If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   All hail King George III   (politico.com) divider line 67
    More: Unlikely, King George III, Hail To The King, George W. Bush, New Right, political family, corporate law, compassionate conservatives, winter solstices  
•       •       •

2779 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jan 2014 at 9:07 AM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-27 08:28:04 AM
George the 3rd, the boy king!
 
2014-01-27 08:31:26 AM
The problem is he will be campaigning against W's legacy.  Which, while strangely improving, still turns off moderates and I am not sure there is word for the reaction he inspires in Democrats.

It is probably the same word that Hilary inspires in Republicans.
 
2014-01-27 08:48:51 AM

EvilEgg: Which, while strangely improving,


Nostalgia is a strange thing. People actually fondly remember the 80s.
 
2014-01-27 08:50:39 AM
No more Bush's.  No more Clintons.

Do you realize, that if a Bush or a Clinton gets elected in 2016, that a Bush or Clinton will have been either president or vice president for 32 years out of the 40 years between 1981 and 2021?  That 80% of the time a Bush or a Clinton will have been either president or vice president?

No farkin' thank you.  Political dynasties like that are anti-democratic.
 
2014-01-27 08:51:34 AM

nmrsnr: EvilEgg: Which, while strangely improving,

Nostalgia is a strange thing. People actually fondly remember the 80s.


Back in the 1970's and 80's, people fondly remembered the 1950's.
 
2014-01-27 08:52:54 AM

dittybopper: No more Bush's.  No more Clintons.

Do you realize, that if a Bush or a Clinton gets elected in 2016, that a Bush or Clinton will have been either president or vice president for 32 years out of the 40 years between 1981 and 2021?  That 80% of the time a Bush or a Clinton will have been either president or vice president?

No farkin' thank you.  Political dynasties like that are anti-democratic.


in fairness, we've only had 1 Clinton and 2 Bushes. I'd be more weary of another Bush being president/vice president since that would actually *be* a political dynasty. The problem with the argument against Clintons being a dynasty is that they don't constitute a dynasty.
 
2014-01-27 08:58:20 AM

somedude210: dittybopper: No more Bush's.  No more Clintons.

Do you realize, that if a Bush or a Clinton gets elected in 2016, that a Bush or Clinton will have been either president or vice president for 32 years out of the 40 years between 1981 and 2021?  That 80% of the time a Bush or a Clinton will have been either president or vice president?

No farkin' thank you.  Political dynasties like that are anti-democratic.

in fairness, we've only had 1 Clinton and 2 Bushes. I'd be more weary of another Bush being president/vice president since that would actually *be* a political dynasty. The problem with the argument against Clintons being a dynasty is that they don't constitute a dynasty.


I always thought that odd about the Clinton thing.  Not only that, Clinton was actually good for the country.
 
2014-01-27 08:58:25 AM

It's highly unlikely Jeb would want to run.


First: there's his brothers horrible legacy.

Second: he's probably too moderate for the base.

Thirdly: he e hasn't held elected office since 2000. 14 years is far too long to be away from politics.



I'm not sure if he'd even have a decent chance against Clinton... If she'd actually run.
 
2014-01-27 09:02:57 AM

dittybopper: Back in the 1970's and 80's, people fondly remembered the 1950's.


Yes, but at least we had President Eisenhower and real developing infrastructure back then. In the 80s we had real Reagan, not Saint Ronald.
 
2014-01-27 09:04:55 AM

Darth_Lukecash: It's highly unlikely Jeb would want to run.
First: there's his brothers horrible legacy.Second: he's probably too moderate for the base.Thirdly: he e hasn't held elected office since 2000. 14 years is far too long to be away from politics.

I'm not sure if he'd even have a decent chance against Clinton... If she'd actually run.


First, someone didn't read the article
Second, it's Jeb's son
Third, We don't want him either.
 
2014-01-27 09:09:39 AM

EvilEgg: somedude210: dittybopper: No more Bush's.  No more Clintons.

Do you realize, that if a Bush or a Clinton gets elected in 2016, that a Bush or Clinton will have been either president or vice president for 32 years out of the 40 years between 1981 and 2021?  That 80% of the time a Bush or a Clinton will have been either president or vice president?

No farkin' thank you.  Political dynasties like that are anti-democratic.

in fairness, we've only had 1 Clinton and 2 Bushes. I'd be more weary of another Bush being president/vice president since that would actually *be* a political dynasty. The problem with the argument against Clintons being a dynasty is that they don't constitute a dynasty.

