“We have become, I think, a nation that is less small-r republican and more royalist than it used to be,” Michael Barone wrote in a Wall Street Journal commentary about the political dynasties of the Bush and Clinton families. And he concluded with this chilling forecast: “George P. Bush will be eligible to run for president in 2012. Chelsea Clinton will be eligible to run for president in 2016. So will Jenna and Barbara Bush, who will turn 35 several days after the election. And Jeb Bush, who had a fine record in eight years as governor of Florida, will be younger in 2024 than John McCain will be in 2008 or Ronald Reagan was in 1984. Royalism may be here to stay.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- writerdog on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- CapnAmerica on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
68 Comments
Yes.
For sure, no more Bushes.
The Clinton’s have been widely successful, the Bush’s have a long line of corruption since Prescott Bush made millions of the deaths of Jews in concentration camps in Nazi Germany. I think there’s one line we should end right away.
Agreed.
No more Bush’s, Clintons or Kennedy’s.
Maybe we should have a rule prohibiting family succession. Enough with the Monarchy, already.
Can’t see where Hillary has a chance.
No, she hasn’t a chance.
Except for the Dem nomination.
And if they are silly enough to go there – they deserve to lose in the General.
yes
You think things are “F”ed up now, let Hillary in the white house and see what happens to the FEW freedoms we have left. We have let the goverment become BIG BROTHER with way to much power.
It takes a Clinton to clean up the mess of a Bush!
I wonder … I have been one saying that she would not get the nomination, largely based on the perception that she could not win in November. I am beginning to re-think that position.
I have seen projections that she could take the female vote 60-40. If she does that and the male vote splits 40-60 she wins; there are more women than men. And, with the situation being what it is I do not see ANY Democrat doing worse than 40-60 among men.
Obviously a lot of this will depend on the identities of three other people: her VP, the Rep Pres, and the Rep VP. It also depends TREMENDOUSLY on the status of the war. Unless the Republican candidate is Chuck Hagel the war will be hung aroung his neck like an albatross. UNLESS – if bush manages to find a way to have a successful outcome in hand by next fall (2008). Then EVERYTHING changes.
James Sr – you sure that shouldn’t be BIG SISTER?
“UNLESS – if bush manages to find a way to have a successful outcome in hand by next fall (2008). Then EVERYTHING changes.”You nailed it here, ben. This would explain a lot about the attitudes of the Dems. They know that Bush must fail at all costs, even to the point of where they embolden the enemy.
No fleettwood, I don’t think you are correct. I, for one, would welcome a successful completion of what we are doing there. And I think Democrats feel the same way. My country comes before Party. Unfortunately, for too many Republicans, the opposite is true. That is why we keep digging the quagmire deeper.
Chuck Hagel is the exception to that on the GOP side.
Guess I’m in the 40% on the female side. If the Democratic Party nominates her (and I’m hoping they don’t) she will probably get my vote because America can’t take much more of this Republican nonsense. It’s too soon to be thinking of the next presidential elections.
If the Dems are allowed their way (pull out, quit), the effect would be the same (Bush fails). Politically, they cannot stand to have this war be successful. What do you think the non-binding resolution is all about? Sticking it in the eye of Bush, knowing that emboldening the enemy is a small price to pay compared to the power that can be gained.
Ben,You certainly speak for yourself and your own feelings of country over party – but you’re in the democrat minority (IMHO). The democrat leaders LOVE beyond all measure to see Bush fail, and they’ll do most anything within their power to ensure he does – even if it emasculates the country.
I’ll say that 24-28 years of nothing but Bush or Clinton rule sounds like some kind of modern day monarchy.I’m still sticking with my prediction of Oprah’s endorsement carrying Obama.However, regarding the threat of terrorism. I do find it interesting and you have to believe both sides believe the President is doing a good job keeping us safer against terrorist attacks at home. Otherwise both sides (with the exception of a handful of Republicans) wouldn’t be tripping over themselves to line-up against the President’s positions on the war on terror.My point is this. If you line up against Iraq (and the President’s war on terror) you are taking the chance (21 months from the election) that there will not be a terrorist attack at home. If there is, your symbolic vote against Iraq is the nail in the coffin of your Presidential aspirations.
