Who Glenn Greenwald Forgot
Glenn Greenwald is supposedly upset at the concept of American Royalty. Notice anyone he may have left out?
They should convene a panel for the next Meet the Press with Jenna Bush Hager, Luke Russert, Liz Cheney, Megan McCain and Jonah Goldberg, and they should have Chris Wallace moderate it. They can all bash affirmative action and talk about how vitally important it is that the U.S. remain a Great Meritocracy because it's really unfair for anything other than merit to determine position and employment. They can interview Lisa Murkowski, Evan Bayh, Jeb Bush, Bob Casey, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Dan Lipinksi, and Harold Ford, Jr. about personal responsibility and the virtues of self-sufficiency. Bill Kristol, Tucker Carlson and John Podhoretz can provide moving commentary on how America is so special because all that matters is merit, not who you know or where you come from.
Putting aside that many autoworker's, or carpenter's children often become that very thing themselves, he does have at least something of a point. James Joyner agrees to some degree.
However, with a Delaware Senate seat now being kept warm for the VP's son, more Kennedys than one can shake a stick at over the years (Ted's wife as an interim is being talked up), Bill and now Hillary having her day in the sun, Conyer's crooked wife as a local pol, Pelosi's daughter doing political media for bucks, Michelle Obama's six figure slip into a position that never existed before, the Daley's of Chicago, so forth and so on - even when Greenwald mentions Democrats, they tend to be of a more centrist, or moderate stripe.
I think were his outrage just a bit more politically balanced, I'd take it as more honest. For the most part, his list seems to have more to do with a political agenda, more so than it does a respect for meritocracy. Or, maybe he's just pissed that, as a gay liberal, there won't be anyone there to take the baton after he's had his run.
“Or, maybe he’s just pissed that, as a gay liberal, there won’t be anyone there to take the baton after he’s had his run.”
snicker
Ok, I posted this on another threat and am stealing from myself to post it on this thread since it is appropriate for this particular occasion:
When I converted from a brain-dead Liberalism (Davd Mamet’s eloquently coined phrase) to Conservatism I noted how difficult it was to face my Liberal self-as a Liberal I would lie to myself, my family and friends and whenever confronted or challenged I would simply move the goal posts lest I make appearances of being something I was not.
Now after decades of deluding myself all for the pretense of preening a fallacious image of Liberal grandeur I still have so much to learn however I do know that I no longer have to lie to myself or change the goalposts.
(for goodness sakes Liberals, honestly look at yourselves for a change)
It could also be that nobody wants that baton; given his particular proclivities as a gay liberal, that baton might have been stored in some place not fit for description in print or in pixel.
As for American Royalty, well… it is no secret that those who have the money tend to keep things “all in the family”.
Political dynasties – from the Tafts of Ohio to the Kennedys to the Bushes to what I am sure will be several generations of Clintons and Bidens in the next century… are no new thing in human history.
Does Jesse Jackson and Junior count?
Good christ, you’re an asshole.
The story behind the Obama-Brooks Bromance
is interesting… but…
the first comment is pure gold
this is only an excerpt, read it all and laugh
“Unlike Mr. Sherman I was able to attain a treanscript of a quintessential Brooks/Obama confab:
Brooks [admiringly]:
You may well be the only politician who has ever read more books with more words about political philosophy than I have.
Obama [with just the right touch of condescension]:
Indeed, at last count, I have read 384 books, totaling 38,457,812 words.
Brooks [with just the right inflection of awe]:
Amazing. That’s 21 books and 1,997,654 more words than I have read.
Obama [nodding in complicity]:
That means we have perused more abstract words about more abstract human social, political and economic relationships than any other puffy Intellectual on the planet.”
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/the-courtship
So Jenna will appear once a month for 4 minutes and talk about education. That’s a big deal?
The work done by parents and other older family members leads a child to have some knowledge of the way that work is accomplished and contacts in that particular industry. That gives them a leg up over someone coming from the outside.
This is not a bad thing as long as they can do the work well. Normal competition will limit those who do not measure up. It is in the arenas where competition from the outside is restricted, and who you know means more than ability, that the results of this effect are bad. Politics is one such arena.
Of course Greenwald has heirs, think of all the sock puppets he’ll be leaving behind.
Not to mention young Luke Russert being given the position of covering the Republican & Democratic conventions RIGHT OUT OF COLLEGE, for MSNBC’s incestuous crowd (Mika Brezinski, anyone?)
I often read Glen Greenwald for his insightful comments about Constitutional issues.
But THIS one is just stupid, gossipy crap.
Shame on you , Glen.
So you are telling me that Glen won’t be able to pass the baton on to his sockpuppets?
“Pelosi’s daughter doing political media for bucks”
Let’s not forget that Nancy Pelosi herself is the daughter of a Congressman.
Invite Drew Barrymore, Michael Douglas, Emilio Esteves, …
Since in his rant about an aristocracy in America he left off the one family that actually is regularly referred to as American royalty, I think it’s pretty clear that this is just another cheap shot, another liberal whine.
Shame because he does have a point, as liberals often do, but misses making it because partisanship is more important, as for liberals it usually is.
“Since in his rant about an aristocracy in America he left off the one family that actually is regularly referred to as American royalty, I think it’s pretty clear that this is just another cheap shot, another liberal whine.”
No,he does not. In his longer post from last December which he links to in the current post, be begins with the Kennedys. See his update correcting all those who think he is being partisanly selective.
Am I the only one who notices that the royalty he refers to are all in the Private sector and the royalty the democrats claim as their own are for the most part all in Politics?
Its always been a given that you use whatever advantages you have in life to get ahead and at the least these folks are working the market,not working the system (GUV).
Frankly, considering that the Bushes and the Tafts are the only 2 prominent R families mentioned sure shows that its a rarity in R politics and not a running theme as with the Dems.
Nepotism for the Dems, as with the Daley Family in Chicago-Cuomos in NY, even the Roosevelts way back when [FDR was going to run for his first office as a Repub, but at the last minute the nomination went to another Repub and opportunist Franklin ran as a Dem & won. Also, I will shamelessly plagiarize ast’s brilliant comment on Crittenden’s post:
“Greenwald is just the latest proof that the heirs of American Communism have cultivated the skill of accusing your enemies of doing what you yourself are most guilty of. It still works too, because it throws them off balance and nonplusses them.
It’s gone on so long now, however, that I doubt that they understand the difference between reality and their ideology, or truth and opinion, for that matter. They certainly don’t know logic or argument, but who needs that when you have sophistry?”
Wish I’d said that, but I’ll repeat it just the same.
Let’s not forget that Nancy Pelosi herself is the daughter of a Congressman
Her father was the Mayor of Baltimore (1947-59), as was her brother (1967-71).
Jenna Bush Hager, Luke Russert, Liz Cheney, Megan McCain and Jonah Goldberg
Jenna Bush Hager is (if I am not mistaken) a schoolteacher in Baltimore. Meghan McCain appears only partially employed at present, and is a contributor to a publication called the Daily Beast. Could someone explain to me how these are ‘legacy employments’? Neither of Meghan McCain’s parents were journalists and Laura Bush’s career as a schoolteacher concluded in 1981. Jonah Goldberg’s father was an official with one of the newspaper syndicates; but IIRC, his career in topical commentary was an outgrowth of his employment at National Review, which had to have been quite modestly paid and a step down from his previous employment at PBS. There are more able newspaper columnists than Mr. Goldberg, but he is a better than average practitioner, so what’s the beef?