n/t

An amendment to the Constitution disqualifying people of a certain family from running for office would override the earlier provision prohibiting corruption of blood (much like the 17th amendment overrode the legislative election of senators and the 21st amendment overrode the 18th).

I dont think it should be an automatic disqualifier, but we shouldn't have two families as the default go-to people for our national parties, either.

At least GWB is ranked low in all of those rankings, you don't go up from there.

and anoint the Bush and Clinton families as royalty.

They are treated the same as king and queens.

I am sick of both families.

... might be necessary!

media kept silent until after the election.

Is this correct ????

nothing new actually to see political families.

It's not the name, but the person. This last election was so disappointing because many, many "young" people here in Florida didn't vote!!!

The boomers and retirees in Florida vote (sometimes 70%+). The minority and 20-somethings don't vote (about 40% in 2014 depending on the district in FL).

It makes a difference from the dog catcher up to president. What went wrong? I protested and fought to get the vote for 18 year olds (1971) so I voted for the first time in 1972!

Get your friends registered and vote!

After Teddy, FDR wouldn't have ran and won. After JFK, RFK would have stayed on the sidelines, too.

n/t

two Bushes so far in the WH, and now a third is possible.

Two Roosevelts. And they were not father/son, or brothers.

So ONE Kennedy.
Two Roosevelts not closely related.
Three possible Bushes all closely related.

The Bush name is constant over the decades. And with so many of them around, is likely to be constant for decades to come.

Speaking for myself, I am against dynastic politics and governance because history has demonstrated in most cases that it is bad for the people at large.

The Adams presidencies were both bad.
The Roosevelts presidents were separated by a generation and were of different parties.

As it turns out, only one Kennedy become President.

The Daly's were an embarrassment to democracy.

I would have preferred the Rockefellers stay out of politics.

And as a Coloradan, I speak to the ineffectiveness of Mark Udall and part of it certainly was because Mark had a sense of political entitlement.

But this Bush-Clinton thing is even worse ... this is all the same inner family and the same generation of families.

Let's be honest, neither Jeb nor Hill would be contenders for the presidency if it weren't for family connections. Jeb never would have been governor of Florida and Hillary never a U.S. Senator if not for their family relationships.

Ultimately, despite the perceived problems with Jeb's Tea Party credentials, he will be the odds-on favorite for the GOP nomination -- big money will see to that. And if Mrs. Clinton isn't challenged, she will win the Democrats nod.

That will mean a nasty and cynical 2016 general election campaign that will turn-off huge numbers of Americans from even wanting to vote. Low turnout is what gave us last month's depressing results. Another Clinton candidacy is the Repuglicans dream scenario.

And in my estimation, that means the likelihood of a third Bush presidency.

Don't like the current crop of presidential contenders? Support someone else. Get your friends and family to support someone else. I know you're really only joking about a constitutional amendment but it really gives me the heebie jeebies when someone or a movement or even a political party suggests an amendment to take care of a 'problem' they don't have the political backing to take care of themselves. (think anti-gay marriage amendment.)

I'm bashing hilliary to everyone I know, as well as all the repooplicans. A pox on both houses.

But I do think she's the most dangerous candidate in the lineup so far.

Luckily? she can only win if the GOP runs a weakling against her. Would rather see a dem win, than more third way BS again.

Jeb and Hilliary were different, I just hope they wear name tags so we can tell them apart.

Sid

and analytical thinking are severely limited.

But the Clintons and Bushes are both monarchists. They both think they're owed something because of their name and nothing else.

Those factories of elites have really screwed up this country.

Yale: Clinton, Ford, Taft, Bush, Bush

So the school and family ties cross, but your system costs us FDR, JFK and Obama off the top. It would also eliminate both Hillary, Yale post grad and one assumes also Warren who has been very highly compensated Harvard Professor, helping run the 'factory of elites that screwed up the country' for 350,000 dollars a year. Or do we take the faculty and reject the students?

Bernie Sanders- University of Chicago, Brooklyn College.

Lets hope we never get two bonesmen running against each other again.

that having an Ivy pedigree automatically makes them more qualified than a non-Ivy.

That goes for all elected positions, and also the judicial system.

Pop Quiz: how many current SCOTUS members did not receive their JD from an Ivy?

Iran is the issue. Either one of these candidates will receive money from those in this country who want to punish Iran. (After all, Iraq and Iran both start with "I," don't they?) This is the problem that I greatly fear. An entanglement with a war with Iran would be the end of us.

And rightly so. Don't want any more Bushes or Clintons? Don't vote for them.

But I absolutely endorse the premise.

uninspiring presidential race. On the upside, I'll have time and a few bucks on my hands.

Sid

FDR and TR are both in the top 5 presidents of all time, but Clinton and Bush, Sr. are right in the middle.

