Showing posts with label Pres. George H. W. Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pres. George H. W. Bush. Show all posts

Monday, March 05, 2012

Putin, Clinton, & Bush… Oh my! The current, dynastic period of American history

No Trespass.  Gresham, Oregon.  February 5, 2012.  Photo of the Day, February 24, 2012.

Observers Detail Flaws in Russian Election - NYTimes.com:

Mr. Putin, who has already served eight years as president and four years as prime minister, won a new six-year term on Sunday with an official tally of 63.75 percent of the vote. He has already suggested that he might run again in 2018, potentially extending his tenure as Russia’s pre-eminent leader to 24 years, on a par with Brezhnev and Stalin.

Before we get all shocked about Putin and say, "It could never happen here!" think about this:

A likely list of US Presidents in a future text book...

1989 - 2021 or 2025 (32-34 years):
-Bush
-Clinton
-Bush
-Obama (almost Clinton & prominently featuring Clinton family members and former Clinton officials in the cabinet/administration)
-(Clinton or Bush likely)

Hillary and Jeb have to be considered the initial front runners in 2016.

I am starting to think of our current period as the Dynastic Period in American history.

Of course, there have been a few more shenanigans in the Russian elections than the American elections.  2000 not withstanding, though, Americans are clearly choosing their leaders from these prominent families.

Recently, I read an article saying that Jeb may even jump in this year to save the GOP from their circular firing squad.  And I think there is little doubt that Hillary will take a shot at 2016.  It wouldn’t even be the most shocking event ever if she ends up being on the 2012 ticket as VP.

In 2008, one of the main reasons why I supported Obama in the primaries was that I felt having a 20 year stretch with only the last names Bush or Clinton residing in the White House was bad for America and bad for our democracy, even if we liked the people in office (or some of them).

Continuing this trend for another four to eight years?  Having the potential for the Presidency to be passed back and forth between two families, if Hillary was elected twice, for nearly thirty years?

That is dangerous, I believe, for any democracy. 

I suspect, though, that we may not be done with Presidents named Bush and Clinton. 

I would be very surprised not to see either Hillary or Jeb picking up a nomination in the future, and 2016 may even end up being Bush v. Clinton in the general.

And they are young enough that both may eventually end up in the White House.

Picture this:

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Bush, Clinton

If everyone gets two terms, that would be 44 years of dynastic presidencies with one, minor exception.  Almost half a century.

Age may limit these far reaching possibilities. 

Hillary will be 81 in 2028 and 86 in 2033 (end of the latest possible second term in this scenario).

Jeb will be 76 in 2028 and 80 in 2033.

In comparison, Ronald Reagan, our oldest president so far, was almost 70 when he was first inaugurated in 1981 and served until two weeks before his 78th birthday.  He lived to age 93, but was crippled by Alzheimer's for, at least, the last 10 years of his life.

This article drifts a little towards the unsteady conspiracy theories from time to time, but it also makes plenty of solid points.

The Jeb Scenario: Can You Say “President Bush” Again? | Snip.it:

The Bushes are nothing if not resilient. George W. Bush, he of so few qualifications but with his own distinctive Bush personality and formidable charisma, came out of the dust of his father’s re-election defeat in 1992, stronger than his father ever was politically. And though W. is now persona non grata to many, his brother would come back as a significantly different brand. He’s widely regarded as more capable, much more focused, much better at delivering points. He’s able to pull off a kind of sober, reasonable persona, more stable than a Santorum or a Gingrich or most of the other contenders. Rich but not entitled. A kind of Romney—without the Romney.

And yet….And yet he is still a Bush. That means a great deal, because, putting aside all the stylistic differences, this is a clan with a mission. It’s a mission they’ll never talk about, beyond vague statements about a sense within the family of Duty to Nation. No, the Bush clan is the ultimate representative of the game plan of the one percent of the one percent. What they stand for in private is much, much more troubling than most Americans know. What I learned in the five years I spent investigating them—as they were going out of power the last time—shook me to my core.

Related Posts

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

GOP: The true tax and spend party?

Posted by Anne on Facebook, thanks!

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

Lowering the Bar: A Mandate for GWB?

Even as I am writing this there is a talking head (Joe Walkins, Republican Strategist) on CNN demanding that the Bush Administration has a mandate because “they won by three and a half million votes!”

I don’t have the time this morning to do the research but I am pretty sure it would take only a few minutes on-line to track down some quotes from 1996 and even 1992 talking about how Bill Clinton’s victories in those years did not constitute a mandate, though both margins in the popular vote far outweigh the margin of victory this year.

In fact, not counting the ugly stepchild of the 2000 election, the popular vote this year was the closest race since Jimmy Carter defeated Ford 28 years ago in the 1976 election by 1,682,790 votes.

So, I believe, according to Republican spin, just winning the popular vote is now a mandate for your platform.

Of course, the case could be made that the mandate comes from not only the Presidential election, but also from the Republican gains made in the House and Senate and in many state and local races too. It was the loss of Democrat seats in Congress that pretty much nixed the idea of Clinton having a mandate in 1996 when he won the popular vote by 8,203,602 votes.

But they are not. They are holding on to their mandate because 3,510,358 more people apparently voted for Bush.

Here are the margins of victory in the Popular Vote going back to 1976:

2004 – 3,510,358 – Bush over Kerry
2000 – 539,947 – Gore over Bush
1996 – 8,203,602 – Clinton over Dole
1992 – 5,805,344 – Clinton over Bush
1988 – 7,077,023 – Bush over Dukakis
1984 – 16,877,890 – Reagan over Mondale
1980 – 7,417,813 – Reagan over Carter
1976 – 1,682,790 – Carter over Ford

How come, every time a pundit starts going off about the Bush Administration’s 3.5 million vote mandate they are not immediately challenged with these numbers? Or have they been and I just haven’t noticed? This morning, the Democrat talking head, responding to Walkins’ near chant of a 3.5 million vote mandate for his team was pretty much left sitting there going, “there is no mandate. No there isn’t... There is not.”

I believe that most Democrats, when challenged with the fuzzy logic of these Republican spin artists, believe that the American public is intelligent enough to see the absurdity of the argument. And they are. But the Republicans base their strategy on Advertising and Marketing principals, which play on people’s psychology and make the facts mostly irrelevant.

Stay on message, repeat the message, and eventually, it will become the truth. And the media follows. A week after the election, a week of having every Republican spin artist in the country drilling the mandate message to the people and to the media, the conversation it turning into what the Bush Administration will do with their mandate, not if there is even one in the first place.

Imagine if the Democrats could get this focused, and if they, on top of this, were basing their arguments on fact and logic. Could the Republicans counter this?