|Former Maryland Lt. Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend|
So why would a Kennedy heir and ultra-liberal go on record in the Atlantic with an article entitled: Why I Agree With Sarah Palin
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the former Lt. Governor of Maryland (first woman), the eldest of Robert and Ethel Kennedy's 11 children, and the eldest grandchild of Joe and Rose Kennedy. She also heads up American Bridge, a Super-PAC whose sole purpose is to raise CORPORATE MONEY to attack Republicans in the 2012 election.
So why does she give Sarah Palin a big bear hug about "crony capitalism?" She begins her Atlantic article this way:
While I admire Sarah Palin for breaking ground as a woman candidate, we don't agree on many policy issues. But her tirade in Iowa a few weeks ago against what she called "corporate crony capitalism" captured my attention. She said, "It's not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk. No, this is the capitalism of connections and government bailouts and handouts and influence peddling and corporate welfare."She goes on to do two other things. First she gives an example of her brother who fought the evil coal companies who lobbied to change language in the Clean Water Act to allow them to block streams of water with refuse from mining. I have no clue what the mining companies would say but, ok - good liberal point.
Good for Sarah Palin.
Naturally she singled out President Obama, but, to her credit, she also took on her own party. Republican candidates "who raise mammoth amounts of cash," she said, should be asked what their donors "expect in return for their investments."
Then she launches into all the evils of Rick Perry encompassing the Merck HPV issue to a $75,000 contributor that was also beneficiary of Texas economic development money. The more of an issue Solyndra becomes the more this could hurt Perry of course.
She goes on to give examples of political moves Andrew Jackson made that supposedly stopped money for political contributions. I would love to rant about Jackson (whom Beck now believes was the first corruptocrat in the White House by the way) and hypocrisy of Kennedy decrying the very corruption that gave her family power (and continues to do so) but it's 2:45 am in the morning and neither you or I want to get into that right now, right? Right. But Kennedy heads up a SuperPAC that is giving money to Democrats FROM CORPORATIONS and she doesn't have any problem with this? She is a Democrat, she is a liberal and she is a lawyer. The perfect trifecta of logical improvidence. But she is not stupid. So what gives?
Two PolitiJim theories:
1. Opening Salvo of Democrat SuperPac AttackShe admits in her Politico interview her job is to attack the GOP. I suspect the Atlantic takes a week lead time to put an article into circulation on it's website (the article doesn't seem to appear in print) and the subject of Iowa was like forever ago. Or a month in real time. Most mainstream pundits began to think Palin wasn't running and of course, this was right when Perry took over in the polls. It makes sense that Townsend Kennedy would try to get headlines using Palin's name to attack who was (when the decision was made to run with this column) the front runner Perry. Good political tactic, right?
But she goes on to end her column this way:
Not to put Sarah Palin in the tradition of Andrew Jackson, the Roosevelts, and John Kennedy, but I'm glad she raised the question of crony capitalism. I look forward to hearing her proposals for legislation to restrict the power of the few. We should know what these large donors want when they give so much money. At least on this issue, the Tea Party may find that they share something with the Democrats.
It is interesting to me that even SHE equates the Tea Party with Palin (something conservative pundits have tried to separate of late) and that she looks forward to hearing her proposals for legislation. Now, if she didn't think Sarah would run, why on earth would she assume Palin would propose legislation? Even since 2008, she has proposed big ideas, constitutional concepts and very macro-politic chatter. But legislation?
In my very brilliant and far to under-read review of THE UNDEFEATED, I talk about the impact on me Tammy Bruce made in the film. I also note the incredible defense of Palin by New York Time columnist (and liberal) Camille Paglia. Can you name me any black liberal who has said something positive about Herman Cain or any liberal Texan that has said something positive about Rick Perry? This brings me to PolitiJim Theory 2:
2. There Is A Secret Admiration for Palin Among Liberal Women
TK (can I call her TK instead of spelling out the damn liberal hyphenation Townsend-Kennedy every time?) admits Palin is a force in politics, helps elevate her in a unprecedented way KNOWING she might run - or at least be a voice in the 2012 campaign. Could it be that this is a way to actually acknowledge her? Geraldine Ferraro surely opened a can guilt on many women politicians when she openly told Palin on FOX NEWS that Palin was the only person who acknowledged appreciation for the accomplishment and battles she faced as the Democratic VP nominee. I don't believe that only touched conservative viewers or was heard in a vacuum.
There has been an increasing openest of the angst of liberal women who are dissatisfied with the fanaticism of their party, their role and the disrespect they observed to Hillary in 2012. Could this be either an attempt to not make the same mistakes they did with the late Ms. Ferraro or, dare we think it, the beginning of the public embrace by non-conservative women for Palin?
Many will discount this and not think it possible. Whether Democrats are now launching a new sophisticated attack by amplifying inner party battles - or whether Palin is about to repeat the unheard of feat of unifying dissimilar political interests as she did in Alaksa - this article in the Atlantic was at least a 2.012 earthquake.