What’s up with Obama being called “Black”? It doesn’t seem fair to the white folks. His mother is white, his father is black. Was it a coin flip?
fleettwood – we have a long history in this country of the “teaspoon rule” – one teaspoon of black blood and you are black. I remember that all too well from the Deep South.
golfer – I know many Democrats; they must ALL be in the “minority” according to you. Either that or you are simply WRONG.
Listen to Peckerwood “the Dems know Bush must fail at all costs.”
Oh man, that’s rich.
As if Worst. President. Ever. needs any help failing.
That’s the recurring story of this man’s life.
Failure.
He didn’t even win a majority of votes in the 2000 election.
He crows about creating 7 million jobs in the last state of the union–Clinton created 22 million in the same time period.
And then there’s the Iraqmire based entirely on Bush lies.
The Democrats need only sit back and watch this man destroy himself and everyone around him.
If Bush lied, impeach him. If he didn’t, STFU. Cowards.
Ben,Your lower-level democrat friends are meaningless when compared to the democrat leadership in Washington. Ergo, my aforementioned “minority”.
No I want more Clintons less Bush. Life was damn good under the Clintons.
I want more Bush!
Where’s Amy Carter when you need a good president?
Unfortunately, until we get a real president, the current quagmire in Iraq is the best we can hope for.
This op/ed summed up well Bush’s history and what he faces in Iraq:
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/editorial/16574690.htm
Though I would _like_ for it to be untrue, the U.S. needs mideast oil. A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq could threaten that source of oil and have world-wide financial impact (and not a positive impact).
Given sufficient investigation concerning the lead-up to the Iraq war, I believe there will be grounds to impeach Bush and Cheney. Time will tell on this latter.
Amy is living with Chelsea on the ugly farm.Libs=ugly chillins
I’ll be Bush and Cheney’s huckleberry!
golfer – I have some friends who are fairly high in the Democratic Party at least at the state level. Your claim is malarky.
LindainKS sums up my ambivalence about Hillary. Will vote for unless she is running opposite of Hagel.
Fleet – that last post was real useful.
Again, it is a Republican bringing up the ugly girls. Wonder why they don’t throw in Jenna and Barbara into that bunch? They would certainly qualify. Repugs=ugly girls & drunks
golfer, I have some friends who are fairly high in EVERY party.
…vote for *her …
Well, since Bill already gave the Chinese all of our missile technology in exchange for campaign cash, and we’re all giving them the money to build those missiles through our purchases of all their goods, I don’t think they need the Clintons any more
Jenna Bush. Now that’s a candidate I could get into.
Come on dems, Hillary DESERVES our vote.
Don’t let the right wingnuts bully you.
You know she’s the best candidate.
THEY don’t want her to be Pres, and anything they DON’T want, we DO want.
I’m wondering…
If life was “damn good” when Willie was prez – can you name one economic policy he championed/signed/suggested that created that “goodness”?
Welfare reform? (that was GOP-fostered legislation that Clinton reluctantly signed).
Tax cuts? Oh gosh no – Clinton increased taxes and the result: recession in 2000.
Balanced budget? (Not accomplished with ANY spending cuts – only tax increases).
GS – Kennedy’s? My history book tells me of only one Kennedy that was president. You must have that revised version that is so popular with the Republicans.
You people (woody)
Charges:Your whole life has been a pitiful exercise in rote mimicry,a meek subjugation of individuality in exchange for herd approval.Your delusions of “common sense” wisdom stem from an unwillingness to seek information and an inability to critically analyze it.You never hesitate to offer strong opinions on subjects you don’t know a damn thing about.You’re willing to believe anything a guy in a suit says on TV, as long as it doesn’t hint at your culpability in the negligent homicide of your country and planet or otherwise cloud your streak-free conscience.You’re more worried about friction on the “24″ set than the lack of health coverage at your tedious, soul-destroying job.You have no idea what is going on in the world, and you’re fine with that.You are why democracy doesn’t work.
