Is It Time That We Stop Awarding Political Office to Legacies?

[The Whiskey Priest]

Just a thought, but it might not be a bad thing to stop awarding a Political Office based on legacy. You know some new blood, rather than a political dynasty. It really hasn't worked out well recently.

[emulatorloo]

1. Will the twins be allowed to serve together?

Or will we get the bi-partisan treatment and go with Chelsea and Jenna as pres and v-pres?

[okieinpain]

2. yeah, lets start with hillary, and jeb.

[MountainLaurel]

3. Same shit, different generation

Yep, I could get on board with that.

[Deep13]

4. Right after Ted Kennedy retires.

:evilgrin:

[NoPasaran]

5. Call me naive

But I thought elections were somehow involved in the process.

[Frances]

6. I exercise with about 17 senior citizens

Our leader asked us today who we thought would be the next president. The majority thought it would be Hillary Clinton. I think Hillary would make a great president, but I'm like you. I prefer to see someone unrelated to a previous president hold the office.

I have no idea who the president will be, but since I was asked to guess, I said Mark Warner. Most people had never heard of him, but then this far out, most people had not heard of either Bill Clinton or jimmy Carter.

A few people thought it would be McCain, and one person said that if Rove was still around, then it would be a Republican. I said that Rove may be in jail during the next election. But I suppose he could manage things from behind bars the way Mafia leaders do. Actually, I think the Republican party acts like the Mafia already in so many ways--most obviously, kickbacks in the way of campaign donations, after they get government contracts.

[Clark2008]

11. They actually though Hillary would win?

Or did they think she just would be the Dem nominee?

See - I talk to tons of people - and, while many think she'll be the Dem nominee, none of them think she'll win.

[jobycom]

13. Everyone I know in both parties assumes she'll win. Well, not everyone

some people don't have any opinion on the matter, but of those I know, most think Hillary is the next president. But I'm in Texas, so maybe it's different in other places.

[Frances]

33. More people answered Hillary Clinton

than any other name.

The question was, "Who do you think will be president?"

I was surprised at the response. The people didn't say whether they liked her or not, just that they thought she'd be president. I don't agree, but then I've been wrong before. I will vote for her IF she is the Dem nominee.

[Horse with no Name]

34. Name recognition

is everything at this point in the game.
The Republican's talk so much about Hillary running for President, it's becoming ingrained in pop culture.
However, I am sure someone else will come into the horizon before too long.

[SaveElmer]

7. An arbitrary bar to office...

Last time I looked we had elections (no matter how flawed). I don't want some arbitrary rule put in place because people are tired of someone's last name to keep me from choosing who I want to be President.

[The Whiskey Priest]

8. I am not suggesting a constitutional amendment

I am saying we just stop voting for them because they are blood kin to someone who held the office.

[paulk]

10. then don't vote for them

eom

[The Whiskey Priest]

15. Okay, great suggestion....I will not vote or consider them....

I also will work very hard to see if I can convince others to do likewise.

[jobycom]

12. Who do you think has been voted in just because they were kin

to someone else in office? Since W was never voted in, he doesn't count. Hillary's not blood kin to Bill. Maybe Ted Kennedy, but I think the last few elections have been on his own name.

[The Whiskey Priest]

17. "Blood Kin" was sort of poetic license.....

it was meant to include anyone trading on a previous office holders name simply by family tree attachment.

[jobycom]

21. Like FDR, you mean?

[SaveElmer]

23. Or Adams and Harrison...

Or RFK? or Teddy?

[jobycom]

28. Or Gore? nt.

[The Whiskey Priest]

24. Of course not....FDR was fine......

Times change and I don't think we are dealing here with a categorical imperative...some eternal truth....this moment is much different than the last...so its time to change.

[jobycom]

27. People said the same thing during FDR's time. Luckily

people judged him on his own merit, rather than his name. His name opened a few doors, as does Hillary's or Gore's or Carter's (in Nevada), but it didn't get him elected.

[SaveElmer]

19. Well...not a reason I'd vote against someone...

But everyone has their own way of judging candidates. If that is one of yours...more power to ya.

I, on the other hand, will be voting for Hillary should she choose to run!

[The Whiskey Priest]

20. Good on you....tolerance is a great thing is it not?

I just happen to believe that not so qualified people (read Bush) have a step up the ladder because of name. Now as for Hilary Clinton....see the name "Clinton"....I cannot support her because of the tendency toward Neo-lib and the DLC.

[jobycom]

25. You should learn more about her, and quit believing the Swiftboaters

She's got 100% ratings on abortion, animal rights, the NAACP, the environment, and most liberal causes. Her positions on the war have been so lied about and misrepresented that I have to believe they come from a Swiftboat attempt to make liberals dislike her. Her speech before the IWR on why she was voting on it should be required reading for all the DUers who don't understand the IWR vote, and how it was meant to limit Bush's power to invade, not enhance it.

In fact, here's a link: http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Here's her call for withdrawal from Iraq:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/30/nyregion/metrocampaigns/30hillary.html

Here's her blasting of Halliburton (though I hate the source):
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/1/121926.shtml

She's been more consistently liberal than Clark, Edwards (who was a big invasion supporter even during his early campaign) and Kucinich (who was anti-choice until recent years). I'll trust her over the other big names, except maybe Gore, any day.

[The Whiskey Priest]

30. Ah now you know I would not believe anything that the "Swift boaters" say

and I have no problem with her stand on the war, or question that she supports things that are important to progressives.

My problem with her is adherence to things that hurt the working class. That is the big problem with the neo-libs and the DLC, corporations first, trade first and the tendency to do things that damage the middle and lower classes, like tax cuts for the rich.

[jobycom]

32. Hm. I guess you'd be opposed the AFL-CIO, UAW, and other unions

who give her a 100% rating, then? Or her opposition to Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, or her proposed tax hike on the wealthy to help fund the Katrina recovery?

[SaveElmer]

31. Great post Jobycom!!!

Not too many of us here supporting her, or at least defending her. Among the rank and file however, I think things will be much different!

[jobycom]

9. Well, the Bush legacy, anyway. I'm hoping for two more President Clintons

myself. Hopefully with another Carter mixed in.

[AntiCoup2K4]

26. Unless George Clinton is running, I don't think so!

Because Hillary is digging herself into a neocon grave.

[jobycom]

29. Neocon? Shame on any DUer who buys that.

She's being Swiftboated just like Kerry and Gore-- Make them too conservative for their party and too liberal for the other. Shame on anyone who buys that. They did the same thing to Gore and Kerry. We never learn, do we?

[Meldread]

14. It should be "awarded" to the most qualified.

...qualified being the person with America's best long term interest at heart. Qualified being someone who is willing to stand up for the rights of ALL American Citizens. Qualified being someone who stands by their principles and morals while at the same time able to listen to and actually acknowledge that there is an opposition.

[leftstreet]

16. I wish I could "campaign" for a job, rather than meet the requirements

:eyes:

[mondo joe]

18. I reject standards not related to performance and poilcy.

Best person running gets my vote. Simple enough.

[onenote]

22. "awarding"?

Even "legacy" candidates still have to run and still have to win. I am not going to support a candidate simply because of who their parents were/are or their spouse or siblings. But I'm not going to oppose a candidate automatically on those grounds either.

Some people undoubtedly do support/oppose a candidate based on who they're related to, but I don't know how "we" stop that.

onenote

[AZBlue]

35. Last name seems like a pretty ineffective way to choose a candidate to me.

I would rather see everyone choose a candidate on issues, ability to lead, history and experience, things like that. But, I guess I'm just old-fashioned.