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

[Boreas]

Oh yeah! Obama is Bush's cousin too! Should he have been disqualified on that basis too or is being black enough?

John

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

IMO, Hillary Clinton will be a disaster as President. I don't know why but it's just a gut feel. She is very polarizing which means the entire GOP faction in the US will be lined up against her. So why?

She is a polarizing figure but only because the Right worked diligently to turn her into one. They have done the same to Obama and will do the same to any Democrat to win the White House. It's inevitable.

I suppose that means we should only elect Republicans from now on.

John

[bobabode]

Much as I would like to see Liz in the WH, you gotta go with who's electable so I'm with Hillary. It's pretty much false equivalence to equate the Bush male line (textbook dynastic) with Bill & Hillary imo.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Boreas

She is a polarizing figure but only because the Right worked diligently to turn her into one. They have done the same to Obama and will do the same to any Democrat to win the White House. It's inevitable.

I suppose that means we should only elect Republicans from now on.

John

Plus one.

[nailer]

First Lady Hillary Clinton was polarizing.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by nailer

First Lady Hillary Clinton was polarizing.

She must've been doing something right then, like taking on the Medical Industrial Complex.

[barbara]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Plus one.

What he said..... Plus another one.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Should FDR have been ineligible because he was TR's cousin?

Hillary wouldn't be Bill's "named successor" any more than "W" was Poppie's or John Q Adams was his father's successor. We have elections here and we end up electing people on perceived merit. We often get that wrong but not on the basis of ancestry.

John

I wouldn't say so. I'm saying draw the line at one degree of separation.

Dynasties are bad. The second Bush should be enough to prove that. Constitutions exist to save us from likely mistakes like that.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

I wouldn't say so. I'm saying draw the line at one degree of separation.

Dynasties are bad. The second Bush should be enough to prove that. Constitutions exist to save us from likely mistakes like that.

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

John

[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.'