Exhibit A:You’re Time magazine’s person of the year.So was Hitler.
Sentence: More of the same.
Clinton signed the tax increase, remember, it took the republicans to sit it in front of him.
and it was the right thing to do.
Least amount of poverty EVER and best standard of living in decades.
FIRST balanced budget in decades.
Pulled us out of the hole Reagan and Bush Sr left us with.
Most home ownership.
HE was a leader.
Clinton – budget surplus at end of term – Bush blew it and is still spending.
Clinton got the tax cut that allows us to sell our primary residence without getting a big tax bite taken out.
next
Oh yeah, I forgot. Liberals think tax increases are a GOOD thing.
DOH!
Tax increases are a good thing when you have a president and congress that have been spending like a drunk sailor using someone elses credit card for the last 6 years.
Balls you ain’t got no room to talk since you support the BORROW and spend GOP.
Prescott Bush’s deals:
He was criticized in 1989 for visiting China to meet with business and government leaders just three months after the Tiananmen Square massacre, in which army troops fired at pro-democracy demonstrators.
His Shanghai partnership with the Japanese firm Aoki in 1988 proved embarrassing when revelations surfaced that Aoki at the same time was allegedly trying to get business contracts by bribing Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega, whom the first President Bush later ousted from power.
His connections to an American firm, Asset Management, came into question in 1989, when the company was the only U.S. firm able to skirt U.S. sanctions and import communications satellites into China.When Asset Management went bankrupt later that year, Bush’s deal to arrange a buyout through West Tsusho, a Japanese investment firm, raised eyebrows. Newspapers reported that Japanese police were investigating West Tsusho’s alleged ties to organized crime.
Bush declines to discuss those controversies. “That’s old news. It’s in the past,” he says.
Tracy,I’ve been critical of the current administration’s spending policies for as long as I’ve been on this board – and even before that. I do NOT condone running a deficit for any measureable length of time.
Fortunately, internal revenues have greatly exceeded forecasts, and the budget will be balanced in the not-too-distant future. I’d love to see spending reduced such that the budget is balanced tomorrow.
I do not like the appearance of dynasty of two families.
I DO like how horrified the sick stupid right is of Hillary Clinton.
It MAY be that these two families are exploiting the fundamental hatred and divide in this country.
Peckerhead says if we don’t impeach, we can’t talk about Bush record of constant failure.
I have mixed feelings about impeachment.
1. What Bush did is more than a political crime. He should really be tried and imprisoned.
Impeachment is too good for him.
2. Impeachment at this time would tear the country apart. RepubliCONs have no objection to tearing the country apart if they think they can get some short-term benefit from it, but not so with the us thinking, caring Americans.
3. It’s an ‘either-or’ fallacy. We can criticise Bush’s policies without demanding impeachment.
Let the man stew in his own juice.
There are still a few more Bush enablers that need to be destroyed by his hubris. The stage is not yet littered with dead bodies and the curtain hasn’t rung down . . .
Tracy, I think the incidents you reference above were done by Neil Bush, younger bro of GW & Jeb.
In Neil’s divorce proceedings, it was revealed that he was a paid consultant to China for a good chunk of money. His duties included talking on the phone with someone from China about every three months. At his divorce, when asked if he thought it was strange that the Chinese government supplied him with prostitutes whenever he visited and expected nothing in return, he said, “Yes, I thought that was strange.”
Neil was involved in the savings and loan scandels. Crimes, for which anyone else, would have been in prison.
capn is getting all flippy floppy on us now. Make up your mind.If Bush has done half the things you accuse him of, he must be impeached. You (and yours) are all talk.
