(This should have the effect of stepping on an ant hill)
Yesterday, we wrote about the increasing desperation in the hate Hillary camp of Republicans and fake “progressives”. The desperation is due to Hillary increasing her poll leads. Nicholas Kristof gave voice to that desperation in yesterday’s New York Times.
Kristof declared that if Hillary is elected after Bush we are in danger of having a dynasty established in our presidency. Bob Somersby, an Edwards supporter and publisher of Dailyhowler.com, incomparably responded that Kristof’s argument appeared to be - don’t vote for Hillary in 2008 because we (allegedly) voted for Bush in 2000.
The dynasty argument is silly on its face, but it is actually much more pernicious and sophisticated than it appears to be. The thrust of the argument as articulated by Kristoff, and echoed by the nutroots, is that if Hillary is elected for 2 terms we will then have “seven consecutive presidential terms” in which the White House “would have been in the hands of just two families.” Kristoff pleaded “If we really want a presidential dynasty, then that’s fine. But we shouldn’t back into it without discussion — for the second time in eight years.”
The origin of this “dynasty” argument, as in most things anti-Clinton, has its roots in Republican strategy. In 1994 Democrats had controlled Congress for 40 years. Newt Gingrich was determined to get as many Republicans elected as possible and end the 40 wise years in which Americans kept Republicans from controlling congress. Newt Gingrich and his rabid band of Arriana Huffingtons knew that if they were to take over the congress they needed a gimmick to get them to that majority. Newt and his Republicans came up with a truly novel idea: get rid of experienced lawmakers. They called their gimmick “term limits”.
The idea behind term limits was to blast loose as many Democrats from political office as possible and break the 40 year Democratic grip on power. Newt and the Republicans, aided by Big Media screamed for “new blood” as the solution to the nation’s problems. The aim of course was never true reform nor bringing in outsiders. The aim was Republican control of congress and the new blood was to be new Republican blood.
The Republicans in 1994 were successful. They took over the congress. Since then Republicans abandoned the call for term limits. Most of the Republicans who promised to leave office after 2 terms in office broke that pledge after they were elected. The call for term limits was hypocrisy for political advantage.
Since 1994, the Republicans, led by their “C” student George W. Bush have waged a war on experience and intelligence - for political advantage. In 1994 they won the congress by attacking experience. Bush populated his government with horse aficionado “Brownie” and the Department of Justice with graduates from religious law “schools”.
The Republican attack on experienced lawmakers for their own political advantage is now a tool employed by fake “progressives” for their political and financial advantage.
Many of the fake “progressives” picking up pitchforks to attack Hillary obviously support other candidates. The big blog owners have financial stakes in bringing Hillary down and in increasing their influence in politics. Like the 1994 Republicans screaming for “new blood” these fake progressives are interested in promoting their political power over the interests of Democratic voters.
Does the Hillary “dynasty” argument have any validity?
We do find it interesting that now that the first likely woman president is running that Republicans and fake “progressives” have discovered the evils of dynasty. Are there any functioning dynasties in America today and should they stay in business? Should we throw out these dynasties?
Lets start with the Salazar brothers in Colorodo (Colorado Democratic Senator Ken Salazar and his brother Democratic Congressman John Salazar). Should we get rid of them in the name of anti-dynasty.
What about the Kennedys? The Kennedy’s have elected a President, several senators, congressional representatives, state office holders and many others. Today, we learned that a Kennedy might challenge Congressman Chris Shays in Connecticut. Should we throw the Kennedys out in the name of anti-dynasty?
What about Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller? The Rockefellers have elected senators and vice presidents. Off with Jay Rockefeller’s head in the name of anti-dynasty?
What about former Vice President Al Gore? He was, like his father, the Senator from Tennessee. How did Gore become VP? It surely didn’t have anything at all to do with his father the senator? Al Gore entered the presidential sweepstakes in the 1980s. Now of course the tears flow and anticipation fills the airwaves, with “why won’t Gore run?” No dynasty talk there. No, its Run Gore Run and please ignore our hypocrisy. Should we ban Al Gore from running for President in the name of anti-dynasty?
What about the Cuomos (former NY Governor Mario Cuomo and his son Attorney General Andrew Cuomo)? Should we ban the Cuomo’s from public life in the name of anti-dynasty?
What about the dynastic Udall family? The great Morris K. Udall was the congressman from Arizona. He inherited his congressional seat from his father Stewart Lee Udall in 1961. Out with Stewart and immediately in with Morris. Congressman Tom Udall is still in office. And Congressman Mark Udall is running for the Senate from Colorado. Should we ban the distinguished Udall family in the name of anti-dynasty?
Of course none of these good Democrats should be excluded from our political life. The complaints against Hillary are a political bill of attainer applicable only to her. Hypocrites.
In his confused column, Kristof’s wife counterargues “that if our aim is to open up the political system and broaden opportunity, then what better way than to elect a woman?” Kristof’s replys that “the election of a first woman loses much of its significance if she has enjoyed a political shortcut as a predecessor’s wife”. Kristof seems to be unaware that Hillary has served a full term in the senate and won reelection on her own. No, for Kristof the little lady must be discredited as only the unaccomplished wife of the man even though her life of activism goes back to before her days at Yale.
Instead of asking why the presidency has been restricted to white males of healthy incomes Kristof and fake “progressives” denigrate Hillary. Instead of asking why the female majority has never been represented at the highest level they now raise the mud bedecked argument that Hillary was merely married to a president. Why only males Kristof? Why has the political system never produced a woman president? Is there a barrier to women becoming president? These questions do not cross these fake “progressives” minds. They belittle Hillary’s accomplishments and imply she would be nowhere without her husband.
Is marriage to a political leader now the new barrier to prevent women from breaking the glass ceiling? Is this the newly minted invention to block access to the political process? As women have progressed the excuses against participation have increased. When women were finally allowed to work in offices and as teachers then those became “their” jobs. Recall when it was controversial to have women police or firefighters. Firefighters were in a life or death business and there was no room for political correctness or diversity unlike other “women” jobs. There are always great new reasons for prejudice and exclusion.
Instead of asking what it is about the political system that has excluded women from the presidency the question becomes “oh we have no problem with a woman as president it’s just that this one has the experience of having been married to an ex president.”
Meanwhile, the tears flow because poor Jeb Bush can’t run for president because his dumb brother has ruined it for him.
The “dynasty” argument of course is at best inarticulate. A dynasty must have a sequence of some consequence and some durability. Bill Clinton was the first member of his family to win elective office. Hillary Clinton was the second member of the family to win elective office. That is it for the Clinton “dynasty” - 2 officeholders. A true dynasty is the Bush family. The Bush family had Senator Prescott Bush, Congressman George H. Bush, Vice President George H. Bush, President George H. Bush, Governor George W. Bush, Governor Jeb Bush, and, President George W. Bush.
We do agree that American life would be better without the Bush family. However, Americans disagree with us and keep electing them and the courts at least once selected them. No Clinton ran for president in 2000 nor in 2004. Democrats were not inaugurated the following January. Should we hold the Clintons to blame for the fact that they seem to be the only ones capable of defeating Republicans in general and Bushes in particular? This is the central silliness at the base of the “dynasty” nonsense.
Since the Bushes won’t go away on their own, we need the Clintons to get rid of them for us.
http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=46
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
