HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Not another Bush or Clint...

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 02:32 PM

 

Not another Bush or Clinton: political dynasties reach for 'regular Joe' status

Not another Bush or Clinton: political dynasties reach for 'regular Joe' status
Hillary Clinton, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush – the US is overflowing with dynastic ambition. Why are Americans still getting the same names on the ballot?
Dan Roberts * Friday 24 April015 * The Guardian

A short stroll from Walker’s Point, where the ancestral estate of the Bush dynasty juts out commandingly into the Atlantic ocean, there is a political campaign slogan in urgent need of fresh clarification.

“Barbara’s husband for president,” joked the original badge from George HW Bush’s 1992 campaign – still proudly on display in the Bush family’s local lobster restaurant in Kennebunkport, Maine.

That is, at least, until someone helpfully scrawled over the word ‘husband’ and added ‘son’ instead; updating the joke when George W Bush ran for the White House eight years later.

Within days, it will be time to update it again, to “Barbara’s other son”. Jeb Bush is set to announce – against his mother’s initial advice – that he will be joining the family tradition and seeking the Republican party nomination for president.

The Bush predilection for power is nothing new. Jeb’s grandfather, Prescott, was a US senator. Great-grandfather George Herbert Walker, developer of the Kennebunkport promontory that still bears his name, also founded a Wall Street bank.

But New England is overflowing with enough dynastic ambition right now to make even scions of the gilded age blush. In nearby New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton has been retracing the steps of her husband in the Democratic primary race.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/24/bush-clinton-dynasties-political-elite?CMP=ema_565

12 replies, 839 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 02:34 PM

1. Yup, Barrack Obama sure was a "dynasty"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 02:38 PM

2. I don't know how Obama slipped into the WH

 

Oh wait, now I remember. He was elected in large part because he promised to be the "most transparent" POTUS ever.

Oh the irony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 02:42 PM

4. No, you obviously missed the point. He won the primary against your OP of

dynasty. Curious why you didn't include Kennedy in that group, they said the same thing about them, and in all cases it doesn't hold water. The populace decides, and in dynasties people are not given the choice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 02:49 PM

5. "in dynasties people are not given the choice"

 

Choice? Surely you don't mean that Democrats need a robust Primary Election?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 04:51 PM

12. We will have a competitive primary. O'Malley, and a couple of others will be running against

Hillary in the primaries

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 02:39 PM

3. But we've had 2 Bush's

 

Not 2 Clinton's yet. The Clinton's are NOT a dynasty IMO. They're self made people. George Bush never had to worry about ANYTHING his whole life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 02:54 PM

6. For the past 26 years, we've had Bush/Clintons for 19 of them.

 

And we can see how that's worked out.

Isn't that enough Bush/Clinton for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #6)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 02:55 PM

8. Bill Clinton gave us eight great years. I loved his presidency. He did a great job. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BreakfastClub (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 03:04 PM

10. Bill gave us NAFTA, and drastic cuts in Welfare to the poor.

 

He did have some good points for sure, but just sayin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 02:54 PM

7. Exactly. Hillary and Bill aren't blood-relation either. It's stupid to

call them a "dynasty." And you know, all dynasties aren't bad. The Kennedy family is loved by many.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 02:57 PM

9. It's not the "dynasty" part that bothers me. It's the policies of both the Bushes and Clintons.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 03:08 PM

11. You have a point there.

 

As others have noted, the Kennedy Clan is well liked & even revered by the FDR Left.

And I agree too, that in this case with Hillary, it's the sorry track record on corporatism, militarism and coddling Wall St. that I have issues with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread