
Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Time for a little political sacrilege.
In spite of how it might seem sometimes, I'm politically independent - I tend to support specific policies (and to a very limited degree individuals), not this or that party.
And one thing I have long objected to has been the existence of an 'American Royalty' within our political system. Here in Missouri we just got rid of one Republican governor who is the son of a long-term US Congresscritter. On the Democratic side, the Carnahan family has held or currently holds several important political offices.
Nationally, it's even worse. Look at the Bush family, and the debacle of having W rise to power almost solely on the power of his father & family. Al Gore is the son of a Senator. The Clintons have long operated as a family unit, sharing power and position.
And then there are the Kennedys.
Now, Ted Kennedy was loved on the left. All last week we got to hear and read (and see, for those who watch television) plenty of discussion about his place in American history, how he matured into a true leader of the Democratic party, how he managed to rise above the scandals and substance abuse of his youth, how he came to represent much of what was good about American politics, with his ability to work with members of the other side of the political divide, et fucking cetera.
Yeah, he was an accomplished pol. But I have a really hard time coming to the conclusion that we as a nation are better off for his having been in office for 40 years, gaining office purely because of the power of his family and his relationship to his two sainted brothers. Furthermore, I'll say that his affirmation of the Kennedy name as a political power unto itself was inherently bad for our nation, along with all the other political royalty we have now and have had to suffer with in our history.
There, a bit of political sacrilege. But I had to say this, in reaction to something which made a minor flap this weekend: the horror of Jenna Hager (nee Bush, one of W's twin daughters) being hired by NBC as a reporter for their Today show.
NEW YORK -- NBC's "Today" show has hired someone with White House experience as a new correspondent - former first daughter Jenna Hager.
The daughter of former President George W. Bush will contribute stories about once a month on issues like education to television's top-rated morning news show, said Jim Bell, its executive producer.
Hager, a 27-year-old teacher in Baltimore, said she has always wanted to be a teacher and a writer, and has already authored two books. But she was intrigued by the idea of getting into television when Bell contacted her.
"It wasn't something I'd always dreamed to do," she said. "But I think one of the most important things in life is to be open-minded and to be open-minded for change."
And from Glenn Greenwald:
It's time to embrace American royalty
We're obviously hungry to live with royal and aristocratic families so we should really just go ahead and formally declare it:
Bush daughter Jenna Hager becomes 'Today' reporter
NBC's "Today" show has hired someone with White House experience as a new correspondent — former first daughter Jenna Hager, the daughter of former President George W. Bush. . . . She "just sort of popped to us as a natural presence, comfortable" on the air, [Executive Producer Jim] Bell said. Hager will work out of NBC's Washington bureau.
They should convene a panel for the next Meet the Press with Jenna Bush Hager, Luke Russert, Liz Cheney, Megan McCain and Jonah Goldberg, and they should have Chris Wallace moderate it. They can all bash affirmative action and talk about how vitally important it is that the U.S. remain a Great Meritocracy because it's really unfair for anything other than merit to determine position and employment. They can interview Lisa Murkowski, Evan Bayh, Jeb Bush, Bob Casey, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Dan Lipinksi, and Harold Ford, Jr. about personal responsibility and the virtues of self-sufficiency. Bill Kristol, Tucker Carlson and John Podhoretz can provide moving commentary on how America is so special because all that matters is merit, not who you know or where you come from. There's a virtually endless list of politically well-placed guests equally qualified to talk on such matters.
It's a fair point, but Greenwald doesn't then make the connection to the Kennedys. Gee, I wonder why that is?
Jim Downey
(Cross posted to my blog. Oh, a personal note: I'll be on vacation for the next week, so don't expect to hear much from me after Tuesday.)

















Dynasties
For me this was one reason (though not the only one) why it was important that Hillary Clinton not become the Democratic nominee in 2008, especially following on Bush I/Bush II. Maybe our country can start turning away from these de facto dynasties now. Then again, some people want Jeb Bush to run...
I think that this topic can
I think that this topic can be debated endlessly, as each man his own opinion on this topic. Nevertheless, I was very interested to hear your point of view.
Just Curious
Maureen, I get emails something like yours all the time on my blog -- "Great post. I was glad to hear your opinion on this subject." -- and they seem to be some sort of low-level spam. I mean, it looks like a comment, but it also looks automated, not addressing the subject in any detail.
I hope you're not offended but ... Are you a real person?
No.
This is not a real person.
