Politico claimed "Dems embrace dynasty politics" but ignored Lisa Murkowski appointment by her father
SUMMARY: In a Politico article titled "Nepotism Nation: Dems embrace dynasty politics," Charles Mahtesian wrote that President-elect Barack Obama's "election last month is helping accelerate the trend toward dynasty politics." But while noting that "[t]here is a rich bipartisan history of dynasty in American politics" and that Jeb Bush might run for Senate in 2010, Mahtesian did not mention that Republican Lisa Murkowski was appointed by her father to take the Alaska Senate seat he left vacant when he was elected governor.
In a December 17 Politico article titled "Nepotism Nation: Dems embrace dynasty politics," Politico national politics editor Charles Mahtesian wrote that President-elect Barack Obama's "election last month is helping accelerate the trend toward dynasty politics." Mahtesian continued: "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." Mahtesian also wrote that "[t]he U.S. Senate could end up looking like an American version of the House of Lords -- and Republicans have begun to take notice." However, although Mahtesian noted that "[t]here is a rich bipartisan history of dynasty in American politics that dates all the way back to the Founding Fathers" and cited several Democrats as examples, he cited only one Republican, "Florida's Jeb Bush, the son and brother of presidents and the grandson of a senator," who might run for Senate in 2010. Mahtesian did not mention anywhere in the article that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) was preceded by her father, Frank Murkowski, who appointed her to his vacant Senate seat after he was elected governor of Alaska in 2002, as Media Matters for America senior fellow Duncan Black noted on the blog Eschaton.
From the December 17 Politico article:
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.
Bush Dynasty is the worst Dynasty America has ever seen.
Well, exactly. How often in history have we had Father/Son presidencies... and there's a great possibility that Jeb could make it a third.
After saddling us with 8 years of President Numbnuts, the Republicans don't have much to complain about.
Yes, I commented to Politico that you cannot take Bush or Sununu out of the picture either when trying to say that this a Dem phenonemum. Of course, as MMFA has done a great of pointing out, there are more & more stories from Politico showing evidence that they plan on being the hammer to bludgeon Dems & Obama on everything while ignoring the GOP. In other words, they are pandering to the Right & playing to their BFFs at Drudge & FoxNews.
Again, YOU are the one being misleading about the article's intention. It's not saying that "dynasty politics" is a Dem phenomenon; in fact, if it's saying anyting, it's saying that the Dems seem to be embracing what was formerly a mostly GOP-phenomenon.
And let's wait until Chelsea lands a big fed office before we really consider the Clinton's a dynasty, ok? 2 talented people from the same generation who happen to be married do not a "dynasty" make.
Riiiight, DEXT. At best that is a stretch, more likely a giant leap on your part.
Politico has spent weeks since the Dems swept the elections with stories such as these and included in one form or another: Obama does not select enough blacks, hispanics, women, GOP or liberals. Obama does not answer questions about Blago well enough. Dems loss in GA means the country is center-right.
Dex, let's just say your interpretation is correct. How does Obama prove some sort of dynasty politics? It's not like his picks are all related, or for that matter, he's not related to anyone in power (well, except for that Cheney link - poor guy!). Unless I'm mistaken there is nothing dynasty like in putting former experienced people back in place.
It doesn't, but MMfA's thesis was that murkowski was excluded and that fact levels with conservative misinformation. Whether I think Obama's election has anything to do with a dynasty (which it's the furthest cry from), has nothing to do with the point MMfA is making in this post.
I agree. The article makes clear that this is not a new phenomenon, and that it happens in both parties. The argument that Dems are embracing dynasty politics doesn't suggest that Republicans aren't doing the same thing, so the lack of one name on the list is hardly cause for complaint.
"While Obama's election and subsequent Cabinet appointments may have accelerated the trend toward dynasty, he's hardly responsible for it."
This is the problematic quote, and where MMfA should be focusing. Obama's election didn't accelerate a trend towards dynasty. His picks aren't really in that vein either. Now, if people are being chosen to replace Obama's picks in their old positions based on their last name, that's a valid point to make, but it's got nothing to do with Obama at all.
I've got a WITH.
The title, to me, implies that the Dems are embracing dynasty politics, which logically implies that it was the GOP who was into it prior to whenver the author thinks the Dems have embraced it now (since there's only 2 major parties).
And then later, the author mentioned probably the most obvious example today of dynasty politics, Jeb Bush possibly running for Senate in 2010.
So, Murkowski's appointment was another detail so important that, because it was left out, this article rises to the level of conservative misinformation or helping that cause?
The Murkowski's WISH they were as notorious to any level near the Bushes or the Kennedys.
"The U.S. Senate could end up looking like an American version of the House of Lords – and Republicans have begun to take notice." -- that statement from the article ticked me off, and the media never gets the benefit of the doubt from me.
Anyway, MMFA is probably just getting in ahead of the avalanche. Imagine you were writing an article about Caroline's senate run. You wouldn't even consider the dynasty angle because it's too obvious and has been done to death. But nothing is too obvious or too dead for the hive mind of the media. This bilge will flood the airwaves, and pretty soon the Bush dynasty won't even be part of it.
I really don't believe that most of the media (excluding Fox News, Maddow and Olbermann) is truly biased..they care much more about breaking the next big story (or gossip) then forwarding a cause. Sensationalism.
Okay, your credibility's gone. The rest of us actually lived during the Bush presidency and watched the media snooze through it.
There was no mention of Elizabeth Dole either. And if Obama didn't pick Hillary he would be criticized for that. The same way he was when McCain supposedly outflanked him by picking Palin.