0 Votes
RE: Who is really in charge?
The Bush family was very well placed long before George Herbert Walker Bush ever thought of going into the oil business. Barbara Bush’s family even more so. Of course the current President Bush was helped by his family connections. But it is not about oil.
His opponent in the last election no doubt got to where he is through his privileged upbringing. And the same could be said for his opponent in the 2000 election. Remember him? And for many other people: John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, and assorted other Kennedys.
How about Franklin Roosevelt? Or Teddy Roosevelt, to be bi-partisan? Would either of these blue-bloods have become president were it not for the fact that they were born into great wealth? (Yes, I know TR became president after McKinley was killed.) What about John McCain? Would he be where he is today were it not for the fact that both his father and grandfather were four-star admirals?
Do these connections diminish the accomplishments (or failures as the case may be) of these people?
RE: Who is really in charge? by PowerPointSamurai
Nepotism aside, is it really such a nefarious or surprising thing that rich, successful guys find other ways to become successful? A lot of people like to point at these people and say their powerful connections get them privileges and access the rest of us can’t get, but I would submit that many of these people possess the skill, desire, and talent for what they do, so many would bounce back to where they were if you started them right back at square one—even if you took away their social network. Do you really want someone who is not successful (like Donny Baker from the the Bob and Tom Show) to be your elected leader?