# I'm so sick of the Bush Dynasty **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 7, 2004, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-so-sick-of-the-bush-dynasty/263486 "2004-09-07T14:17:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-so-sick-of-the-bush-dynasty/263486/21 "2004-09-08T03:39:03Z")
> [@zev\_steinhardt](#): > > Excuse me, sir. While I do realize that we are in the Pit, I don’t think that that was called for. Sure it was. As you’ve already noted, this is the Pit, ya stupid fuck ya. > [@](#): > > 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.” Just because one family or other hasn’t turned into a political dynasty, doesn’t mean that others won’t, or won’t try very hard to. Especially one that has already gotten a leader installed via crooked means. > [@](#): > > 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. First of all, this is the Pit, ya fuck ya. I feel absolutely no compunction to answer you civilly. If you want civility, go to Great Debates. I haven’t given much thought as to how one should go about preventing political dynasties from becoming a problem in America. Your methods seem kinda crude. Maybe we could establish a crime called “Attempted Dynasty” or even “Dynasty” and establish rules for what constitutes an attempt to install a political dynasty in the U.S., then prosecute those who would do so as the treasonous scum they are. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-so-sick-of-the-bush-dynasty/263486/22 "2004-09-08T03:44:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Welll you’re a double stupid fuck with a woefully uninformed cherry on top. You’re saying that if members of the family repeatedly ruled the U.S., it wouldn’t be a dynasty because they used the “Electoral College” dodge instead of the “right of kings” dodge. I think I already pointed the idiocy of that out in a previous post. But seeing as how you’re demonstrably kinda slow … ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-so-sick-of-the-bush-dynasty/263486/23 "2004-09-08T03:55:12Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Sure it was. As you’ve already noted, this is the Pit, ya stupid fuck ya. Fine. I’m not going to toss it in simply because you can’t be civil. > [@](#): > > Just because one family or other hasn’t turned into a political dynasty, doesn’t mean that others won’t, or won’t try very hard to. Especially one that has already gotten a leader installed via crooked means. Oh, I didn’t realize that George H.W. Bush was installed by crooked means as the Vice President twice under Reagan and the when he was elected President. Boy, he must have been a dunce when he didn’t rig it the right way in 1992… :rolleyes: Secondly, George W. Bush was installed properly. And even if you maintain that he was not, the odds against the same sort of really close election occuring involving a Bush in 2008 are vanishingly small. Odds are that in 2008 (and 2004 and 2012, etc.) that whomever wins will do so clearly and without ambiguity. > [@](#): > > First of all, this is the Pit, ya fuck ya. “Profanity is the common crutch of the conversational cripple” - David Keuck > [@](#): > > I haven’t given much thought as to how one should go about preventing political dynasties from becoming a problem in America. Your methods seem kinda crude. What methods? I haven’t advocated any methods other than that the people should vote them out. > [@](#): > > Maybe we could establish a crime called “Attempted Dynasty” or even “Dynasty” and establish rules for what constitutes an attempt to install a political dynasty in the U.S., then prosecute those who would do so as the treasonous scum they are. So, I take it from this that running for the Presidency after a relative has held the office is treasonous? I didn’t realize that Presidents J.Q. Adams, Benjamin Harrison and Franklin Roosevelt were “treasonous scum.” I must have missed the “Robert and Ted Kennedy are treasonous scum and must be prosecuted” campaigns. Oh, and when/if Hillary attempts to run in 2008, I’m sure you’ll be happy to have her charged with “Attempted Dynasty…” :rolleyes: Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_King_of_Soup)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-so-sick-of-the-bush-dynasty/263486/24 "2004-09-08T04:26:13Z")
One thing that’s getting lost here, along with **Evil Captor** ’s ability to suppress his venom, is the fact that the Bush “dynasty” (and we can accept the word as referring to a succession of rulers from the same family, if by succession we mean two and by ruler we mean the president of a democratic republic), exists, if it does, not because of the strength of the presidents named but for the opposite. G.H.W. Bush made it onto Reagan’s ticket only because he was able to swallow his “voodoo economics” line and most of the rest of his personal convictions as well, and he became president because he was willing to run, basically, on a next-best-thing-to Reagan platform. The price he paid for trading in his spine was to be a one-term president. Dubya, on the other hand, was picked by the Republicans largely because he had a recognizable name, no particular ideas of his own and could be counted on to do what he was told. In both cases, it’s not the Bush family that holds the power, it’s the party. As for families that have through their members exercised a lot of power in the Federal government, we’ve had lots of those. Fortunately, the Adams, Taft, Roosevelt, Rockefeller and Kennedy dynasties didn’t manage to extinguish democracy. If this Bush presidency is a threat to liberty, it’s because the administration doesn’t consider itself bound by the rule of law, not because of genetic ties to previous presidents. ---