I always thought that odd about the Clinton thing.  Not only that, Clinton was actually good for the country.


No he wasn't. He got a blow job. He should have been slaughtering brown people in countries that posed no threat to us. That's what good presidents do.
 
2014-01-27 09:10:29 AM
The Next George Bush
Can the heir to America's oldest political dynasty save the GOP?


What was that rule about headlines with a question in them?
 
2014-01-27 09:13:59 AM

As a candidate for land commissioner, he has spent $680,000-more than 42 times as much money as his primary opponent, an east Texas businessman named David Watts. Bush's Democratic opponent, former El Paso mayor John Cook, is barely better resourced than Watts. (Bush has more than $2.8 million on hand, while Cook and Watts together have only $2,700.)
 
2014-01-27 09:15:18 AM
We are so envious of monarchies we institute them democratically.
 
2014-01-27 09:18:37 AM

somedude210: dittybopper: No more Bush's.  No more Clintons.

Do you realize, that if a Bush or a Clinton gets elected in 2016, that a Bush or Clinton will have been either president or vice president for 32 years out of the 40 years between 1981 and 2021?  That 80% of the time a Bush or a Clinton will have been either president or vice president?

No farkin' thank you.  Political dynasties like that are anti-democratic.

in fairness, we've only had 1 Clinton and 2 Bushes. I'd be more weary of another Bush being president/vice president since that would actually *be* a political dynasty. The problem with the argument against Clintons being a dynasty is that they don't constitute a dynasty.


Here is the problem I have with Hillary Clinton:  She was elected senator in a state where she had no connections prior to buying a house there for the sole purpose of running for senator, simply to fill a reliably democratic seat with someone with massive name recognition on the retirement of Daniel Patrick Moynihan.  Prior to that, her sum total of political work was largely the ceremonial duties of First Lady of Arkansas and the United States.

There were *PLENTY* of New York democrats who could have run, and who maybe would have won against Lazio, and maybe they wouldn't have, but it would have been an internal New York election.

Instead, it was a blatant attempt to get her some political experience in order to enable her to run for the White House.  And indeed, she did just that in 2007, having served just a bit more than a single term as a senator.  And of course, the governor of New York had to appoint a new Senator after she resigned to run.

Then, as a bit of a sop to the loser, she gets a Secretary of State position, because it doesn't cost Barack Obama anything once he's elected to build up her resume a bit so she can run after him.

And, of course, there is already talk of Chelsea Clinton getting into politics in the future, having been an integral part of her mother's campaign in 2007/2008.

So no, I don't think it should go to a Clinton.  Or a Bush.

Seriously, saying "well, but *BUSH* so OK with Clinton" isn't the correct answer here, not if you value true ideological diversity.
 
2014-01-27 09:19:14 AM

EvilEgg: I always thought that odd about the Clinton thing.  Not only that, Clinton was actually good for the country


Revisionist history. His economic boom was on the back of a tech bubble and he signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal, plus NAFTA.
 
2014-01-27 09:21:25 AM

21-7-b: As a candidate for land commissioner, he has spent $680,000-more than 42 times as much money as his primary opponent, an east Texas businessman named David Watts. Bush's Democratic opponent, former El Paso mayor John Cook, is barely better resourced than Watts. (Bush has more than $2.8 million on hand, while Cook and Watts together have only $2,700.)


Free speech!

/sigh
 
2014-01-27 09:23:31 AM

nmrsnr: dittybopper: Back in the 1970's and 80's, people fondly remembered the 1950's.

Yes, but at least we had President Eisenhower and real developing infrastructure back then. In the 80s we had real Reagan, not Saint Ronald.


We also had things like McCarthyism, the Korean War, segregation, and lynchings of black people.
 
2014-01-27 09:23:38 AM
Politico slurps a lot of conservative penis these days.
 
2014-01-27 09:25:15 AM

EvilEgg: The problem is he will be campaigning against W's legacy.  Which, while strangely improving, still turns off moderates and I am not sure there is word for the reaction he inspires in Democrats.

It is probably the same word that Hilary inspires in Republicans.



Obama's doubling down on Bush-era domestic-spying policies and drone warefare have done a lot to make Bush look better. It's hard for Dems to trash GWB for policies that Obama has turned up to 11.
 
2014-01-27 09:26:51 AM

Magruda: EvilEgg: I always thought that odd about the Clinton thing.  Not only that, Clinton was actually good for the country

Revisionist history. His economic boom was on the back of a tech bubble and he signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal, plus NAFTA.


