Dynasty Continued-George Bush:The Third Generation

Dayton's been wanking off to the idea of a Bush dynasty for most of the years you've been hiding under whatever bridge you call home these days.

Do you really want to pull a Clyde and take a bullet for Dayton? I mean, I don't have high standards when reading one of your posts, but I thought even you could do better than that.

Improbably, I agree with the Canadan. Let's send the Bushes to Canada, tut de suite.

The American presidency has always been "semi dynastical". Thus you have the Harrison's (grandfather/grandson), Adam's (father/son), Roosevelt's (cousins), Bush's (father/son), Stevenson's (grandfather VP, grandson two time nominee for president), Taft's (president, grandson major presidential contender), Kennedy's (president, both brothers ran for president). Hope I got all those correct off the cuff.

But should we be surprised? Politics is very much a career with many elected officials (whether that is good or bad is another issue entirely). And it is not that surprising when you have sons and grandsons "going into the family business"

^
Do you see where that might be a problem, though?

Of course. But then again the current system has worked adequately for two centuries so I see no reasons to cast aside established long standing traditions just because of current disgruntlement.

will you still feel that way if Sasha and/or Malia Obama start moving up in the political world 20 years from now? Or Chealsea Clinton makes a go at the Senate?

And the difference now versus 200 years ago is the huge financial barriers to enter into politics. If you're not rich and connected, you may as well give up now...which is why you've got more and more political dynasties with the same families, looking out for themselves.

So I say again: is that still a problem for you?

Chelsea? I'm still trying to figure out how Hillary was qualified to become a senator.

No. This thing about "any boy can be president of the United States of America" has always been complete bull. How many "common man" types were presidents from among the founding fathers? Answer: None. All were pretty much from the elite of 18th century society.

The only real "common men" that have ever become president have been military leaders.

One day I hope there will be a Kitchens dynasty. When I am elected President I will abolish term limits and can stay in office until my successor enters the "family business". We can still have elections of course but I will give people the right "incentives" to vote for me.

Democracy and freedom being responsible for much suffering of course.

I don't think there's much of a real danger. In 200-plus years, not one of these families has produced more than two presidents. Their prominence on the political stage tends to peter out after two generations, occasionally three. Then it's back to investment bankers, college presidents, magazine publishers, and the odd state representative.

All of the Kennedys who ran for president were from the same generation, and nobody from subsequent generations has really made an attempt at national-scale politics.

The Roosevelts were a huge family, but nobody besides the two presidents ever got even close to that level. TR had a niece who served in the Connecticut House. His great-granddaughter Susan married Bill Weld, the governor of Massachusetts, who I would have loved to see run for president, but never did. His great-grandson Mark Roosevelt ran for governor of Massachusetts, against Weld, oddly enough.

Just to clarify, are you talking about "born common" or "rise through the ranks"? 'Cuz obviously Obama is the latter, and a brief search on Wiki shows John Adams was the former, born to a deacon in the puritan church. Not a lot of money there.

Outside of the Bushes, most of our modern presidents weren't born to rich, powerful families. Jimmy Carter probably got the closest, since his father was a prominent businessman who served in the Georgia House. Obama, Clinton, Reagan, Ford and Nixon all grew up either poor or middle-class with no political connections. What they have in common is having worked from an early age to develop the relationships and experiences that would allow them to be successful in politics later.

back in revolutionary war times and before there was a big distinction between "wealth" and "money". Even George Washington didn't have much "money" yet he was "wealthy" by the standards of the day by any real measure.

Barack Obama is pretty much an exception. His rise was largely a fluke. Based in large part on his novelty.

Bullshit. Just because he's black, there is no novelty in his coming from a modest background. Read Tafkat's post above yours for more on this.

Reagan at the time he entered politics was a millionaire and well known.

Ford, though he grew up during the Depression was in a family which was largely spared the economic stresses of the depression due to his father's business.

Clinton was from what was considered an upper middle class family at the time with his stepfather considered pretty successful and well connected.

Be honest gul.

If Obama had not been black, he would've been damn lucky to win his Senate race. Much less the Democratic nomination. Much, much, much less the presidency.

Tell, me what in his background made him a compelling presidential candidate aside from his race?

Laughable, Dayton. And I think it's shameful that you think American's so racist.

All it takes is a few percent of voters wanting to vote for a black man as president to swing an election.

Those people already vote for Democrats Dayton, and I could just as easily argue that it only takes a few percent of voters wanting to vote against a black man to sway an election. Your theory is thoroughly debunked, and is the province of people who can't accept that a majority actually preferred the guy who happened to have dark skin for any reason other than that skin. Get over it, the majority of Americans are not bothered by his skin color.

Location, location, location. She packed her carpetbag and took up residency in New York.

Then again, anyone who doesn't believe she was the power behind the throne for eight years has never heard of Nancy Reagan.

Neither Nancy Reagan nor Hillary Clinton had much power. Reagan especially.

Sez you.

You've made the positive claim. Offer proof from an unbiased source.