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-so-sick-of-the-bush-dynasty/263486/25 "2004-09-08T05:12:54Z")
> [@zev\_steinhardt](#): > > So what’s your suggestion? Ban someone from running for President if a relative already held the office? Of course not. It was a vent. In the Pit. Not Great Debates. > [@zev\_steinhardt](#): > > And if Hillary runs twice, will we hear you “complaining” that there was a Clinton on the ticket four times? I don’t know much about her, I don’t know if she’ll run, or what the world will be like if she does, so I have no opinion about it. I didn’t much like her husband while he was in office, so I’d probably like her better just by default. ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-so-sick-of-the-bush-dynasty/263486/26 "2004-09-08T05:13:21Z")
> [@The King of Soup](#): > > One thing that’s getting lost here, along with **Evil Captor** ’s ability to suppress his venom, is the fact that the Bush “dynasty” (and we can accept the word as referring to a succession of rulers from the same family, if by succession we mean two and by ruler we mean the president of a democratic republic), exists, if it does, not because of the strength of the presidents named but for the opposite. G.H.W. Bush made it onto Reagan’s ticket only because he was able to swallow his “voodoo economics” line and most of the rest of his personal convictions as well, and he became president because he was willing to run, basically, on a next-best-thing-to Reagan platform. The price he paid for trading in his spine was to be a one-term president. Dubya, on the other hand, was picked by the Republicans largely because he had a recognizable name, no particular ideas of his own and could be counted on to do what he was told. In both cases, it’s not the Bush family that holds the power, it’s the party. Excellent response, kudos sir! ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-so-sick-of-the-bush-dynasty/263486/27 "2004-09-08T05:58:59Z")
Heck, up here in the Great White North, there are people urging Justin Trudeau to run for office, for no other apparant reason than the successes of his late father. It’s brand extension, plain and simple, by people who think that if the son of a statesman gets into power, all the good stuff of the statesman’s administration will be magically resurrected. All the bad stuff, natch, is forgotten. It’s the same selective nostalgia that makes people equate the fifties with the Lost Golden Age of Atlantis. ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-so-sick-of-the-bush-dynasty/263486/28 "2004-09-08T06:04:38Z")
As long as the Clinton Presidential dynasty ended in 2000, I’d gladly grant **Equipoise** her wish. ---
**Author:** ![umop\_ap\_sdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/dbc845/32.png) [@umop\_ap\_sdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/umop_ap_sdn)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-so-sick-of-the-bush-dynasty/263486/29 "2004-09-08T06:53:21Z")
> [@zev\_steinhardt](#): > > **World Eater** , please tell me you’re kidding. I think he was making a pun around the fact that the Bush Administration is not above trying to pass constitutional amendments to serve its own crooked ideals. **Evil Captor** , because Bush did not win the popular vote (and there’s something wrong IMO with any leader being in power who has lost the popular vote, let alone one as incompetent as Dubya) I would have agreed with you up until this gem: > [@Evil Captor](#): > > Maybe we could establish a crime called “Attempted Dynasty” or even “Dynasty” and establish rules for what constitutes an attempt to install a political dynasty in the U.S., then prosecute those who would do so as the treasonous scum they are. Prosecute candidates for trying to install a dynasty!? And accuse them of treason, considered (IIRC) by the United States to be the worst offence? Isn’t that a bit extreme? Of course, like you said, this is the Pit so surely you’ll flame me for that. Whatever. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-so-sick-of-the-bush-dynasty/263486/30 "2004-09-08T06:58:01Z")
> [@The King of Soup](#): > > One thing that’s getting lost here, along with **Evil Captor** ’s ability to suppress his venom, is the fact that the Bush “dynasty” (and we can accept the word as referring to a succession of rulers from the same family, if by succession we mean two and by ruler we mean the president of a democratic republic), exists, if it does, not because of the strength of the presidents named but for the opposite. G.H.W. Bush made it onto Reagan’s ticket only because he was able to swallow his “voodoo economics” line and most of the rest of his personal convictions as well, and he became president because he was willing to run, basically, on a next-best-thing-to Reagan platform. The price he paid for trading in his spine was to be a one-term president. Dubya, on the other hand, was picked by the Republicans largely because he had a recognizable name, no particular ideas of his own and could be counted on to do what he was told. In both cases, it’s not the Bush family that holds the power, it’s the party. > > As for families that have through their members exercised a lot of power in the Federal government, we’ve had lots of those. Fortunately, the Adams, Taft, Roosevelt, Rockefeller and Kennedy dynasties didn’t manage to extinguish democracy. > > If this Bush presidency is a threat to liberty, it’s because the administration doesn’t consider itself bound by the rule of law, not because of genetic ties to previous presidents. Your first paragraph is brillitant; but are suggesting that a \*puppet \*dynasty is OK? I’d say this present circumstance was more ominous BECAUSE it’s a puppet dynasty. Don’t forget, Jeb is being groomed. And only one of the others you mention, The Adamses, was a direct decent: the others were relations, but not handed down father to son. ESPECIALLY not handed down TO them by kingmakers. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-so-sick-of-the-bush-dynasty/263486/31 "2004-09-08T07:35:15Z")
