The Kennedy Hypocrisy

In a 1962 special senate election in Massachusetts the state’s attorney general, Edward McCormack, said his opponent:

“Teddy, if your name was Edward Moore instead of Edward Moore Kennedy, your candidacy would be a farce.”

Today we see the same thing.

After spending months trashing Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as being unqualified to serve in high federal office and raising questions about her devotion to her family, Democratic fanboys and girls are squealing with glee about Caroline Kennedy potentially replacing Hillary Clinton as the US Senator from NY.

For years, Caroline Bouvier Kennedy Schlossberg was praised for staying above politics.  Now she is so ready to leap in at the top of the ladder that she has dropped her married name…sort of a reverse Hillary…in a tawdry grab for power that her grandfather Kennedy surely would have approved.

Take away the name and the estimated $100 million fortune, and there are dozens of New Yorkers who are as or more qualified than Caroline.  The criticisms leveled at Sarah Palin apply in many ways to Ms. Schlossberg, and she should not be raised to the US Senate effectively as tribute to the sacrifices of her family.

To paraphrase a previous Senate campaign, “Caroline, if your name was Caroline Bouvier instead of Caroline Bouvier Kennedy, your candidacy would be a farce.” 

The Democratic “Obamalot” is supposed to be all about fairness and reward for achievement instead of insider manipulation and reputation…let’s see when and if that actually occurs.


8 thoughts on “The Kennedy Hypocrisy

  1. I’m going to have to agree with you here. Caroline might be fine at what she does, but hasn’t shown me that she deserves a fast track into the Senate.

  2. Absolutely…there are differences, but there are similarities, which brother Kelly and his ilk are not going to note. You note how he cites two law review articles, but that is it. I imagine I could find more than a handful of folks in New York state who fit that bill. He talks about “a lifetime of public service”, but just as folks talked of Obama being a “community organizer” and not giving specifics, Mr. Kelly just sort of glides by the specifics. He attempts to glide by the obvious matters of hypocrisy by talking ideology. Now if you don’t like someone’s ideas, not a problem. That is a fine reason to oppose someone. But again, I don’t think there is any lack of qualified folks in NY state who, like Ms. CBKS, are in diametric opposition to Sarah Palin’s positions.

    Of course, the real kicker that folks like Mr. Kelly forget to note (to paraphrase Anne Richards) when they praise Ms. Kenney and slam Ms. Palin is that CBKS was born on third and thinks she hit a triple. Ms. Palin was not a long term great pick for VP, but she has risen from somewhat humble circumstances to become governor of one of the states in this country…a tremendous contrast to CBKS.

    But the bottom line is this…NY is to a great degree the intellectual and financial capital of the USA. You may not agree with their positions, but the academic credentials residing in that city are impressive. Caroline Bouvier Kennedy Schlossberg, were it not for her family name and fotune, is just one of the pack. The Kelly article essentially argues that Ms. Kennedy Schollsberg is more qualified than Ms. Palin to be a Senator. Cool. Now he only needs to deal with the dozens of folks in New York who are more qualified than Ms. Schlossberg.

  3. Bwana,

    Point taken and I could not agree with you more on your last sentence. That being said, let’s just agree or agree to disagree that trying to compare Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg and Sarah Palin is like comparing apples to oranges. Neither are bad but they are both certainly made of a two different consistencies and flavors.

    The fact is that they cannot and should not be compared. As a native New Yorker I can tell you that people there are JUST like everyone else everywhere in the country. The only difference is that growing up in what you yourself called, “the intellectual and financial capital of the USA, we tend to be less myopic and more opened to opposing ideas.

    So why not completely take Sarah Palin, or any suggestion of a comparison between these two very different women, out of the mix completely. This is a New York State problem and it seems to me that Governor Palin has enough of her own problems, in her own state, all the way on the other side of this big country. Enough in fact to keep people talking about her for a long time to come.

  4. Pingback: Quiet Please !!! I have a headache… « Willpen’s World

  5. Actually, a lot of Democrats are not lining up in favor of Caroline Kennedy for New York State’s junior senator. There have been plenty of skeptics at Huffington Post as well as other blogs and mainstream newspaper columns. In fact, one of Kennedy’s harshest critics is Jane Hamsher from Firedoglake and also Huff Post. So, this is hardly a case of all the liberals and Democrats (and they are not necessarily synonymous either) falling into line behind a Kennedy run after having spent months trashing Sarah Palin for her inexperience. So, if you’re looking for a unified party of hypocrites, it’s not there.

    For what it’s worth, I’m an agnostic on the issue. Although New York is my birthplace, I’m probably more interest in Virginia commonwealth politics than I am in New York’s local issues.

    Having said that, there is a vast difference between running for Vice President and New York’s junior senator. If John McCain had won the presidency, Sarah Palin would have been a heartbeat away from the highest office in the land in one of this nation’s most troubling periods, with a tanking economy and the world exploding in various wars.

    Caroline Kennedy, should she actually ever win office, would be one of a hundred senators. And one with little seniority. Her inexperience would cause far less danger or damage than that of a vice president with similar lack of experience.

    That said, yeah, New York probably could do better. And if Kennedy really wants to be active in politics, maybe she could pay some dues and start, at least, as a representative in Congress for a couple of years to prove her abilities.

  6. As noted above, running for VP is a far different thing than running for the Senate. My point is not about the experience needed for each position but that (1) Experience is a consideration, and the same folks who yelled about Palin’s lack of experience don’t hesitate to gloss over the same consideration for CBKS, and (2) that the same folks who yelled that Palin couldn’t assume high office and still be a good mother don’t hesitate to gloss over the same consideration for CBKS.

    I don’t believe I suggested that all Democrats are behind Ms. Schlossberg-excuse me, Ms Kennedy-but that there is rampant hypocrisy in the way her candidacy is being suggested, supported, and pushed…right up to her sudden desire to be known as “Kennedy” and not “Schlossberg”.

    There is no need to search for a unified party of hypocrites, I just point out what is laying there in plain sight. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised about celebrity politics…after all, this is the state party that tabbed Hillary Clinton to be their Senate nominee and a state that selected her when she had lived in the state for less than a year.

    Nonetheless, while the positions in question are not the same, the considerations of what qualities are needed to fill them have similiarities…and, as so often is the case these days, what is considered a terrible thing when the other guys do it is somehow OK when your folks do it…a condition that exists on both sides of the aisle.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s