• Sean II

    Something really weird about fretting over Kushner when the presidency came within inches of being awarded on the basis of marital succession.

    Especially when that same office was previously passed from father to son.

    • jtlevy

      From the fact that H Clinton and Jeb Bush lost, we can infer that elections are an important intervening event that distinguish those cases from “can’t be fired” nepotism. “Succession” can establish initial name recognition, but campaigns still have to be run, elections still have to be won.

      And, of course, GWB was a governor; HRC was a former Senator and former Secretary of State. They got that experience in part because of their connections, but they did actually have the experience. Kushner… doesn’t.

      • Sean II

        1) Neither Hilary or W. would have been elected to any major office without their last names.

        2) We are where we are because Hilary couldn’t be fired as a candidate.

        3) A major office or candidacy being decided by nepotism is far worse than a mere advisory position.

        4) Experience in politics is a negative marker, not a plus.

        5) If Obama’s daughter had a husband who quipped about being un-fireable, everyone but Alex Jones listeners would laugh it off as a joke with no wider meaning.

        Which is exactly what reasonable people with a sense of proportion and an eye for the long view should do here.

        • Dain Fitzgerald

          + 1

        • King Goat

          Of course Levy’s reference to experience was not about politics but actually serving in a high office.

          “GWB was a governor; HRC was a former Senator and former Secretary of State.”

  • DST

    1. Do you think that giving a minor political appointment to a son-in-law is worse than giving it to a friend, donor, crony, or other hanger-on, as is normally the case?

    2. The rule of law angle is inapplicable because we’re not (yet!) talking about giving Kushner, say, a waiver on a government regulatory requirement for his private business, but rather a post in the administration. I’d be much more concerned about a judge not recusing himself from a case involving his daughter, and then ruling in her favor, than I would be about giving her a clerkship. The first is actual corruption and a violation of rule of law, the second is just nepotism: ugly perhaps, but not terribly concerning.