Twisted Spinster

Um, didn’t we have that whole Revolutionary War thing so we wouldn’t have to be governed by people who thought like this anymore? At least, that’s what I learned in school.

Another thought: what makes these people think the Kennedys have “good political genes”? It could be just as likely that they have good rum runner genes. Or considering how many of them have come to untimely, violent deaths, maybe they have good death-by-misadventure genes.

Democrats, thinking for the ignorant masses like good overlords should. I can’t wait to be issued my very own begging bowl so that when the Great Ones pass by in their motorcades I can catch some of the used latte cups and croissant-ends they toss out the windows, so I can make my humble supper.

(Via.)

Added: FWIW, here is the comment I left in Rand’s site, addressed to one of his regular, Bush-obsessed (as in BDS) trolls:

…[T]he issue… isn’t whether people should go into the same profession that other members of their family are in, the issue is the ridiculous fawning over the Kennedys and the supposed “speshulness” of their genetic makeup as concerns politics. This is coming from the Democrats, who claim to be the friends of the common man. It’s the Republicans who are supposed to be the party of exclusionary rich fat cats who don’t want any riffraff getting into power. But NO Republican spokesperson of any importance (in which I am not including some fool saying some Bush offspring is “our John John”) has made any claim whatsoever that the Bush family or any other political family has special political superpowers running through its genetic makeup — in fact, Republicans are in general (at least those who are still conservative) quite wary about basing things on genetics.

No, come on, think about it mentally. We have the “party of the Peepul” and its lackeys in the media licking the floor in delight at the idea of Yet Another Kennedy in a key political position, based solely on the fact that this person is a relative of St. JFK. Gee, you know, I’m sorry John F. and then Robert got shot and all, but that doesn’t invalidate the fact that over two hundred years ago we had a frikken’ war to get out from under the divine right of kings.

And it has nothing to do with the Bushes, that’s just your obsession and your attempt to divert the comment thread here onto it. Most people I know who voted for Dubya did so despite his relationship to the first Bush, not because of it. There is nothing like the weird “Camelot” glamour myth about the Bushes. In fact, most people I know are uneasy that so many in the Bush family are in politics. We don’t automatically drop to our knees in star-struck admiration of celebrities and their families like too many liberals do. I’m sick of the Kennedys; the whole “American royalty” treatment they’ve gotten has always struck me as essentially un-American.

The troll, if you care to read his comments, has been trying to claim that there is a similar level of adulation among Republicans over the Bushes and some other “neocon” families who all happen to go into more or less the same career. The thing is, as I said, that’s not even the issue under discussion. Does someone saying something similar about some other family at all invalidate arguments against this elevation of the Kennedys to entitled status? Even if there is a contingent of Republicans who think that the presidency should be the exclusive possession of the Bush family (and I am aware of exactly zero Republicans who think that way), that doesn’t make the idea behind it — that families who are famous for all or most of its members going into politics means they are “destined” to do so by genetics or any other factor — right.