The current media frenzy over Caroline Kennedy’s possible appointment to Hillary Clinton’s soon-to-be vacant senate seat demonstrates media hypocrisy and elitism at its worst.
While there are some concerns being vocalized about Caroline’s qualifications to be a senator, most of them are coming from political opponents in New York who covet that senate seat for themselves or someone close to them. In other words, their main motivation is not Caroline Kennedy’s inexperience, but rather their own need for political power.
The mainstream media, however, has decided that this is a non-issue. Many of the same “pundits” who decried the nomination of Sarah Palin based on qualifications are the same talking heads out there defending the possible appointment of Caroline Kennedy.
Looking at each situation, a case can be made on qualifications for each. It is true that Sarah Palin has only been governor for 2 years. It is reasonable that some could find this a thin resume for the Vice Presidency. It is not without precedent, however, as the political resume of Teddy Roosevelt reveals a mere 2 year stint as governor of New York before assuming the Vice Presidency, and after the assassination of President McKinley, the presidency.
It is unreasonable, however, that those same folks would unequivocally support Barack Hussein Obama for President of the United States and Caroline Kennedy(Schlossberg?) for senate. The One we’ve been waiting for was only a senator for 3 years (the last 2 years of which were spent largely campaigning for president and ignoring his senate responsibilities.) Before his U.S. Senate career he was a mere state senator in Illinois. Yet, somehow this was enough to qualify the BFF of Bill Ayers, the protege of Rev. Wright and Saul Alinsky, and the kept man of Tony Rezko for the highest office in the land despite having absolutely no executive experience. Similarly, Caroline Kennedy’s political experience is having a father who was president and giving speeches over the years.
Sarah Palin’s executive experience as a mayor of Wasilla, the head of the Alaska Oil & Gas Commission, and 2 years as Governor of Alaska just weren’t enough to offset the years spent as a community organizer and as a state senator securing funding for socialist educational agendas proposed by Bill Ayers and money for the corrupt slumlord Tony Rezko in Obama’s case; or in the case of Kennedy, being the daughter of a former president.
At the heart of the media hypocrisy is elitism. Why does Sarah Palin’s years of executive experience not count, while Obama’s nonsensical career of no accomplishments and countless “present” votes set him up to be the world’s messiah?
Why does Sarah Palin’s record of accomplishment not count as much as Caroline Kennedy’s family name and law degree? It comes down to the old debate of which matters more: actions or words.
To liberals the answer to that question is a resounding “WORDS!” It is the media’s elitist attitude that is at the heart of this issue. Sarah Palin did not go to law school. She didn’t attend an Ivy League indoctrination center. As such, she is just one step above being in a vegetative state in the eyes of most liberals.
To liberals, actual experience and accomplishments don’t count if you haven’t kissed the ring of the liberal academic world. It is a worldview that celebrates study and not action. Debate but not leadership. Propaganda but not freedom of speech. One must agree with Marx and Alinsky and recite chapter and verse the liberal/socialist worldview. It is a matter of memorizing the propaganda and sticking to the script. Words are held in higher esteem by liberals than actions. It doesn’t matter if you make things worse so long as you said the right thing and that you “cared.”
Caroline Kennedy is certainly qualified to run for Senate based on her education. She is a lady of words. What she lacks is actual political experience. Living in the White House for 3 years as a small child is not really experience. She hasn’t really accomplished anything from a political perspective. She is an author and has accomplishments in other areas, but personally she lacks political accomplishments.
She represents a complete polar opposite of Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is a celebration of action over words. She is today’s political action figure. Sarah Palin does have a college degree, but not from an Ivy League school. She has worked her way up in a system that was not only closed to her, but downright hostile. She overcame the political establishment in her party and her state to achieve a very commendable record of accomplishments in her 2 year tenure as governor.
So to liberals, you can be fresh out of law school and be qualified for the presidency so long as you graduated from Harvard, Yale or Columbia and have memorized the socialist talking points. There is certainly nothing wrong with holding education in high esteem, but it should not be the sole authority in electing our leaders. There are also two assumptions built into the “education is king” philosophy that need to be refuted.
The first assumption is that anyone who does not go to Harvard or Yale is somehow unqualified for anything but dog-catcher. Under this assumption, Harry Truman would have been ineligible for the presidency as he didn’t even have a college degree. Ronald Reagan’s degree from Eureka College would also fail to pass the test. It is quite possible to be intelligent without attending an Ivy League school. That is not putting down the Ivy League schools, but it is giving other institutions of learning the credit they deserve. A law degree is certainly helpful in a political career, but it can only go so far. Words are important, but words without actions to back them up are nothing more than hot air and empty rhetoric.
The second assumption is that everyone who does attend those schools is ready to lead. Leadership requires a certain moral clarity, integrity and personal courage. It requires clear-sighted vision and decision-making. It demands one to be able to set aside political opportunism to do what is right. These are qualities that have virtually nothing to do with a college education. These qualities are forged in every day life as ordinary citizens seek to do the right thing and to make a positive difference in their community. Action is needed by a leader. Barack Hussein Obama is good at reading from a teleprompter, but take away the script and what do you get? Besides a lot of “uhs” we have yet to see. In fact, when Israel was attacked by Hamas the other day, the next leader of the free world was silent. He simply had no comment. Every other day of the week, he has had no problem weighing in on everything from his appointments, his stimulus package, his shirtless physique and SPAM. The day Israel is attacked by terrorists, he suddenly has nothing to say. Why? Because that might require him to act. He is a man of words, not actions.
So, the media has revealed its hypocrisy in the issue of Sarah Palin time and time again. Perhaps that is why so many of the Ivy League graduates who work in the mainstream media are finding their jobs eliminated as their newspapers and media outlets continue to lose revenue and relevance. Perhaps the American people aren’t totally convinced that mere talking is the way to go.
Barack Obama and Caroline Kennedy will have to prove to the voters with their actions that they are capable leaders worthy of their offices. If their record fails to mirror their rhetoric, the American people will have a decision to make.
So, let Caroline Kennedy become a senator. Let her stand on her own and stand for re-election in 2010, but please don’t tell me that she’s more qualified than a woman who can raise a family of five, and run a state government while hunting both the moose and the corrupt business-as-usual politicians of the Alaskan landscape with ease. In my world and that of mainstream America, actions still speak louder than words.
Also available on my site: www.cityonahillpolitics.blogspot.com