Posted on 08/17/2010 7:27:44 AM PDT by Brittany Pounders
What’s with this entitlement mentality concerning family dynasties in American politics? We had the Bush’s, then the Clinton’s, then the Bush’s, then almost again the Clinton’s and now with the Presidential campaigns and elections around the corner we are hearing rumors of a possible run by Jeb Bush and once again, Hillary Clinton. It’s as if these people feel that they were bred for one intent and purpose, to rule this country. And, of course, who could forget the Kennedy’s? Now we are hearing chants from a few on the left for Ted Kennedy’s wife, Victoria Kennedy, to run for “Ted Kennedy’s old seat,” currently being held and occupied by Senator Scott Brown.
Politics has become the new family business, just as it was in the days of nobility with Kings and Lords handing down their titles and land to their sons. Are there really no other Democrats in Washington capable of running a successful campaign, representing their party. Was 47 years of Ted Kennedy simply not enough for this country? Why must we continue to recycle the same old narcissistic family names?
The Irish Central writes:
Prominent Democrats in Washington and Massachusetts are promoting Edward M. Kennedy’s widow as the best shot for winning back his Senate seat. She passed up the chance to run for the seat last year. Now, nearly a year after her husband’s death, Victoria Reggie Kennedy has been, in many ways, already acting the part of a candidate by campaigning for other politicians and appearing at events nationwide, despite her playing down the idea of her challenging Sen. Scott Brown (R) for the seat in 2012. She passed up the chance to run for the seat last year.
Some party leaders have been quietly promoting her candidacy, including Sen. Charles E. Schumer(D-N.Y.), according to some sources.
Up until now, Vicki Kennedy has been coy, stating that she isn’t particularly interested. But, political influence runs deep, so it won’t be a surprise if we hear an announcement in the near future that she is throwing her hat into the ring on behalf of her late husband in an attempt to carry on the Kennedy fiefdom. I can already see the television ads, pulling at the heartstrings of Massachusetts in an attempt to bring out the sympathy vote while doing all they can to avoid answering the qualification questions. Sure, we keep hearing that she was born into a powerful political family as well and that she’s a smart woman… but is that, combined with the Kennedy name, enough to qualify you to a Senate seat?
With the election of Scott Brown, I think Massachusetts is letting it be known that the Kennedy name doesn’t hold the same luster that it once did. In fact, I think that the election of Brown should have been quite sufficient in sending a very large message to the Kennedy family that they’ve had enough of the “magic”.
Nevertheless, I’m curious that if her last name were Smith, if she would still be such a “viable and qualified candidate?”
*For sources and hyperlinks, please visit us at www.LibertyJuice.com*
It’s just good business sense. As you pour bribes into one family line, you’re building up political vig and you can spend less and less as time goes by.
There is one thing worse than dynasties and that is puppets (Obummer) owned by wannabe dynasties (Soros).
I hate it as well. I’d love to see the end of political dynasties in America until Piper Palin can run.
The fact is getting elected nationally is tuff, it takes a team of experts in various obscure fields to pull it off successfully. You also need a network of big money donors to pay for everything. People that have gone through the process know who to hire, what needs to be done and when, and most importantly who to ask for money to pay for it all. This knowledge is not taught ANYWHERE thus making it very valuable. Once someone has been taught how the system works they can pass on this information to their relatives.
Dont need Rory Reid, Ben Quayle, Udall brothers, John Sanchez, Lorretta Sanchez, etc. etc. etc.
Trisha Nixon Eisenhower?
Can you say, “name recognition”?
A well-known name is worth beaucoup votes, simply because of the appalling ignorance of a huge portion of the electorate (thank you, Motor Voter laws).
This is the real basis for these “political dynasties”
I’d much rather have another Bush in the White House than the buffoon we have now.
Oh please, Brittany. What “sense of entitlement”? So someone who grew up around politics decides he also wants to make a go of it. So what? How is that a sense of entitlement?
And do these people get elected — if they do — all by themselves? Do you feel so very forced to vote for them because of their family name?
Get a grip.
If someone is the best person available for the job, then shouldn’t you vote for him, regardless of his name or family connections? Would you really have been so stupid as to refuse to vote for Jeb Bush, had he been running in 2008, just because of his name — all the while you were opening the gates wide for the Progressives to take over our entire government?
I’m sorry, but this is one of the more stupid debates that comes up every year. Family members of politicians, just like family members of actors, musicians, doctors, lawyers, plumbers and electricians, often follow each other into the same profession. SO WHAT. If you don’t want to hire the person, don’t. But it’s pretty myopic to rule out a person ahead of time just because of his name or family.
Did Michael Douglas earn his acting chops or did he cruise on a “sense of entitlement” from dear old dad, Kirk Douglas? Sure the family being in the business gives one some possible entrees, connections and valuable experience and insight. But few think it “entitles” them to a career, and fewer still achieve success in that career without earning it on their own.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.