I also remember when it happened. There was a lot of gossip about Carolyn not wanting him to go into the Senate right then. They had just gotten married and she was having a lot of trouble adjusting to being in the spotlight and their relationship was being strained because of that. She didn't want to become even more of a public figure, which is what would happen if Jr. had become a Senator.
But that's just my memory, sooo...
I think there might be a paywall to the article, so here it is:
"John F. Kennedy Jr. was sought out as a possible candidate for a Senate seat from New York but declined to run even before Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed interest in the race, according to a Senator who spoke with him.
Senator Robert G. Torricelli, the New Jersey Democrat who is chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, said he called Mr. Kennedy after Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan announced last November that he would not seek re-election in 2000.
Senator Torricelli said Mr. Kennedy told him he might be interested later but the timing was not right and he would not seek the seat. This was more than a month before Mrs. Clinton's name emerged as a possibility.
''The speculation that John Kennedy was not a candidate for the U.S. Senate because of Hillary Clinton is not accurate,'' Senator Torricelli said in an interview today.
''John Kennedy was an obvious possible choice,'' said Senator Torricelli, who helps to recruit Senate candidates and raise money for them and who was among the first to mention Mrs. Clinton's name publicly in February. He said he also spoke with Mr. Kennedy's cousin, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer in New York, as well as with Andrew M. Cuomo, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the son of former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo, and with H. Carl McCall, the State Comptroller, but they were cool to the idea.
Of John Kennedy, Mr. Torricelli said: ''He listened carefully, he was attentive to the suggestions, he approached it thoughtfully and seriously. But his response was, it might be an interest he had in his life but the timing wasn't right, that it was something to be approached again in a matter of years.''
Senator Torricelli said he called Mr. Kennedy twice about the matter, but then dropped it because he was clearly not interested. But the Senator also said that Mr. Kennedy appeared to be using his magazine, George, as a vehicle to become more familiar with public policy issues and that this was perhaps a way to lay the groundwork for a future run for office."
OK, while I'm fascinated with the fact that he hadn't thrown his hat in the ring, I realize this is the NYT. I'm off to search for a second source on this.
It might be a better use of your time looking for evidence he ever entered the race in the first place.
You could start with the DNC records concerning that election. It's an official process to enter as a candidate in a political party. And they keep records of that.
Well, perhaps I could find some random person on Twitter who just says it and post that for you.
That seems to work well enough as evidence here.
Do you think the Kennedy family, one of the most prestigious and powerful families in the US wouldn't have made it known that this NYT article was lying about JFK Jr not running for Senate if he had been?
You seem upset that a researcher on a research board would be inclined to research a topic you posted evidence for from a known source of disinformation.
I'm not upset about that at all. But considering this is supposed to be a research board, perhaps we should have a higher standard of evidence than randos on Twitter just claiming something and it being taken as the truth?
Why is it that people are so ready to believe something just because a Twitter post is linked here? This is not the first time I've seen this happen. Or even the 50th.
My point was that what people deem as acceptable sources varies wildly here. Anonymous, badly pieced together video found on Twitter is enough to convince someone, while a DSCC official making a statement in a top newspaper is met with doubt.
And yes, I know it's the NYT, and most people here think they're liars....until the NYT says something they like, and only then are they deemed credible. But only for that one article.
If you're looking for more evidence, I'd just suggest that it's easier to prove a positive than it is to prove a negative. By this, I mean that it would be easier to find evidence that he was running for Senate before he died, if that was true.
To run for Senate as a Democrat, he would have to jump through all kinds of hoops with the DNC. They keep records of that sort of thing. So you can look there.
Or even do a web search for any news of him announcing he was going to run. That would 100% have made the news at the time, if it had happened.
BTW - Funny what you say about the DNC. They are doing that exact thing to RFK right now. He probably has to go independant or onto Trumps ticket.
I still think Hillary is evil of course. lol
And in a way, I do think JRK Jr. was destined for President someday and was a problem to those who took out his father.
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/20/us/kennedy-s-plane-lost-politics-kennedy-rebuffed-overture-senate-race-torricelli.html
I also remember when it happened. There was a lot of gossip about Carolyn not wanting him to go into the Senate right then. They had just gotten married and she was having a lot of trouble adjusting to being in the spotlight and their relationship was being strained because of that. She didn't want to become even more of a public figure, which is what would happen if Jr. had become a Senator.
