I just read something that put into words something I’d felt, but hadn’t articulated to myself. There are a thousand reasons why I want George Bush to lose the election, and this one isn’t the top reason, but it still bugs me.
This is from an open letter to John Kerry and the Kerry campaign.
What, do they have delusions that Bush will win again, and that Jeb will be waiting to take over in 4 years? I’ve often heard that Jeb wants his shot at the WH.
I’m sick of the Bush family! Go the fuck away.
Here’s another one…
Reason #47 = My favorite female singer is Kate Bush. God dammit that I now have to always say “she’s not related!” if I talk about her.
So what’s your suggestion? Ban someone from running for President if a relative already held the office?
The fact that “a George Bush” has been on the ticket so many times is nonsense. George H.W. Bush was elected twice as Reagan’s VP, and ran for the Presidency twice himself. Would you deny him the right to do so? And George W. Bush ran for the presidency himself and now is running again. So, what? And if Jeb decides to run in 2008, so what? Would you deny him the right to run simply because he had relatives that held the office?
And if Hillary runs twice, will we hear you “complaining” that there was a Clinton on the ticket four times?
According to the “Rule of 3”, most prominant families decline after the third generation of note. Look at the Rockefellers after the Nelson-David-Winthrop-Laurence-John D III generation, or the Kennedys after the John-Robert-Teddy generation.
It seems kind of stupid to blame anyone for this. “You had a family member in the Federal Govt., how dare you get elected!” Why put the responsibility on the dynasties, be they Kennedy’s, Bushes, or whoever? I put the blame squarely on the electorate, and their fatuous belief that political acumen is as thick as blood.
You stupid fuck. Whenever you have members of the same family ruling for generations, you’ve got a fucking DYNASTY in power, not a democracy! It doesn’t matter who it is, or where they are on the political spectrum, it ISN’T democracy, even if it USES the trappings of democracy to legitimize its rule. Nobody buys that “divine right of kings” shit anymore, so now it’s “the will of the people.”
Excuse me, sir. While I do realize that we are in the Pit, I don’t think that that was called for.
I take it that you’ve noticed that the Adamses aren’t running the country anymore. Nor are the Harrisons, the Roosevelts, the Tafts or the Kennedys for that matter. I don’t think having two or three people by the name of Bush in the White House equates to a monarchy - at least not any more than having a zillion Kennedys around the country in positions of power. Historically, this country has shown that having relatives in power has not made it into a monarchy ruled by “divine right.”
In any event, I will present to you the same question - will you advocate taking away someone’s eligibility for office based on something that a relative did and that they have no control over? Would you take away Hillary Clinton’s or even Chelsea Clinton’s right to run for President because Bill held the office for eight years? If your brother ran and won, would want to be disqualified on that basis? Please see if you can answer me civilly.
I think he was refering obliquely to Bush’s ill-fated anti-gay marriage amendment. Hey, if we’re going to start using the Constitution to disenfranchise people for factors that have exsisted since the moment they were born and which they can not possibly change, let’s at least do it to people I don’t personally like. What’s so unreasonable about that?
You call Zev a “stupid fuck” – but in fact there is a difference between a dynasty and the present situation. In the dynasty, the heirs ascended to leadership as a matter of right. Here, they must be elected by the Electoral College, which in turn are elected by the people of each state.
Someone that doesn’t understand that is more likely to be the stu… well, is woefully uniformed.