Plus, that tech bubble popped while Clinton was still president, and his successor, Dumbya, had to deal with that economic crisis, plus the Hainan Island incident, plus the 9/11 attacks, all in the first year of his presidency.
 
2014-01-27 09:27:34 AM

dittybopper: Seriously, saying "well, but *BUSH* so OK with Clinton" isn't the correct answer here, not if you value true ideological diversity.


But the argument that the Clintons are a political dynasty is rubbish. Yes, Clinton carpetbagged her way into Congress, she's not the first or last, but you don't hear any of the other ones being declared a dynasty.

The Bush family is actually a dynasty. We've had Bush 1 be both a Vice President and President. W (Bush 1's son) become President after being governor of one of the largest states in the Union. His other son, Jeb, was a governor in another state altogether. and now Bush 1's grandson is getting into politics. *That* is a dynasty. Hillary running for president is not. Chelsea contemplating endorsing a candidate does not a dynasty make. The Bush family is very much an American Dynasty and they're the ones you should be afraid of.

The only equivalent you have on the Democratic side is *maybe* the Kennedy family, but they've only been successful at winning the presidency once
 
2014-01-27 09:29:30 AM

dittybopper: Magruda: EvilEgg: I always thought that odd about the Clinton thing.  Not only that, Clinton was actually good for the country

Revisionist history. His economic boom was on the back of a tech bubble and he signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal, plus NAFTA.

Plus, that tech bubble popped while Clinton was still president, and his successor, Dumbya, had to deal with that economic crisis, plus the Hainan Island incident, plus the 9/11 attacks, all in the first year of his presidency.


Which he failed to deal with on an epic level..
 
2014-01-27 09:30:47 AM
Please Proceed!
 
2014-01-27 09:33:34 AM
Congratulations to one of the "Little Brown Ones" of the Bush clan...

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-08-17/news/mn-655_1_pride

influentialaccess.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-01-27 09:35:33 AM

dittybopper: No more Bush's.  No more Clintons.

Do you realize, that if a Bush or a Clinton gets elected in 2016, that a Bush or Clinton will have been either president or vice president for 32 years out of the 40 years between 1981 and 2021?  That 80% of the time a Bush or a Clinton will have been either president or vice president?

No farkin' thank you.  Political dynasties like that are anti-democratic.


Excluding someone because of their family is also anti-democratic
 
2014-01-27 09:42:26 AM
img.fark.net
 
2014-01-27 09:43:26 AM
henrystrongingoldberg.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-27 09:46:37 AM

grumpfuff: The Next George Bush
Can the heir to America's oldest political dynasty save the GOP?

What was that rule about headlines with a question in them?



Uh....the answer is always (c)?

Magruda: EvilEgg: I always thought that odd about the Clinton thing.  Not only that, Clinton was actually good for the country

Revisionist history. His economic boom was on the back of a tech bubble and he signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal, plus NAFTA.


Yeppers.  Because of the Glass-Steagall repeal, and the meltdown it helped create in 2007, one could say that Obama's been cleaning up Clinton's mess.
 
2014-01-27 09:47:19 AM

bmongar: dittybopper: No more Bush's.  No more Clintons.

Do you realize, that if a Bush or a Clinton gets elected in 2016, that a Bush or Clinton will have been either president or vice president for 32 years out of the 40 years between 1981 and 2021?  That 80% of the time a Bush or a Clinton will have been either president or vice president?

No farkin' thank you.  Political dynasties like that are anti-democratic.

Excluding someone because of their family is also anti-democratic


No, it's not. Democratic != Fair
 
2014-01-27 09:51:05 AM

xanadian: grumpfuff: The Next George Bush
Can the heir to America's oldest political dynasty save the GOP?

What was that rule about headlines with a question in them?


Uh....the answer is always (c)?


Sigh.
 
2014-01-27 09:53:31 AM
I believe that was the one that went mad.
 
2014-01-27 09:57:06 AM

xanadian: grumpfuff: The Next George Bush
Can the heir to America's oldest political dynasty save the GOP?

What was that rule about headlines with a question in them?


Uh....the answer is always (c)?

Magruda: EvilEgg: I always thought that odd about the Clinton thing.  Not only that, Clinton was actually good for the country

Revisionist history. His economic boom was on the back of a tech bubble and he signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal, plus NAFTA.

