Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Caroline vs. Bush

We tax all the others and pass the revenue on to you

Downthread, Anonymous reminds us that George W. Bush was a little short of credentials himself when he ran for GovTex in 1994. Anonymous commented on my April 15 observation regarding Caroline K's socialite life of entitlement having confused her into believing she could be a senator. No, wait, an ambassador... to the Vatican... no, wait, maybe somewhere else. Oh, never mind. And why those high offices? How about, because there's no higher office in America that she can be given or sold.

True, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and we note the convenient gender reference there. And although we admit to certain political biases this is not a political party-slanted platform. We just call 'em like we see 'em and that's how we see CK, a preening political hack-in-waiting. Waiting for, say, Uncle Teddy's seat to open up.

Anonymous conveniently ignores the one big difference between CK's entitlement attitude and George Bush's own life of smug entitlement. The difference is that Bush actually had to win both a nomination and an election before he could call himself a governor. He had to win a second election before he could call himself a two-termer.

Caroline doesn't want to bother with all those pedantic little details. She wants her new friend the governor or her new friend the president to just give her what she wants, a senate seat or an ambassadorship. Elections are only for little people like us. "Come ON!" Stamping her little feet and squinting her eyes, "Don't you guys know who my father was?"

In an election, you have to put up your accomplishments and agenda and intangibles against the other guy's and let a universe of voters decide whom they want, or maybe just whom they hate the least. Bush did that, CK doesn't want to. BIG difference. Even her role model, the anachronistic Uncle Teddy, had to be elected by a willing constituency. His re-elections cast at least as much doubt on the sanity of Massachusettians (c'mon, what are they really called?) as Bush's do on Texans'.

Anonymous, you're welcome to pitch in here any time you want, and the more often, the better. Personally, you'll make it more interesting for me if you have and share a supportable argument or opinion or at least compare apples to apples or ask interesting questions. You didn't do that this time and you cast some doubt on your honest intent.

Our constitution protects aliens, drunks and U. S. senators.
Will Rogers


  1. I think anonymous posted what seemed like a reasonable response. I felt a little defensive of Caroline too. I'm more inclined to think that she wants to serve or at least is willing to serve and people are pushing her to do that. Of course because of her name. DUH!! What's the point of being part of such a painful dynasty if it doesn't get you a few perks?? The fact that you gave a well reasoned response to anon's challenge doesn't mean it wasn't a good challenge. What's the purpose of blogging if it doesn't generate interesting exchanges and differing points of view? Otherwise it's just a vent. This makes it much more fun to follow. Just my two cents worth.

  2. Chuck, I think I did provide a supportable argument, that Bush had similar qualifications, i.e. nothing significant beyond name recognition, BEFORE he ran for governor of Texas. I didn't overlook the fact that he was elected, that is obvious. The similarity I tried to capture is both of them felt/feel qualified for a job where their main qualification is their family heritage. Trust me I'm no fan of Caroline Kennedy and if she wants the job it is best to let the people to decide.