“I was dismayed by my voting record. . . ” Caroline Kennedy

“I was dismayed. . . ”

This is standard political code used when your opponent just inserted a lower appendage into his/her oral cavity and began to chew. This might also be the first time that the “dismayed” person is the one whose actions are the source of the dismay.

“. . . about my voting record.”

Candidates have been dismayed about their opponents’ membership in the KKK, about their opponents’ racist, sexist, and anti-religious statements, and even about the friends their opponents keep. (Rev. Wright, anyone?) Never in American political history has a candidate for one of the 100 most powerful offices in the world been dismayed about herself. Or her failure to vote. I guess voting is not important in our democratic form of government.

It actually gets better. “I came into this thinking I have to work twice as hard as anybody else. I am an unconventional choice.”

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/caroline_kennedy_i_was_dismaye.php

There must be something terribly wrong with the state of New York. Perhaps it is the water they drink, the air they breath, or the fact that they are the home of the biggest Criminal Cabal outside Sicily or Washington DC. I am speaking, of course, of Wall Street, the home of the craven, and the land of the fees. Oh, and bonuses, many, many bonuses, especially when the Cabal has access to US taxpayer dollars to underwrite them.

It is hard to believe that someplace in 47,000 square miles, with 20+ million people, half of whom squeeze into the NYC metro area, that there are no, absolutely no, politicians experienced enough, smart or capable enough to represent that state in the US Senate. Considering that intellectual giants such as John Jay, Robert R. Livingston, and Gouverneur Morris once hailed from that state, the only answer is that New York has been the victim of some wasting disease, one that is passed one to later generations with ever increasing virulence. This genetic mayhem has caused today’s New Yorkers to become dumb, incapable, and without any talent. Heck, they even had to import Hillary Clinton for that seat.

But seriously, Caroline Kennedy? For a SENATE SEAT? Why the hell do we even bother to have elections anymore, when your last name is far more important than having talent, vision, drive, or experience?

Does anyone in their right mind actually believe that in the state the size and economic impotence (sp?) of New York, they are forced to fall back on a bootlegger’s 3d generation spawn, whose sole, major claim to fame is who her daddy was 45 years ago?

I’ve talked candidly to several Caroline supporters, and sadly, their responses were almost identical. The exchanges went something like this:

OK. What public office did she hold, or/and, what is her legislative experience? Outside of her name, what has she done, and what will she do?

A: Don’t you just LOVE those incredibly cute photos of her in the Oval Offices when her daddy was President?

OK, Some people don’t need real legislative experience for the senate. Fine, but what is her view on Turkey’s Kurdish problem, how would she deal with the upcoming war between India and Pakistan, how would she sit on Israel to prevent them from taking advantage of that mess to launch a sneak attack on Iran, and what about Zimbabwe? Where does she stand on that? Oh, yes, and about the economic stimulus package being offered by Obama, how does her experience help her decide whether the future state support should be in the form of loans, grants, or federally directed programs, and what about the issue of fair pay, ie union wages?

A: But her uncle is Ted! and Ted has done so much for us!

Our Federal Voting Rights statutes have been emasculated. Today’s EPA supports polluters. NASA has a bunch of creationists in offices. Oh, and the Neocons have entrenched their own agents deep inside the DOD, CIA, NSA, even the FBI. What special knowledge and insight does she have to deal with national security issues that will demand our Senate’s attention starting on Day #1, ignoring the fact that we face two wars, a broken military, a widespread (and ignored) splintered Al Qaida, oh, and the entire world hates us for our policies, not our freedoms.

A: But she’s a KENNEDY! She’s a SYMBOL!

Fuck symbols. We have a country to fix. We have jerks like Cornyn, Kyl, McConnell, and others already setting traps for our president, not to mention our spineless majority leader.

According to TPM, Congresscritter Gary Ackerman accurately compared Kennedy (as a senatorial choice) to that dim-witted singer, Jennifer Lopez. The Lovely Kennedy’s heir’s response?

“I admire the journey J. Lo has traveled,” said Kennedy. “I’ve been to a school in the Bronx near the house she grew up in and so I actually have a lot of admiration for her and she looks pretty good but in terms of public policy and as we spend our adults lives and I don’t think there is really much we have in common.”

And here I thought Sarah Palin was inept.

230 years ago, we fought, and eventually won, an insurrection, a revolution, an uprising. We were the traitors, the upstarts, the revolutionaries. We were Mao, Che, Lenin, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Paine. We kicked out the hereditary ruling class and replaced it with something called “elections”. We eventually erased slavery, and we gave women the right to vote. We FOUGHT for freedom, making many mistakes on the way. (Except our lovely little Caroline cannot be bothered to vote. How’s that for gratitude?)

