A "DUEL" MONARCHY

"So prone are they (the people) to suspicion, that where a President appoints a relation of his own, however worthy, they will believe that favor and not merit was the motive. I therefore laid it down as a law of conduct for myself, never to give an appointment to a relation."

Thomas Jefferson

John Adams and John Quincy Adams were the first father and son to both serve as President. Each man served one term. Our 41st President, George H.W. Bush and current President George W. Bush are also father and son (as I'm sure most of you know). But did you know that several other Presidents also had family ties to a previous president? Benjamin Harrison was the grandson of William Henry Harrison. James Madison and Zachary Taylor were second cousins. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and Theodore Roosevelt were fifth cousins. And many people believe that only an assassin's bullet stopped Robert F. Kennedy from succeeding his brother John F. Kennedy as President. So in this time of a wife of a past President seeking election to dethrone the son of a past President, I think we should all take a moment and consider whether or not we should be a country of privilege for the very few, or a country of hope, where any kid has a chance to grow up and become President of the most powerful country on Earth.

As is my way, I'm going to throw out my disclaimer; I don't like Hillary in any fashion or form. Frankly, I feel she already did her two terms. There, I think that was plain enough. My dislike for her is based on the way she portrays herself as a politician and the fact that she represents to me the kind of nepotism that shouldn't be in our highest office. It has nothing to do with her being a women. I should also point out that I was making the same nepotism argument against George W. Bush in 2000. I think we'll all agree that electing that SOP (Son of a President) was a big mistake.

Obviously, since I pointed out some of our nation's prior examples, I am aware that there has always been a bit of nepotism in our politics. For the most part, I don't think many people care. The argument that I have heard in support of family ties to our elected positions goes like this; We need people that know the ins and outs of politics so that they can be better prepared for the problems ahead. While I think that argument does have some merit, I believe that the negatives far outweigh the positives. So, here are some of the reasons I feel re-electing, oops, I mean electing, Hillary Clinton, or for that matter any close relative of a past president, is be a bad idea.

First and foremost is the transparency of our government. When George W. Bush officially became President in 2001, one of his first acts as President was to seal some of his father's records through executive order 13233. Most of the records he had sealed were relative to Iran-Contra, one of the shadiest events in recent history. The way it has worked up until now (via the Presidential Records Act of 1978) is that the standing President would seal his records for 12 years to allow for the true results of his efforts to play out. After that, they are reviewed and anything that isn't specifically a threat to national security is released to the public. If we keep electing family over and over we'll never know the truth behind the scenes of some of our nation's crises. Hillary herself was asked by Tim Russert if she would release Bill's records and she did what every good politician would do and avoided answering the question. If we want to have any idea what the hell is going on in the White house this has to end. Remember, without these records we wouldn't know what really happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis or that Hoover was spying on MLK's widow. We need to know...period.

My second argument is that when the Presidency is kept within a family, there will be situations where the standing President is basically doing clean up work for the prior administration. The War in Iraq for instance. Do you really think G.W. would have thought of attacking Iraq if his opinion of Saddam wasn't tainted by his father's experience? Hell, I knew he was going to go into Iraq even before he was elected. Even President Bush himself admitted that Saddam's attempt at assassinating George Sr. was one reason he wanted to topple Hussien. Isn't it getting a little too close to being Mafia-like to have the "Family" take care of each other, with our blood and treasure?

My final argument is that this has to be seen for what it is. An attempt to do a end-around on the two term limit on the Presidency set by the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution. It's really hard not to look at the obvious, Bill and Hillary were in the White House together for two terms. To believe your not, in one way our another, subverting the term limit by putting the same two people back in for more terms takes a streatch of the imagination. Just because it's your guy doesn't make it right. The greatest thing about this country is that it gives opportunity. The message of our country always has been; If you work hard, you could be anything you want to be. (remember the word "could", meaning you get the chance, not the guarantee) To rob our kids of that dream, no matter how distant, is to take away something that you and me have had up until now. This duel between two families is being fought with our children, our money, and our country. We were not born a Monarchy and we should never become one. Our fascination with dynasties is in direct contrast to our belief in open government and equal oportunity. It's time to take a stand and send a clear message to both the Bushes and the Clintons. This is our country...not your family business. H.C.