NY can vote her out or she can quit. Since she left her show, she has been a tireless advocate for issues related to women's health, and I think she did some work for the State Department, but I think it was as a glorified meeter and greeter and not much more than that. I think giving her a chance would shake things up, and as long as she doesn't have a team of cameras following her so she can make a buck off it, I think it is a better idea than most. What do you think? The Nanny as a US Senator?
31 comments:
I can't imagine her voice echoing throughout the senate chamber. I'm sure the rest of the senate agrees.
Heck they want to put in Caroline Kennedy on name alone so what's the difference between her and Fran?
That is not her real voice. The Nanny voice is definitely an embellishment. Fran Drescher is one smart woman and NY would be smart to have her.
Being Senator for New York is a hard, hard job. It's not just glamorous Manhattan - there are about a hundred counties upstate and a lot of them are in very bad economic shape, like Syracuse and Buffalo.
I'm a New York voter, and while I voted against Hilary Clinton the first time she ran, I voted for her in 2006 because she'd done such a good job being a Senator for the entire state.
Does Fran really want to do a lot of campaign events in depressing Rust Belt towns?
I was going to say that I don't think it could hurt. There are definitely worse choices.
Oh, Kay, that sounds about like Illinois. Everyone just thinks of Chicago and forgets the rest of the state. While Chicago is recently been feeling the pinch from a bad economy, the rest of the state has been in the throes of a recession for nearly a decade, after a lot of the manufacturers moved their businesses to cheaper locations. Unless a senator comes from this area (in our case, Dick Durbin - kind of), they don't even pay attention to the plight of the rest of the state. As much as I like Obama, I never saw him any closer to this area than when he went to St. Louis, Mo. on a campaign stop.
Neither Fran Drescher nor Caroline Kennedy probably couldn't do very well speaking for the Rust Belt towns, but is there currently someone out there who could?
DNfromMN, if you ever post another Celine Dion upskirt picture again I will cut you.
Politics has unfortunately become just the entertainment industry on downers. Fran seems as if she has a good heart, which is more than I can say for most politicians. She couldn't be worse than installing another Kennedy to a throne(although I like the Kennedys,I think they should earn their votes. Just their name gives them an advantage anyway).
If Sarah Palin can be governor of Alaska, then Fran is just as qualified to be the New York Senator.
And why not? Both women are "outsiders" in Washington DC and both are charismatic.
California has seen two actors as Governors; this is not new territory.
yes, there are people who could be worse, but aren't there people who could be better?
that's the problem when a person is being appointed, not voted in. they're not earning votes.
or if you're in chicago, the seat goes to the highest bidder. at least until the governor is busted....which in this state is often.
amber - this is not the place for that discussion (and in truth, it was a fake-out).
That's not her real voice? I knew that the Nanny voice was affected, but I thought her normal was just not quite as strained.
awe I was just kiddin
she'd be less annoying than hillary.
nothing political there, i just can't stand the woman.
reagan i guess was okay, but we are NOT too thrilled with AHNOLD. boy, i wish i'd kept that ballot, though.
you guys should have SEEN who all ran for that seat!
Ummmm......TEAM CAROLINE!
All right--what're y'all two talking about?
(DN and Amber)
I wish I had more time to comment on this, because it saddens me in a way.
Let me put it this way: giving me a shot to do your open-heart surgery, or fix your car, would shake things up some. Would you sign up for that plan? Then why do you want to hand one of the 100 jobs in the Senate -- jobs that involve making decisions that can make you richer or poorer; that can involuntarily take your children to foreign lands to be killed; that can change the face of our country, its wild spaces, and its future -- and hand them to someone with no real experience in the political arena?
I'm not saying that Fran Drescher can't be a good and effective senator. I'm saying that she has yet to demonstrate any talent, skill, insight, or other tangible thing on which I can base a judgment as to her political or decisionmaking ability. Which is why it saddens me to see people say "what the hell, give her a shot, could be worse". Caroline Kennedy at least has experience in politics and politically-related areas. She's a Harvard (BA) and Columbia (JD) grad, and a licensed attorney. Her professional background is mainly in philanthropy, specifically education, and has required her to work closely with the NYC government, among other things. Yes, she probably wouldn't be floating around as a potential senate appointee if she wasn't JFK's daughter. But Fran Drescher wouldn't have an ice cube's chance in hell of being a senator if she wasn't The Nanny... (a) How is that different, and (b) Wouldn't you prefer the one whose at least demonstrated some level of ability in the skillset needed to perform the senatorial job?
This is America, so you all have an unfettered right to believe whatever you choose. But it's sad that we, as a nation, have fallen so far that we don't appear to even want to hold our elected officials to any sort of standard. We just want "someone different", even if that someone is such a novice to politics that they'd be 100,000 times more likely to be swayed by the lobbyists' ear-whispering.
Peace, out.
I don't care one way or the other.
i think people just dont put the thought into how much power the senate and house have. It still seems like a harmless local position to many people.
no offense to anyone here, but this is how we end up with incompetent people running things and helping drive the economy into the ground - either they don't care or they don't put much thought into it. these are important positions. if you aren't going to be responsible voters you remove your right to bitch about the state of the country.
and kristen - i don't mean you, because you didn't state why you don't care. could be you don't care because you're not a New Yorker, a valid 'don't care'.
I'm from the forgotten part of New York State, which is any place above New York City. While she can't be any worse than Hillary, I doubt she could serve the needs of the entire state. I wouldn't be totally against the idea, but I would want to hear about her plans.
Being a guest on "Larry King" does not make her qualified. Hell no.
like her or not, when hillary became senator it was by popular vote and she had worked on things that led to legislation. what has fran done?
well she has a lot to teach on womens issues and such as a rape survivor. anyone who can live though what she went through can have my no counted vote to help women's issues. especially a women in the ol boys club.
jax, I believe she also went through ovarian cancer, and I read that her ex husband turned out to be gay.
So I think all in all even if she doesn't have political experience, she has life experiences which should count for something.
Not that it means she is qualified or not, but she does bring something with her.
selena: we're talking about this.
Daver - you make some great points. Points that I'm sure will be discussed in great detail when the governor decides who to appoint.
those terrible experiences would make her a great advocate and activist, not a great legislator. she knows nothing about the law, has no experience in the legal system or poltical arena. i'm positive there are more apt people out there than fran.
dave-
well thought out and well stated!
i do have to agree with molly and adrian (sorry, LUTEFISK), while i made a toss off statement, fran does women's issues in mind, and she does know how to speak to an audience. nothing wrong with that. and yes, caroline has the education and life-long experience in politics, but that doesn't guarantee she's the right one for the job. she's lived the privileged life and can't really relate to the masses.
i'm not advocating one over the other, i'm just playing devil's advocate, because i'm REALLY bad at
politics and as a rule never get into a discussion about it at all.
Um, no.
No to Fran, and unless there are better candidates I'd have to choose Caroline K.
A Pimp Named Dave well said. I totally agree with you.
Post a Comment