Heredity (and taking one’s parent’s last name) alone are pathetic reasons for higher office. Here in Illinois, we’ve suffered from too many piss-poor examples of ineffective children winning their daddies’ offices. Todd Stroger, Lisa Madigan, Richie Daley, and too many others to recite here prove that the second generation does not have the talent, the drive, the ability, nor the intellect of their parents. To give them an inside track simply because of their last name is as foolish as having royalty controlling our “political class.”

Picking little Caroline for the Senate would be a pathetic, foolish, irrational, and emotionally driven move, which means that today’s State of New York is just dumb enough to do it. Shame on New York if that happens. Shame on us for accepting that choice, as well.

5 Responses to "“I was dismayed by my voting record. . . ” Caroline Kennedy"

  1. Jim Shelton  December 29, 2008 at 11:07 am

    Honesty is disappointing, isn’t it. Shame on you for such a pathetic article.

  2. AustinRanter  December 29, 2008 at 1:06 pm

    Rob,

    Your arguments regarding Ms. Kennedy election bid are interesting. I’m way more drawn to the elements of your article that you use to cite examples of voter mentality, which in my opinion is pretty much in sync with a well known fact: sagacity isn’t one of the more notable characteristics of the American electorates.

    Yes, we had a historical event over this past election period that gained the interest of millions who had never really participated in the election process. However, in my opinion, I don’t think that it can be said that the rise in numbers of participants equates to the elevation in the understanding of political and governmental knowledge by the average citizen in America. The measure of our nation’s obtuse understanding government is pretty apparent.

    The electorates reasoning behind Caroline Kennedy’s aspiration for a run at the Senate might well be just another illustration of the average electorate’s overall critical thinking skills, innate behavior of embracing unsubstantiated facts, and a stunted inquisitiveness to find the truth. Or is it?

    Maybe it’s time to break the mold of how we commonly make decisions about they types of individuals that we bring into our government to macro-manage our lives. Unfortunately, over the past eight years public so-called servants have become way more interested in micro-managing our lives…or at least trying to do so.

    But in fairness to the Constitutional process of electing public officials, I guess the most logical next step would be to make inspection of possible political skills that Ms. Kennedy might possess. Then we will have constructed a viable Pros and Cons list to evaluate her qualifications, or lack thereof.

    I would have to believe that Ms. Kennedy has some redeeming qualities that might be beneficial to the seat of the U.S. Senate…that might not even be related to those most connected to politics. And, that in and of itself might not be all bad. However, I would like to see a list of others who might be a consideration for the New York seat. That would offer a comparative group of attributes by each candidate.

  3. Rob Kezelis  December 29, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    I do not know whether she has the skills to be a good senator.
    I DO suggest that her last name alone is not and should not be grounds for her selection.

    Austin, on a related matter, given the behavior of Bush/Cheney, would you agree that an in-depth mental examination might prove useful for each and every presidential candidate? (and VP selection)

  4. AustinRanter  December 30, 2008 at 2:21 pm

    Rob…

    I wished I could believe that in the cases of Bush and Cheney that they would fall under the category of “Mutually Exclusive”, but that’s wishful thinking.

    That is an interesting consideration…to mandate a battery of psychological evaluations for a potential president or VP. But after pondering the idea, I would think it should be applicable to all high level public office seekers.

    How about throwing in a compulsory detailed polygraph session along with the psychological tests?

    Now that I think about it, why not require the same for lawyers, doctors, and mental health professional? Oh, and teachers!

    I guess there could be several questions that come to mind when making considerations for “mental examinations and/or polygraph tests” such as (but not limited to):

    1. What private authority or government auspice would be responsible for conducting such tests?

    2. Who would decide on what types tests (and created by whom) would be selected to provide the most valid psychological profiles and information about an office seeker (or other professionals mentioned above)?

    3. Who would monitor the testing authorities to ensure that the results weren’t tampered with because of some personal or bribing outsider biases?

    4. Could the results of psychological testing and/or polygraphs be legally made public? While there is no direct or specific provision or language in the Constitutional regarding the “right to privacy”, is it possible that there any standing laws that would make such a invasive process an infringement on an office seeker’s “right to privacy” on any reproachful assessments drawn from such tests?

    (edited: To include a few added words in last paragraph to clarify my comment)

  5. mastergame  December 30, 2008 at 12:14 am

    Royalty in America are criminal families such as the Kennedys, the Bronfmans and so many other mob era wealth builders. Ford built engines for Hitler, he send funds to Hitler, Bush’s grandpa laundered money for Hitler and was busted for it.

    I say give her a chance, let her measure up to the standards of other cheaters in the Capitol. Why should she not get a chance to hang with the crew that brought the world down? All these so called experts voted unanimously to create the mess we are in by securitizing and insuring (insurance without cash reserves!) bad mortgages. I am still working on figuring out how come six percent of the total mortgage pool was able to bring down the entire world financial edifice?!

    Richard Ackermann
    http://www.realtimeshoppingmall.com
    richard@realtimeshoppingmall.com

Comments are closed.