**Equipoise** and **Evil Captor** , I don’t really see what you’re on about. In a democracy, the people votes whomever they want into power. If they want a dynasty, they get a dynasty. If they want a different President every four years, they get a different President every four years. And if they want a fascist dictator who ran for the presidency on the kill-all-puppies-especially-the-really-cute-ones platform, that’s what they get. The safeguards against a dynasty are built into the system. If the voters don’t want a dynasty, there isn’t one. If they want one, what’s the problem? They have a right to choose that, don’t they? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-so-sick-of-the-bush-dynasty/263486/32 "2004-09-08T07:36:05Z")
> [@](#): > > **John Mace** : But I did notice that there was no complaint about how many Kennedys there are that have run for office and/or are in Congress. The OP said that someone named George Bush had been on the national ticket for President six of the last seven times. How many times was a member of the Kennedy family on the national ticket? Now if we want to talk about running for office, maybe a comparison whould be made on a percentage basis since there are 3 jillion Kennedys. What percentage of the Bush family has run for office and how many times? What percentage of the Kennedy family has run for office and how many times? BTW, I noticed that at the RNC one of the Bush twins said that she was very leve-headed like her mother. The other one said, “I’m like Dad.” (snicker) ---
**Author:** ![The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_King_of_Soup)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-so-sick-of-the-bush-dynasty/263486/33 "2004-09-08T07:46:08Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Your first paragraph is brillitant; but are suggesting that a \*puppet \*dynasty is OK? I’m saying that the reasons we’ve had two generations of Bushes occupying the Oval Office have little to do with the inherent power and prestige of the Bush family and a lot to do with practical politics. If Bush the even-lesser hadn’t managed to successfully trash John McCain in South Carolina and become the Republicans’ best hope for winning in 2000, we wouldn’t be discussing this now. Republicans don’t necessarily want to be ruled by Bushes, they just want to win. > [@lissener](#): > > I’d say this present circumstance was more ominous BECAUSE it’s a puppet dynasty. Don’t forget, Jeb is being groomed. Well, I don’t much like puppetry either, but we’re talking about a president who’s still answerable to his party. Not as good as governing by good judgment and experience in the best interests of the nation, but not the same as ruling according to some Bush family code. It would be hard for me to forget Jeb, as I’m currently governed by him too. But he will run for president only if the Republican party lets him. He’ll have to stay a loyal party man (he does stray a bit sometimes) and Republicans are as sensitive as anybody to the dynasty charge, which may make a third Bush candidate too risky a proposition for them. Also, given the chance, Dubya may well ruin the chances for anyone named Bush to be elected to any office for decades to come. > [@lissener](#): > > And only one of the others you mention, The Adamses, was a direct decent: the others were relations, but not handed down father to son. ESPECIALLY not handed down TO them by kingmakers. That’s the issue, as I see it: the Republicans aren’t making kings, they’re making puppets. The Bush family is rich and powerful, but the power isn’t inherent in them. They’re renting it from the party. So I don’t worry about the family connection. I worry about grossly wrongheaded policies perpetrated by those who see thought as weakness and strength as morality. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-so-sick-of-the-bush-dynasty/263486/34 "2004-09-08T08:03:12Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > The OP said that someone named George Bush had been on the national ticket for President six of the last seven times. How many times was a member of the Kennedy family on the national ticket? > > Now if we want to talk about running for office, maybe a comparison whould be made on a percentage basis since there are 3 jillion Kennedys. What percentage of the Bush family has run for office and how many times? What percentage of the Kennedy family has run for office and how many times? > > BTW, I noticed that at the RNC one of the Bush twins said that she was very leve-headed like her mother. The other one said, “I’m like Dad.” (snicker) In any case, weren’t all the politicall successful Kennedys members of the same generation? And did any of them follow a relative into the same seat? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-so-sick-of-the-bush-dynasty/263486.md?page=1)