Bush Dynasty!?

[richlevy]

I just caught a glimpse of a rather fawning interview on Scarborough country where he was interviewing Jeb Bush. He hinted at a groundswell of support for a Jeb Bush presidency in 2008, whereupon Gov. Bush gave him an 'aw shucks' kind of response.

The last attempt at a presidential dynasty was the Kennedys. The final tally was two assasinated and one completely discredited.

[Radar]

The final tally was two assasinated and one completely discredited.

We should be so lucky with the Bush family.

[Griff]

Careful lad. Secret Service

Its funny how detentions were railed about by Republicans when Clintons people did it but now its serious business.

[xoxoxoBruce]

one completely discredited.

Care to elaborate?

[SteveDallas]

I believe rich was referring to Ted Kennedy.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Discredited just because he's a souse and a killer? Oh, make that manslaughterer. No..wait...womanslaughterer.
Well he's not as bad as O.J. Everyone love's O.J. don't they?

[ScottSolomon]

Can you imaging how bad things will be in this country if Bush gets reelected? I really doubt Jeb has a shot - unless they just decide to throw out democratic elections alltogether ( which would not surprise me )

[SteveDallas]

The democrats have shown themselves to be almost completely devoid of spine in the last couple years. I predict an easy win for Bush in 2004 simply because the Democrats won't take it to him. (And yeah, I know Howard Dean has been mouthing off, and it's better than nothing, but it'll take more than one person.) So, after 8 years of non-opposition, the Republicans can probably win with whoever they feel like nominating in 2008.

[tw]

Originally posted by SteveDallas
The democrats have shown themselves to be almost completely devoid of spine in the last couple years. I predict an easy win for Bush in 2004 simply because the Democrats won't take it to him.

Employees of the White House, even with White House phone numbers in their pockets, were caught bugging the Democratic Party for President Nixon's relection committee - CREEP. A year later, the Democrats were so unfocused that Nixon could still win the presidency for a second term even though it was obvious his adminstration was lying. Same president could invade another country and the nation would say nothing - except the college kids who quite rightly said, "Don't trust anyone over 30."

Now we have another president who outrightly lied so he could invade another country. Who undermines the Oslo Accords and lets the Israelis, for the first time, use America weapons against unarmed civilians (even Reagan would not let Israel do that). Who subverts America's relations with virtually every nation in the world. Who undermines the economy so he can build new military bases and expensive (useless) anti-ballistic missile systems at the expense of local government budgets, nation's economic health, international relations, and infastructure investment. Who creates a whole new level of bureacracy (Office of Fatherland Security) and still will not address deep seated management problems throughout the FBI. Such a President issues a tax cut that does nothing for the economy and now (two years later as predicted) only extends a recession (tax cuts to solve recessions have always been mythical with real, long term, negative consequences).

Clinton demonstrated how easy it would be to defeat an incumbant that was far more competant. But where will the Democrats find anyone with such focus and objectives? Like Nixon, we will probably relect George Jr. even though he would lie to invade another soveirgn nation. It does not say good things about the Democratic leadership.

[ScottSolomon]

It is not so much that there are no democratic voices, the problem is that we have to fight a media that is bent on marginalizing any populist or liberal point of view. The Republicans have the support of the rich - who control the media, who make up most of the pundit class, who donate huge sums of money to Bush, who could care less about the majority of Americans.

We have an uphill battle - because we are fighting people that have immense power - not because our ideas are unsound.

It does not help that Daschle is a spineless pimpple that is literally in bed with the airline lobbyists.

[warch]

Hmmm. Howard Dean is intriguing to me. Socially progressive. Investment in healthcare and children. Fiscally responsible, longterm view. Gun control and the death penalty views are more centrist. Wonder what libertarians will think of this option. Wonder if the far left could get behind him.

[SteveDallas]

Originally posted by warch
Wonder if the far left could get behind him.

See, that's the problem... I'm convinced the best candidates lose during the primaries, because the only people who bother to vote then are the most rabid extremists. So only the putzes are left to compete in November. I mean, can you imagine Paul "You can't be pro-jobs and anti-business" Tsongas running against Bush in 1992? It's just as bad for the republicans. I mean come on, did anybody really think Bob Dole had a snowball's chance of beating Clinton in 1996? (Although if you subscribe to the theory that NO republican could have beaten Clinton, maybe Dole wasn't a bad sacrificial candidate.) And judging by the photo-finish election in 2000, it's obvious people couldn't decide which candidate they disliked less.

[xoxoxoBruce]

it's obvious people couldn't decide which candidate they disliked less.

Damn straight there, Steve!

[jaguar]

Gush and Bore, what a wonderful election that was =)
Is it me or is the politics forum less....fiesty these days?

[xoxoxoBruce]

It's good to be the king! Bwahahahahaha!!