Sweet Caroline And The Life Of Entitlement
Dec 26, 2008 Political
Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the late President by the same last name, has decided that she wants to be the next junior Senator from New York. Caroline wants to replace Hillary Clinton who will resign the seat to serve as Secretary of State (unless her confirmation hearing turns ugly and she withdraws). Caroline is on a tour of the state to introduce herself to the public and to make it clear that she should be selected by Governor Paterson to fill what is left of Clinton’s term.
The major problem is that Kennedy thinks she is entitled to the seat because of her last name. She has absolutely no political experience, she has been selectively involved in politics, and she has not voted in about half of the elections in about the last 20 years. The reality is that she has had little to do with politics and is now interested in the seat in New York because she is a Kennedy and thinks that in and of itself entitles her to the seat.
The amazing thing is that there are people who are pushing for her to get the seat. There are Democrats who think she would do a wonderful job as a Senator despite the fact that she has absolutely NO political experience. These would be the same Democrats who said that Sarah Palin lacked any experience and should not be a heartbeat way from the presidency. Of course, the same people making that claim ignored Obama’s lack of experience and made him the heartbeat.
So logical thought is not something we should expect from the left. But I want to be clear. The same group of feminists who say that women can do anything and deserve all the chances that men have were the ones jumping all over Palin. Despite the fact that she has more executive experience than all three of the other people who competed, they pinned her as the one without experience. I will say she was the least experienced at handling the media but she knows how to lead. John McCain knew how to do that at one time in his life.
Obama and Biden could not lead a group of people out of a burning building.
Anyway, Kennedy is nowhere near as qualified as Palin to hold office but the Democrats who are pushing for her to get the seat are ignoring their blatant double standard and holding Kennedy up as a model for the job even though she has zero, zip, nada, nyet, experience.
I understand that the qualifications for each job are different where Kennedy would be one of one hundred and Palin would have been one heartbeat away. The Palin argument was moot because Obama had less experience and fewer qualifications but they made it stick anyway. The point is, if the left is worried about qualified people then they should worry about them across the board.
Kennedy should stick to her philanthropic endeavors and leave politics to people better qualified.
Besides, she is doing much more for society in her current activities and this country can use more philanthropists and fewer politicians.
Caroline, I agree with very little of your political beliefs but that is of little consequence to me. I think you are better suited for the work you are doing now and that you serve the greater good right from where you are.
You appear to be well respected and admired. Don’t ruin that by whoring yourself out for a seat you have no experience to hold. People will resent that sense of entitlement.
I view that seat as one of entitlement in that the people of New York are entitled to have someone with experience representing them in the Senate.
Caroline Kennedy is not that person.
Source:
Newsmax
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Tags: caroline kennedy, entitlement, patterson, senate seat
Vote Obama or You’re a Racist
Jul 18, 2008 Political
The idea that Obama’s ascent to the nomination is related to redemption is not new nor is the idea that if one does not vote for him then that person is a racist. Jesse Jackson called this campaign a redemptive one (as if affirmative action in the presidency redeems anything) and the claim that those who do not vote for Obama are racists has been floating around since about the West Virginia primaries. Now it will begin full force and those who want Obama to win will stop at nothing, including stirring “white guilt”, in order to get him elected. The Gateway Pundit and the Prairie Pundit both report on New York Governor David Patterson’s speech to the NAACP where he makes that very claim:
“Can America reject the crucible of race that has dictated and pervaded all of our history to embrace an African American man who has the right polices for the next decade in this country? Can America overlook its past practices that were so grave that in1820 the great Scottish Whig, Sydney Smith, writing in the Edinburgh Review, said of America: ‘How can they protest the tyrannies of Europe when they torture and brutalize one-sixth of its population?’ How can America get past this and elect an African-American president of the United States?” Mr. Paterson said.
He continued: “Can America go past the crippling way that we’ve shot ourselves in the foot over and over, denying opportunity to people who are bright, to people who are qualified, to people who are able because they didn’t look like us, or they didn’t come from where we came from, or they are from a different gender, or they are from the African continent? Can America push that away and find new leadership? We’ll find out in the next few months what America can do.”
Mr. Paterson, who is New York’s first black governor, also turned the focus on himself, strongly suggesting that people have belittled his governorship not because of the unusual way in which he took office but because of his race.
To Patterson, anyone who does not vote for Obama is continuing the racist ways of our country. We would be crippling ourselves by rejecting Obama even if we don’t agree with anything he says. Patterson believes that if Obama loses it is because people did not like the way he looks. It can’t be the message because Patterson tells us that Obama has the right policies for the next decade.
This, of course, is the problem with liberals. They believe that their message is the correct one so there is no way any thinking person could reject them. Therefore, if you reject Obama you are rejecting him for his color and that makes you a racist. The truth is, not everyone agrees with the message and many of us do not believe it is the correct one for the next decade. His ideas were not the correct ones decades ago when Jimmy Carter came to power and they certainly are not the right ones now.
Patterson goes on to say that he has had a hard time, not because he did nothing to earn his job, but because of his race.
I don’t imagine his admitted drug use and extra marital affair (his and his wife’s) would have anything to do with the way people see him. No, to liberals those messages are right as well.
Get ready folks because the onslaught is coming. A lot of people will be branded racists before this is all over. The Democrats are laying the groundwork early so they can make a lot of people reflect and then feel guilty about the past. Their plan is to tap into enough guilt to get Obama elected.
It won’t work for me. I don’t care what they label me. I will never vote for anyone based on skin color and I will never vote for Obama because he is not what this country needs. I have no guilt and won’t feel badly at all when I vote for someone who is not Obama. If an Obama defeat is a victory for racism, as Patterson says, then I am on the side of victory for racism.
Over 90% of blacks will vote for Obama no matter what because about that percentage votes Democratic anyway. Those who decide not to vote for Obama will be voting against an ideology and not a color regardless of what David Patterson or any other liberal moron says.
I plan on making a redemptive vote. I plan on voting to reject Obama and therefore redeeming America’s slide toward liberalism.