But that's just my memory, sooo...
I think there might be a paywall to the article, so here it is:
"John F. Kennedy Jr. was sought out as a possible candidate for a Senate seat from New York but declined to run even before Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed interest in the race, according to a Senator who spoke with him.
Senator Robert G. Torricelli, the New Jersey Democrat who is chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, said he called Mr. Kennedy after Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan announced last November that he would not seek re-election in 2000.
Senator Torricelli said Mr. Kennedy told him he might be interested later but the timing was not right and he would not seek the seat. This was more than a month before Mrs. Clinton's name emerged as a possibility.
''The speculation that John Kennedy was not a candidate for the U.S. Senate because of Hillary Clinton is not accurate,'' Senator Torricelli said in an interview today.
''John Kennedy was an obvious possible choice,'' said Senator Torricelli, who helps to recruit Senate candidates and raise money for them and who was among the first to mention Mrs. Clinton's name publicly in February. He said he also spoke with Mr. Kennedy's cousin, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer in New York, as well as with Andrew M. Cuomo, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the son of former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo, and with H. Carl McCall, the State Comptroller, but they were cool to the idea.
Of John Kennedy, Mr. Torricelli said: ''He listened carefully, he was attentive to the suggestions, he approached it thoughtfully and seriously. But his response was, it might be an interest he had in his life but the timing wasn't right, that it was something to be approached again in a matter of years.''
Senator Torricelli said he called Mr. Kennedy twice about the matter, but then dropped it because he was clearly not interested. But the Senator also said that Mr. Kennedy appeared to be using his magazine, George, as a vehicle to become more familiar with public policy issues and that this was perhaps a way to lay the groundwork for a future run for office."
OK, while I'm fascinated with the fact that he hadn't thrown his hat in the ring, I realize this is the NYT. I'm off to search for a second source on this.
It might be a better use of your time looking for evidence he ever entered the race in the first place.
You could start with the DNC records concerning that election. It's an official process to enter as a candidate in a political party. And they keep records of that.
Much, much simpler is Google news lets you do searches for specific times. Super helpful for research.
So you can search for news articles from back then with out getting flooded with search results from now
Here's what That Senate race looked like
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/keyraces2000/stories/lowey030299.htm
https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/25/lowey.hillary/
A Democrat Exits for the Undeclared Clinton
This is a great tip! Thanks so much for sharing it.
Well, perhaps I could find some random person on Twitter who just says it and post that for you.
That seems to work well enough as evidence here.
Do you think the Kennedy family, one of the most prestigious and powerful families in the US wouldn't have made it known that this NYT article was lying about JFK Jr not running for Senate if he had been?
You seem upset that a researcher on a research board would be inclined to research a topic you posted evidence for from a known source of disinformation.
Calm down, fren. The truth will out.
I'm not upset about that at all. But considering this is supposed to be a research board, perhaps we should have a higher standard of evidence than randos on Twitter just claiming something and it being taken as the truth?
Why is it that people are so ready to believe something just because a Twitter post is linked here? This is not the first time I've seen this happen. Or even the 50th.
My point was that what people deem as acceptable sources varies wildly here. Anonymous, badly pieced together video found on Twitter is enough to convince someone, while a DSCC official making a statement in a top newspaper is met with doubt.
And yes, I know it's the NYT, and most people here think they're liars....until the NYT says something they like, and only then are they deemed credible. But only for that one article.
It's ridiculous.
Thx. A bit shocking as it is a common thing discussed. I will look for more on this. Thx again.
You're welcome.
If you're looking for more evidence, I'd just suggest that it's easier to prove a positive than it is to prove a negative. By this, I mean that it would be easier to find evidence that he was running for Senate before he died, if that was true.
To run for Senate as a Democrat, he would have to jump through all kinds of hoops with the DNC. They keep records of that sort of thing. So you can look there.
Or even do a web search for any news of him announcing he was going to run. That would 100% have made the news at the time, if it had happened.
Appreciated again and point taken.
BTW - Funny what you say about the DNC. They are doing that exact thing to RFK right now. He probably has to go independant or onto Trumps ticket.
I still think Hillary is evil of course. lol And in a way, I do think JRK Jr. was destined for President someday and was a problem to those who took out his father.