It's not even like we're trying to resurrect a terrific president in either case.

Anybody older is too out-of-touch (how do scanners work again )

I remember gramps McLame being made fun of continually...well- Hillary isn't looking like a spring chicken herself anymore-

This is exactly what the tea bagger you "progressives" so love to hate said. But I love the smell of ageism in the morning.

Not a good idea.

I guess the rule only applies to someone you don't like.....

next time I'm playing polo with Joe Kennedy III.

Knowing him as I do I'm sure he'll shrug off your failure to recognize his family's continued public service.

If there's one on the ballot in 2016, I'll make sure not to vote for him or her.

[IMG][/IMG]

Bwahahahaha...

They ruined their chance with W, they're done.

I would vote for it. I'm sick of the same old, same old. We have seen the country go to hell in a hand basked with Clintons surrounded by Bushes and other Democrats surrounded by Bushes. I'm sick of both at this point. Mostly, though, I'm sick of every other administration being a fucking Bush. I wish Jeb would get caught in something bad enough to make him unelectable at the primary level much less any chance of running in any general election. I cannot stand the thought of another fucking Bush. Gah,

In terms of presidents I was born a few years before you so add in Nixon and Ford.

I think we got really lucky in 2008 with a contested primary. Not so sure that is going to happen this time around.

Clinton was not SOS in Obama's 2nd term (Kerry).

But I don't disagree with you. My primary reason for voting for Obama in the primary in 2008 (I was initially a John Edwards supporter, dodged that bullet) was that I didn't want the next presidential election to come to Chelsea vs Jenna.

My life in presidencies is the same as yours. Born at the end of Carter's term. Reagan was shot the day before my 1st birthday. Bush has always existed, and Clinton since i was 12.

I don't think that the Clintons are a dynasty yet like the Bushes are. The only Clintons to seek elective office have been married to each other. A dynasty is when the next generation runs on their parent's name. I'll call the Clinton family a dynasty when Chelsea runs for office (ditto for the Obama family if Malia or Sasha run when they're older).

ETA I haven't made up my mind on 2016 yet, but I'm open (and leaning towards) Hillary. My problem is not with her last name (she lives 1 mile from where I grew up and watched her launch her career from my backyard) or her, but her gender (and I'm saying this as a woman). IMO the Obama presidency brought all the racists out of the woodwork and set race relations in this country backwards (especially given recent events). I fear that a Hillary (or Elizabeth Warren) presidency will bring the misogynists out of the woodwork and it will be a step backwards for women (as contrary as this sounds).

I was talking to a local Dem chair (in Hillary's state senate district) who was in his 60s and he told me that he does not think anyone but a white male will be elected for the rest of his life.

... where people were "voting for the first person of color" or "voting for the first woman" in the primaries... Ultimately those that are racists or misogynists were more empowered to throw their views in the mix on these issues as a reason to work against such candidates.

The other core issues that face all Americans were pushed down the ladder to our detriment then. Then we had a damaged candidate like Edwards, that both you and I supported, who was the only one supporting 99% oriented issues and we discovered later that he had problems (which I still wonder was allowed to progress this way through the primary to marginalize any progressive candidates like Kucinich more, and discussions of those issues too), which also served to dismiss progressive issues as a reason to vote for the Democratic nominee and push identity politics as a perceived reason for voting for or against Obama at the end, even though many of us looked Obama as a person we voted for that was far less of a problem than the Republican in the general election.

I would like to think that Warren vs. Clinton in the primaries would move the discussion towards issues rather than identity politics, which should help us gravitate the masses for Warren should she win, and not just because she's a woman, and marginalize more the other side that wants the nation to vote against her because she's a woman.

I just started another thread about this because I think it's worth a separate discussion (not related do dynasty politics).

I just don't think that people voted for Obama due to his race in 2012 though.

(I wanted to vote for Edwards in the primary due to his economic stance. He dropped out a week before my state voted, and even though he was still on the ballot, a vote for him would have been wasted. I think if he advanced further, John McCain would have defeated him because of the sex scandal).

I really think that perhaps the PTB knew about his problems way earlier and let him stay in the race until right before the big primaries happened, so that it would keep any other voices other than Obama or Clinton from being in the race at that point. And it would serve to have Democrats in the primary putting less pressure on either Obama or Clinton to speak up on details of who would provide better progressive leadership, since the progressives at that point were already seeing that choice in Edwards then.

I was thinking that without Edwards, Kucinich would have had a lot more support, and even if he didn't get nominated, would have served to steer the discussion more towards progressive issue stances on the part of Obama or Clinton in the last half of the primary season instead of just talking about nebulous "hope and change" that many hoped would be a more FDR-like vision than it really was. I think the process behind the scenes was manipulated to be that way.

