Presidental nepotism

Have you noticed that since 1989 every President of the United States is named either BUSH or CLINTON ?

I say

let’s keep going !

George W Bush 1989 - 1993

Wm Jefferson Clinton 1993 - 2001

George W Bush 2001 - 2008

let’s keep it going folks!

Hillary Clinton 2008 - 2016

Jeb Bush 2016 - 2024

by that time, Chelsea Clinton will be 44 years old

Chelsea Clinton 2024 - 2032

**then of course one of the Bush twins (now 51 years of age) **

Jenna (Prez) and Barbara (Vice Prez) Bush 2032 - 2040

of course the twins could then reverse the role

Barbara (Prez) and Jenna (Vice Prez) 2040 - 2048

We’re running short of Clintons , Chelsea needs to get busy

I am not sure that is nepotism or a debate

If Jenna is president from 2032-2040, she then can’t run for vice president in 2040. The Constitution says that, to run for vice-president, you must be constitutionally eligible to be president, and, having served 8 years, she would not be.

Ok, seriously. This is hardly nepotism. What’s the problem, exactly? Do you want a law that forbids this situation from ever arising?

Kate Bush is ineligible since she’s not an American citizen, but I don’t see why we can’t elect George Clinton.

If everyone of Bush’s grandchildren named Bush became President for eight years, we could have a pver a century of Bush Presidents. <insert Barf smilie here>.

Maybe we could have an executive order passed by Bush that requires this to happen. Then, I’d say, that’s nepotism.

I’m pretty sure he inhaled.

it certainly does stretch the definition of neoptism , I agree

I was thinking that name-recognition favoritism play a part in whom we elect —
and it frightens me

I’d rather stop this Bush-Clinton rotation this cycle ----

Good luck with that…

I’ve noticed it, and posted about it before. For practically all of my political lifetime, the presidency has been in two families. It’s one of the reasons I hoped Hillary wouldn’t run, and still hope she doesn’t win. This country was not meant to have a royal family, or even two of them.

Unfortunately, neither party is in any position to bring this up as an issue, and I doubt anyone else will.

I see no debate.

It is not even a poll, really.

Off to MPSIMS.


I’m not so sure. If Jenna has served 8 years as POTUS, she is ineligible to be ELECTED President again, not ineligible to serve.

A small distinction that could allow her (and Bill Clinton) to run as VP.

Doesn’t name recognition play a part in all elections nowadays (and thereby create favorites) – whether it’s a Bush or a Clinton, or a national, state or local election?

Of the last three presidents, two have been related. That’s hardly a huge run of family members making it to the WH. If Hillary is elected, it will make the run slightly longer, but even then it doesn’t seem that big a deal, especially since I seriously doubt that she will be followed by any other Clinton’s or Bush’s. There just aren’t enough of the Clinton clan around to make a political dynasty, and the current prez has probably insured that the Bush name will be more of a liability then a help for at least a few more election cycles.

Again, getting elected after a family member was elected to the same office hardly makes for a royal family. And while there aren’t that many cases in US history of it happening in the WH (three, if we count the Roosevelts, right?), politically powerful families are hardly a new thing in this country (the Congress especially seems to have a lot of cases of children following their parents to the same office).

They bring it up all the time. The Dems are constantly insinuating that Bush II rode his daddy’s coat-tails into the WH, and I’m sure we’ll here the same about Hillary with regards to Bill if she wins her primary. I doubt there’s support to actually pass an amendment against it, but that’s because it isn’t really that big a deal.

There were John Adams and John Quincy Adams (father and son, one term each, with 24 years between them) and Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt (cousins, ~2 and ~4 terms, respectively, also separated by 24 years)

The Bushes are the first related presidents to serve so closely together (only 8 years), and I would find it slightly troubling if the Democrats fell in to the same rut at the same time.

If Hillary Clinton is elected, that will be 24 (possibly 28) years, a full generation and then some, with the presidency in just two families. I think our system should have greater turnover than that, and greater diversity in the backgrounds, policies and geographic origins of the highest office in the land.

They bring it up in the specific, but not in the general sense that I’m suggesting. New people bring new ideas. As the current offenders, the Republicans can’t say anything. And the Democrats won’t attack Hillary on such a matter of principal.

I’d be against a constitutional amendment on the matter. I just think it’s a clear symptom of stagnation and the issues of campaign strategy and name recognizion over substance.


The question of whether Bill Clinton could run as VP has come up several times in GQ: Here’s one thread with links to several others.

There’s echos here of a debate in the early 19th century, after four of the first five presidents were all from Virginia. There was a suggestion (never adopted, obviously) that the presidency should be assigned to different parts of the country on a rotating bases. The idea may have been revived when Ohio had a major political run.

Has anyone else noticed what a run the South has had lately? Going back 8 terms, it’s been:

Texas and Maine

The current candidates include Arkansas (Clinton and Huckabee), South Carolina (Edwards), Texas (Paul) and Tennessee (Thompson). I laugh when I hear southerners complain about how no one takes them seriously.