Princess Caroline taps out

Caroline Kennedy is opting not to seek the vacated senate seat of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

My take? Yawn.

Kennedy Dynasty continues?

So Caroline Kennedy wants to be a US Senator. One has to wonder why. But as Republican's should we care? Should we not welcome, vapid uninformed opposition? Yes and no.

Yes, for obvious reasons. Weak opposition makes for easier victory in debates, in political maneuvering, in every respect. She is less likely to carry any weight in her position and therefore could not be counted on to sponsor any meaningful yet egregiously bad legislation. Maybe one or the other but not both. Let's face it, she'd be a lightweight. And that's a plus for Republicans. Other reasons to be happy include the fact that if ever a Kennedy could be beaten, she'd be the one to present the opportunity to us.

On the other hand - she does have the name recognition. She could skate through on that alone, which would be unfortunate. It bodes poorly for America that celebrity and star power play so well to so much of the population. It's a portent of a failing superpower if celebrity equates to relevance in other spheres. The gladiators in Rome were revered, but they weren't meant to be Senators there. In modern America, Paris Hilton is not meant to lead, by election or by example. Yet the freedom that makes it possible is the same freedom that makes it significantly possible. You don't have to be smart to vote. You don't have to understand economics, or civics or trade, or ecology or morality. And as such, to quote a Roman dictum, caveat emptor. You get what you pay for (If you're in Illinois, apparently that means a Senate seat).

You'd think the country would learn from history (oops, don't need that to vote either) that dynasties aren't the ideal. Yet two mediocre Bush presidencies, two Clintonian agonies, and myriad Kennedy runs have not yet squashed the idea that all members of a particular dynasty are created equally, and that genetics doesn't determine quality when it comes to politics. Perhaps the biggest plus that can come out of a Caroline Kennedy seat, would be a miserable failure that puts the last nail in the Kennedy mystique (after the 40 or so Ted put in) once and for all. I think we have to hope so because any success and 30 years from now somebody named Skip Kennedy with the IQ of a football helmet might be a serious contender for the Presidency and live gladiator shows will be being broadcast 24/7 on MTV.

Democrats drunk with power

Caroline Kennedy wants to be a Senator. That's her Christmas wish I guess the Democrats will deliver. No special election for Obama's vacant Senate seat seems likely. President-elect Obama is Man of the Year. Media bias is in high gear. What else could go wrong for conservatives? Plenty. President Bush has abandon any pretense of capitalism. Conservatives both moderate and real conservatives are eating their own. There's potential for a declaration of an Al Franken victory in Minnesota. There's going to be a Democratic Senator from Alaska (yes, Steven's could have let it stay Republican, had he stayed clean). A massive infrastructure spending is being proposed. Abortion legislation is going to be changed. New SCOTUS appointees are likely in the next few years, at least maintaining the status quo there, but possibly also pushing it left. And reporters are apparently being instructed on what to not ask of Mr. Obama;



The newly elected Executive and Legislative victors have not even been sworn in yet. How are things going to look in 2 months time? Or 12 months time. Different I expect. But how different is the real question. The fact that Obama has selected a good number of Clintonistas, and appears to be headed to the middle of the road, is no comfort. The Democrats have solid majorities in both the House and the Senate. They will want to push their own far left agendas. Obama will likely fall in line with them more often than not. Just like the Illinois go-along-to-get-along approach that served him so well in the past. And Obama himself is still has all of those radical associations in his closet.

Democrats are not likely to look for bi-partisanship now. They have no need to build bridges to conservatives. nor are they so inclined. Democrats are now where they were for a good portion of the 20th century - in power in at least 2 (in this case 3) of the 3 non-judicial pillars of government. In solid control in both legislative houses, and complete control of the executive. What do conservatives have to oppose them? The filibuster. Well you can't break that out on every single issue. It can't be part of every debate. We've got to pick and choose where to resist.

And in doing so I'd argue that where it is most needed are things that alter the playing field for time lines beyond 2010 and 2012. For example the Fairness Doctrine has far-reaching implications to Republicans. And the public probably doesn't care too much about it. It needs to be stopped if put forward. Illegal immigration and paths to citizenship - illegal immigrants are more likely to support Democrats than legal immigrants. That's another game changer. And that could be a positive one if framed right by the GOP and then the reasons for the position disseminated quickly, broadly and effectively.

As for the Democrats, they are likely to become more drunk with power over the next 12-16 months. What we can try to do to stop them, or hold them at bay, is not going to influence their decision to plow forward with every radical legislative idea they think they can get away with. The GOP has to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and be resolute in defending that line in any legal way possible. The battles are coming, we'd better be prepared with our resolve and get some tactics in place to support the strategic battles we need to fight.

We're on defence - it's not a pretty picture, but it needs to sink in that it's a siege and we have to hold the fort until the cavalry starts to arrive in 2010. Then again, we'd better get the cavalry suited up and armed PDQ as well.

I'm just saying.