SOURCE: THE DAILY SIGNAL
(Excerpt) "The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on December 28, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports... [the poll] suggests that Americans are growing wary of political dynasties. Forty-one percent of likely voters said that they were at least 'somewhat worried' that an 'unofficial group of royal families' is forming in the United States.
Rasmussen noted that a Clinton or a Bush has run in every presidential election except one since 1988 (emphasis added)."
Source: The Daily Signal, 1.1.2015
Not surprisingly, media sources also can be found representing the average American as supportive of political family dynasties.
Founding principle eschewed -- who is hurt? Who profits?
(Excerpt) "Political dynasties are a threat to democracy, corrupting the political marketplace and compromising the free exchange of ideas. The founding fathers warned against them and shunned all trappings of royalty.
One reason America has seen a rise in political family dynasties is that they have appeared in both political parties simultaneously, negating the natural political checks and balances.
Because they have appeared in both parties, political checks and balances are negated. And the media profits from famous names.
No Republican will attack the Democrats for allowing the Clinton family dynasty because that would anger the Bush family in their own party. If public figures in the Democrat Party decry the dangers of the Bush dynasty they risk alienating the Clintons, whose support they must have to be successful. Thus both the Clintons and the Bushes escape criticism because of the other.
The national media, driven by profit, stay quiet in the face of dynastic claims because famous names sell."
Royalty by another name
(Excerpt) "Political dynasties are a threat to democracy, corrupting the political marketplace and compromising the free exchange of ideas. The founding fathers warned against them and shunned all trappings of royalty.
One reason America has seen a rise in political family dynasties is that they have appeared in both political parties simultaneously, negating the natural political checks and balances.
Because they have appeared in both parties, political checks and balances are negated. And the media profits from famous names.
No Republican will attack the Democrats for allowing the Clinton family dynasty because that would anger the Bush family in their own party. If public figures in the Democrat Party decry the dangers of the Bush dynasty they risk alienating the Clintons, whose support they must have to be successful. Thus both the Clintons and the Bushes escape criticism because of the other.
The national media, driven by profit, stay quiet in the face of dynastic claims because famous names sell."
Source: The New York Times, 1.5.2015
(Excerpt) "The Constitution states that 'no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States,' yet it seems political nobility is as American as apple pie..."
Author Stephen Hess has written the book, "America's Political Dynasties" and therein identified a list of American families that by some measure are considered political dynasties; "Kennedy... Roosevelt... Rockefeller... Harrison... Adams... Bush... Frelinghuysen... Breckinridge... Taft... Bayard."
Source: The Washington Post, 9.13.209
Expecting a different result...
while doing the same thing over and over again: insanity.
LIFT (Link I Found Today)
Expecting a different result...
while doing the same thing over and over again: insanity.
LIFT (Link I Found Today)
..
GIVE ME A MOMENT a lifestyle
Subscribe FREE (see: upper right column) for new posts. Reader-referred topics are welcomed and considered. Comments here are disabled. Readers may contact the blogger by email: givemeamomentblog@gmail.com
Post No. 230
Apologies for any unwelcome and distracting Google audio clip advertising that might pop up here
..