Steven – and who else do we know who was involved in those S&L scandals? Remember the Keating Five?
Pmom,
I disagree, I don’t think Hillary is our best candidate. As I have said before, in polls she has real strong negatives and real strong positives. People lover her or hate her — there is not much middle room.
http://www.pollingreport.com/
http://www.pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hillary
The fact that I like her and her priorities doesn’t mean she would be a good Dem candidate. I would favor any Demcratic alternative.
If she gets the nomination, and isn’t opposed by Hagel, I will vote for a 3rd party candidate most likely.
Ben,In the first link I give above, a Time Poll shows Hillary even at 47% with McCain. That surprises me somewhat.
McCain was one of the other S&L people, right?
I think I am against Hillary because of the “royalist” factor as much as anything else.
And the fact that I don’t think she can win.
Steven – yes, Mccain was one of the Keating Five.
It is interesting that Hillary consistently has more positive than negative. Given that she is so well known I doubt that her numbers would deteriorate any.
Hillary has a lot of name recognition right now.
Big deal.
That will change after the primary race.
She’s not going to be it. After Dean lost, the Dem activists said, “no way are we getting shafted by the DINO’s again.”
We knocked LIEberman out of his own primary. True, his true base, Republicans, elected him anyway, but it shows what grass-roots and net-roots can do.
And then there’s the Senate and House both flipping against the President, something that hasn’t happened in since Wilson . . .
sam – only one of the Clinton’s was President, too.
Didn’t that dawn on you?
But according to the Republicans, Hillary was running the country when Bill was in office – or did that not dawn on you?
The Clinton’s are the ones who said it was a two-for-one deal. You get one, you get both.
“And then there’s the Senate and House both flipping against the President, something that hasn’t happened in since Wilson. . .”
I thought the same thing happened with Nixon. Barry Goldwater on Nixon: “That son of a bitch lied to his own family.”
Unfortunately, Bush lying on just about anything is not considered a big deal. Times have not changed for the good.
Oh wait, I am guessing you mean losing both senate and house in a midterm election. I was talking about the party holding the Whitehouse turning on its own president.
Steven, if you like her and her policies, why on earth would you vote against her?
That makes NO sense.
She’s going to win.
She’s not even going to win the democrat nomination
Elect Hillary and get two leaders for the price of one.
“That makes NO sense.”
Pmom,
I agree. The Clintons don’t facilitate the rational side of me, at all.
Bill was able to co-opt the few good ideas the Repubs had and implemented them effectively. That is one reason why they hate his guts.
I thought times were better under Clinton with respect to us being much closer to full employment.
What turned me south on Bill was Barbara Walter’s interview of Monica. I thought, how could the leader of the free world jepardize his agenda for having what sounded like pretty unsatisfying sex with this vapid borderline? I lost any respect for the man on that day. I can understand why Gore distanced himself from Clinton during the 2000 campaign – it was the moral thing to do.
I sincerely hope that Hillary is not nominated. We don’t need the baggage that comes with her.
Despite the “wise” prognostication of Nutz, I fear there is a good chance Hillary will get the nomination. She has some serious money behind her. Her getting the nod, will be a mistake I contend.
It takes more than money, Mr. Davis. Howard Dean had more than he could spend – and look what happened.
She’s got baggageShe’s got so much heavy baggageThe weight of the worldIs on her shoulderI wonder how she carries it around
Woke up, it was the middle of the nightTelephone ringingSo I turned on the lightWhat’s upShe must be calling me againNight after nightand it’s driving me insane.
Hey Joe, say it ain’t soShe called me upthen she put me on holdHey Joe, sait it ain’t soShe called methen she put me on hold.
John Fogerty, “She’s Got Baggage”
While John Lennon may have thought, ‘all you need is love’, GWBush forever proved all you need is money (and a lot of it) to be the prez of the US of A.
Davis,You’re a true liberal. All your problems can be summed up and solved in a song or two.