This is a sophisticated software robot. It can register itself as a user on a Drupal-powered site, then string together a coherent-sounding post referencing generalities (and sometimes spicing things up with a specific, context-driven nugget extracted from the OP and the replies that already exist.) This is all just to get the URL behind "Maureen's" username listed on the blog and indexed by Google's crawler-robot the next time it stops by. Hover your mouse over "Maureen's" username to see the URL, and if you want, get your nails done. :)
Meh. You're conflating.
There are two issues.
1. "American royalty"
2. Quality of the man and his work
You do no good by smashing them together.
Yes: "American royalty" is a bad idea.
As to Ted Kennedy:
Do a little research. Read a list of his legislative accomplishments. Watch him address the Senate about the minimum wage on YouTube. You should have a really easy time coming to the conclusion that we as a nation are better off for his having been in office for 40 years. The annoying fact that he was elected by luck of last name is trivial by comparison.
For that matter, Bobby would've been a hell of a good president, and wouldn't have bombed Cambodia.
The "American royalty" meme may be an exaggeration. Simple name recognition seems to be worth millions of votes. People might vote for a Kennedy, Bush, or Gore just because they've seen the name before, not because they think the family is some sort of nobility. There is, of course, something deeply disturbing about the idea of one of these dunderheads in a voting booth, thinking
Or rather thee's something deeply disturbing about ten or fifty million people voting that way.
Hope:
I like to think the Bush name is forever poisoned by the dunderhead. No matter how good they are, I don't want Jeb Bush -- or Jenna -- anywhere near the White House.
Glenn Greenwald did have a
Glenn Greenwald did have a lengthy article last year about dynastic succession in US politics with a possible succession by a Kennedy mentioned at the top. In his case, I would hazard that it is more a connection simply not occurring to him or the appointment of a placeholder senator being too unrelated to the topic about an apparent worship of dynasties by the media, rather than any attempt at spin.
As for myself, a relation to a famous politician would actually be a point against a candidate when I'm voting ...
Boggs
it's not as though appointing kennedy's widow is without precedent. when hale boggs died, lindy was appointed to fill his term until the next election. thereafter it was up to the people to decide. i don't see anything wrong with doing this again. it's not like the lady is a spring chicken who's going to spend another 46 years in office.
I would have a problem with rfk,jr's being appointed, but that's got nothing to do with his being a kennedy and everything to do with his being an anti-vax nutjob.
down here in louisiana, we have another dynasty in the landrieus. i just don't get why the dynasty thing bothers people. i wanted mitch in as nola mayor not because he was a landrieu but because i honestly thought he'd make a good mayor. i just can't see either approving or disapproving of someone because of their last name.
sure, ted rose on his brothers' fame, but once there, he became a great legislator all on his own.
Reasons
Can you give a good reason why a politician's wife should be appointed to replace him other than precedent? If one could make a case that she is qualified, having some set of experience / skills that might warrant it, maybe. But just for the mere fact of being married to said pol for some odd years??
I didn't have much of a problem with Ted
Leaning to the left like I do, his politics and mine were compatible. Where I do have a problem is with the all the talk about another Kennedy taking his seat. God forbid if that whack job RFK Jr. gets in there.
Oh yeah!
Definitely with you on this one! They're touting Ted Kennedy's WIFE to be his replacement in the Senate; after all she supported him behind the scene lo those many years. Sounds perfectly reasonable, right? lol
One can't imagine a 4-star general's wife being touted to lead the U.S. Army, or the wife of a CEO to head a multi-billion dollar international corporation, merely for having been married to him. But somehow the only qualification necessary for the Senate is to have been married to a Senator??
Yeah!
The replacement of a politician by his wife has always baffled me, too. (I can't recall a case where a deceased pol was replaced by her husband, but that may be simply lack of opportunity.) Were my husband to die, I couldn't take over his job; my training is in a different field. How can a spouse be expected to take over the pol's job?
Easy
The spouse can take over because there are no particular qualifications required to be a legislator. Fuck, even Michelle Bachmann is somehow a legislator. You can let your staff do all the work, and you just show up (or don't, as often as not) to push the button to vote the way they tell you.
I suppose part of the idea is that the widow(er) shares their spouse's politics and values, but even that's dubious. Could one replace Arnold Schwarzenegger with Maria Shriver? Or James Carville with Mary Matalin?
Replacing the Guvernator
Easy answer: No.
Arnold Schwarzenegger can only be replaced by Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris could only be replaced by ... Colossus, the Forbin Project.