If Edwards weren't having those problems behind the scenes and had stayed in the race and won, I think he might have had a good shot to win the general election too. But that's asking for a different person than who Edwards really was inside. But we shouldn't allow the rest of America to see those who take progressive stances all being like an Edwards or for that matter an Anthony Weiner, which the media wants us to have that view of candidates like them. i do believe if we can talk someone like Warren in to running, the corporate PTB will genuinely be scared that the 2016 race won't be one that they'd be able to manipulate like they have in recent times.

As much as I loved his stances on the issue, a guy who cheats on his wife with cancer is not an attractive candidate to most people (although he can make a run for it years later and turn it on the media a la Newt) and would turn off a lot of voters. And I think those personal problems caused him a speaking gig at the DNC and a cabinet position (I would have loved to see him as AG).

Not sure what would have happened if the PTB knew about his problems earlier. I was just starting to seriously pay attention in primaries at the time (the 2008 presidential primary was my first primary, as I was unaffiliated before then and ineligible to vote in primaries).

John Edwards and Anthony Wiener are not the only candidates to go down in flames. Both of them had some very good positions and were politicians that I quite liked (I LOVED AW's speech on 9/11 first responders). But their problems were 100% self-inflicted and they can blame nobody but themselves for them. (I do question the double-standard when it comes to sex scandals though-- how can a guy like Vitter keep getting reelected and Wiener had to resign).

I'm all for getting more progressives elected, but as a candidate for anything you have to watch your personal behavior (and guys, keep it in your pants). I do really wonder if Warren can win though. I know two longtime Democratic voters in a reliably blue state who would not vote for her in the general because she's too liberal. I worry that she'd have a hard time carrying New York given her stance on Wall Street. (NY is a state that should not be in play).

I think had he not had them, with the positions he took, he probably would have won then.

I seriously think that he was left in as a way to:
1) draw in progressive votes to someone that they knew they would "turn off" later.
2) give progressive candidates a bad name, by elevating one that had a public name but who they knew had personal failings. I even wonder if he was told to be more forthright with the stances he took then to play in to this game.

Yes, candidates have to watch their personal behavior, but I think especially if you are a progressive, since the PTB wants to shut down those voices, and will definitely use those issues against the candidate for the reasons just stated here. I'm not sure that more corporatist candidates necessarily get more of a free pass, but I don't think they probably have their lives get as much scrutiny. This is what also makes the NSA spying, etc. that is going on that much more notorious. So much more now is known about everyone's lives through electronic data mining that isn't supposed to be done without warrants, etc. but has been done a lot. I often wonder how many of our pols now are held hostage by secrets that they don't want aired, and we wind up paying the penalty when they serve those PTB and their corporate masters due to this.

I recall Sibel Edmonds noting in more recent comments that the FBI had had notes on Janet Schakowsky in a lesbian affair by Turkish agents allegedly in some documents she had read. Now, would that behavior be "wrong" for Ms. Schakowsky to have been engaged in? NO! Would it have affected her ability to get reelected? Probably yes, if it could have been proven. Now the PTB would use this information that they have if they were in power of releasing it to try and get her to do their bidding, but someone like Sibel Edmonds the PTB would also like to see taken down too. She had also been trying to show the abuses that the PTB are up to, even though perhaps not doing so in a way that was as sensitive to Ms. Schakowsky's privacy, and given that it was provided to the American Conservative, perhaps seemed had some bias in it, which the PTB probably used to keep "their" control over it. I love Ms. Schakowsky as a legislator. But part of me wished that if it were true, that Ms. Schakowsky would have come out and acknowledged it, and fought the battle we need to help protect our privacy and perhaps what I suspect is rampant blackmail that is being done to many politicians these days to keep the corruption going. That might have been the way we could have really fought back to take this sort of thing down.

In the past, before we had the digital world we have now, such affairs wouldn't have been a lot less likely to have been recorded, and politicians would have felt more independent in doing their work, and less held hostage for campaign money, etc. than they are now. That is why I strongly suspect that Edwards, even though responsible for his own bad actions, was being used in this case.

We need to make sure we don't forget that, as I think they are trying to dig to find something about Ms. Warren, but probably haven't found anything yet that will stick as a way of blackmailing her in a similar fashion. Another reason in my book for someone like her to run, if she's got a very clean background. There aren't many of us out there that don't have some secrets that we don't want public, and we need someone with her positions to provide the leadership the country needs. We shouldn't let that other progressive figures have been taken down because of personal failings dampen our feeling that a progressive candidate can win big elections. That is what the PTB want us to feel, and that needs to be fought hard!

I know that may be a crazy idea, but there you go. It's also why we should scrap the 22nd Amendment.