Jeb's son says dad 'moving forward' on 2016

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Can you make the case that Bush was bad because his father had preceded him? I can't and, unless you can, your anti-dynasty argument has no legs.

John

No, I make no claim as to the source of W's dysfunctions. My claim is that too many voters dismissed the signs of incompetence because of the dynastic connection.

It's the same problem as seen in dynasties in which the heir gets the crown automatically. You get stuck with a really bad one sooner or later. We don't have direct inheritance of leadership, of course, but the dynastic connection seems to be a big advantage, and to that extent, we are more vulnerable to being stung by a 'bad heir.'

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

No, I make no claim as to the source of W's dysfunctions. My claim is that too many voters dismissed the signs of incompetence because of the dynastic connection.

It's the same problem as seen in dynasties in which the heir gets the crown automatically. You get stuck with a really bad one sooner or later. We don't have direct inheritance of leadership, of course, but the dynastic connection seems to be a big advantage, and to that extent, we are more vulnerable to being stung by a 'bad heir.'

You know what they say, "In with the good heir, out with the bad heir!"

Really, there haven't been enough examples in this country (two) to draw any conclusions. There are potentially many reasons why "W" was a two-term president, not least of which are his brother's assistance in 2000 and Kasich's in 2004. And you can't discount the possibility that the core reason is that the American voter is just plain stupid and eminently capable of making bad choices for any damn reason or for no reason at all.

John

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Boreas

And you can't discount the possibility that the core reason is that the American voter is just plain stupid and eminently capable of making bad choices for any damn reason or for no reason at all.

John