Dems embrace dynasty politics

[Beet]

Barack Obama's path to the presidency included beating what had been one of the nation's most powerful families. But, in an unusual twist, his election last month is helping accelerate the trend toward dynasty politics.

His secretary of state will be Hillary Clinton, the wife of the former president. The Senate seat she’ll vacate is being pursued by Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of a president and the niece of two senators. Joe Biden’s Senate seat may go to his son Beau. Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar, Obama’s pick for interior secretary, could end up being replaced by his brother, Rep. John Salazar.

And Obama’s own seat could go to the son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. – less likely now in light of developments in the Rod Blagojevich scandal – or to the daughter of Illinois’ current House speaker.

The U.S. Senate could end up looking like an American version of the House of Lords – and Republicans have begun to take notice.

“Democrats seem to lack a common man who can just win a good, old-fashioned election,” said Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.), the former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “They’ve got seat-warmers, seat-sellers and the making of pillows for the seats of royalty. No wonder the public wonders what’s going on in Washington.”

While Obama’s election and subsequent Cabinet appointments may have accelerated the trend toward dynasty, he’s hardly responsible for it. There is a rich bipartisan history of dynasty in American politics that dates all the way back to the Founding Fathers; Obama-Biden actually represents the first winning ticket since 1976 without a son or a grandson of a U.S. senator on it.

In 2008, the storied Udall clan, sometimes referred to as the Western Kennedys, saw two members elected to the Senate— Mark from Colorado and Tom from New Mexico. In 2010, they could be joined in the Senate by Florida’s Jeb Bush, the son and brother of presidents and the grandson of a senator.

All told, it’s entirely possible that the Senate will be comprised of nearly a dozen congressional offspring by the end of Obama’s first term as president.

“It’s a very interesting American phenomenon, even though there is a line in the Constitution that says no title of nobility may be granted by the United States,” says Stephen Hess, a senior fellow emeritus at the Brookings Institution and the author of “America’s Political Dynasties.” “Given where we started, it’s interesting that this has developed.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16664.html

[Holmes]

From the people who brought you "No Southerners in Obama's Cabinet" bring you...

[Senator Ben]

I have no problem with political dynasties.  If they are competent, then they should serve.

[Χahar]

I have no problem with political dynasties.  If they are competent, then they should serve.

Political dynasties are inherently incompetent.

[Beet]

I have no problem with political dynasties.  If they are competent, then they should serve.

Like Bush was competent? Without dynasty we would probably be coming off 8 years of President McCain. That in itself should be enough to say that political dynasties have cost this country more than they are worth.

[Lunar]

Kind of funny that the country voted in two Democratic Udalls but voted out the Republican Udall this year.

[Senator Ben]

I have no problem with political dynasties.  If they are competent, then they should serve.

Political dynasties are inherently incompetent.

Not always.  Bush is just one example; the Udalls have been competent, for example.

[Beet]

I have no problem with political dynasties.  If they are competent, then they should serve.

Political dynasties are inherently incompetent.

Not always.  Bush is just one example; the Udalls have been competent, for example.

Oh sure dynasties can produce competent people, but so can families that have never had political officers serving in previous generations. Dynasty distorts the process in favor of those families even if someone else is more competent. That is the point. It's effect is inherently beneficial towards incompetence.

[Matt Damon™]

I oppose dynastic politics.

[paul718]

I have a problem with dynastic appointments (ex: Caroline Kennedy), moreso than dynastic electoral victories (ex: the Udalls).  If they're elected then the onus is on the people to have made the right choice.

[LanceMcSteel]

Democratic Dynaties:

Kennedy's
Clinton's
Udall's

Republican Dynasites:

Dole's
Bush's

I'm sensing a pattern here.

General incompetence among the Republican party extends to their dynasties, while the Democratic dynaties have been quite effective.

[paul718]

Democratic Dynaties:

Kennedy's
Clinton's
Udall's

Republican Dynasites:

Dole's
Bush's

I'm sensing a pattern here.

General incompetence among the Republican party extends to their dynasties, while the Democratic dynaties have been quite effective.

There is a Bush dynasty and a Kennedy dynasty.  The others are not dynasties.

Edit:  The Udalls too, but as was mentioned earlier, Gordon Smith is a Republican.

[Χahar]

Edit:  The Udalls too, but as was mentioned earlier, Gordon Smith is a Republican.

The presence of a D-WV doesn't make the Rockefellers any less Republican, does it?

[Keystone Phil]

They always have and always will.

[Lief]

They always have and always will.

[© Tweed the Younger]

how are the Clintons a 'dynasty'?  they are one generation, and probably won't extend beyond that.

[Keystone Phil]

They always have and always will.

The love affair with and domination of the Kennedy family doesn't even begin to compare to the Bush family.

[angus]

Barack Obama's path to the presidency included beating what had been one of the nation's most powerful families. But, in an unusual twist, his election last month is helping accelerate the trend toward dynasty politics.

You're watching too much cable TV news.  Seriously.

[© Tweed the Younger]

I can see Chelsea jumping in when she gets a little older. She has proven pretty adept at campaigning for her mother and popular with voters.

that's still theoretical, and I personally don't think she's ever going to run for anything, but neither of us can be correct, obviously

[paul718]

Dynasties have been good (see: Roosevelts, Clintons, Kennedys) and bad (see: Bushes, Doles).

How are the Doles a political dynasty?  Isn't it just Bob and Elizabeth?  And how are they "bad"?

[memphis]

Both parties have lots of political families. Regrettable, for sure, but in no way limited to either party.

[Lief]

They always have and always will.

The love affair with and domination of the Kennedy family doesn't even begin to compare to the Bush family.

Total years spent in the White House by a guy with Kennedy for his last name: 3
Total years spent in the White House by a guy with Bush for his late name: 12

[Keystone Phil]

They always have and always will.

The love affair with and domination of the Kennedy family doesn't even begin to compare to the Bush family.

Total years spent in the White House by a guy with Kennedy for his last name: 3
Total years spent in the White House by a guy with Bush for his late name: 12

1) That doesn't negate anything that I said.
2) Total years in the White House isn't the only criteria for being a dynasty.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

how are the Clintons a 'dynasty'?  they are one generation, and probably won't extend beyond that.

I hope not. The very thought of Chelsea Clinton of entering politics, in particular doing a Caroline Kennedy, which is her most likely route into the wonderful world of politics is one of repulsion.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Edit:  The Udalls too, but as was mentioned earlier, Gordon Smith is a Republican.

The presence of a D-WV doesn't make the Rockefellers any less Republican, does it?

Oh yes, the Rockefeller political family as well. Jay Rockefeller (senator from WV), Nelson Rockefeller (vice president under Ford), Winthrop Paul Rockefeller (lieutenant governor of AR under Huckabee), and plenty of others.