Yeppers.  Because of the Glass-Steagall repeal, and the meltdown it helped create in 2007, one could say that Obama's been cleaning up Clinton's mess.


Except that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was sponsored by three Republicans.

Sure the Democrats were idiots to not try and fight it, but the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate then and times were good economically. This occurred just before the first dot.com bubble burst, so hubris won out over prudence.

More Democrats voted against it than Republicans, and it sailed through with a veto-proof majority. Very sad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act
 
2014-01-27 10:03:08 AM
"this attack is being led by one man and one man only, and that's Barack Obama....our message to him and Wendy Davis...."

Wait, I'll come in again.
 
2014-01-27 10:04:50 AM

Lost Thought 00: bmongar: dittybopper:
No farkin' thank you.  Political dynasties like that are anti-democratic.

Excluding someone because of their family is also anti-democratic

No, it's not. Democratic != Fair



Arguing that someone should hold office because of their family's history is retarded.  Arguing that someone shouldn't hold office because of their family is equally retarded, and for most of the same reasons.

Neither extreme is particularly supportive of free and informed voter choice, being arbitrary restrictions that have nothing to do with the quality of the candidate; both are anti-democratic.  Fairness doesn't enter into it.
 
2014-01-27 10:10:09 AM
God damnit.
 
2014-01-27 10:14:50 AM

Kuta: xanadian: grumpfuff: The Next George Bush
Can the heir to America's oldest political dynasty save the GOP?

What was that rule about headlines with a question in them?


Uh....the answer is always (c)?

Magruda: EvilEgg: I always thought that odd about the Clinton thing.  Not only that, Clinton was actually good for the country

Revisionist history. His economic boom was on the back of a tech bubble and he signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal, plus NAFTA.

Yeppers.  Because of the Glass-Steagall repeal, and the meltdown it helped create in 2007, one could say that Obama's been cleaning up Clinton's mess.

Except that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was sponsored by three Republicans.

Sure the Democrats were idiots to not try and fight it, but the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate then and times were good economically. This occurred just before the first dot.com bubble burst, so hubris won out over prudence.

More Democrats voted against it than Republicans, and it sailed through with a veto-proof majority. Very sad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act


Go read Clinton's own words about how "pleased" he was to sign that gem of legislation.
 
2014-01-27 10:16:45 AM
Who do they think they are!?!?!?!  The Kennedys?
 
2014-01-27 10:19:10 AM
CSB time..
Back in the 90's, I was working at the Texas Governor's Mansion during W's tenure as Governor. The whole frikkin' clan was in town one Fall Saturday for some shindig, and most of them were from back east.
The University of Virginia was playing the Texas Longhorns, and all the Bush assholes were cheering for ...Virginia.Those sumbiatches were having lunch in the frikkin' birthplace of Texas, cheering against Texas.It made my blood boil.
They were yukking it up having a great time, right up until Phil Frikkin' Dawson steps up into a 30 mph headwind and boots a last second 50 yard field goal for the win. I was in the Mansion driveway listening to the radio as the crowd went wild. Game over, Longhorns win.
 It shut those blue-blooded carpet bagging bastards up reeeal good.
 
2014-01-27 10:20:21 AM

21-7-b: As a candidate for land commissioner, he has spent $680,000-more than 42 times as much money as his primary opponent, an east Texas businessman named David Watts. Bush's Democratic opponent, former El Paso mayor John Cook, is barely better resourced than Watts. (Bush has more than $2.8 million on hand, while Cook and Watts together have only $2,700.)


If he still loses it will be hilarious.
 
2014-01-27 10:22:15 AM

Danger Mouse: Who do they think they are!?!?!?!  The Kennedys?


Core difference being that the Kennedy's kept getting assassinated.
 
2014-01-27 10:32:20 AM

EvilEgg: The problem is he will be campaigning against W's legacy.


There's only two ways for him to avoid campaigning against W's legacy:

1. Run under the name "Prescott Bush" instead of "George Bush" or "George P. Bush" -- avoids Uncle George's legacy (land wars in Asia, economic nosedive, etc.) but then has to deal with Great-Granddad Prescott's legacy (Nazi gold, etc.)

2. Run under the name "Jorge Garnica" -- by using  his mother's maiden name instead of his father's name, he avoids all the bad parts of his family legacy (since it all comes from Jeb's side anyway); and by using "Jorge" instead of "George," the GOP would be able to say they have a Hispanic candidate. Trouble for them with the latter is that wouldn't endear them to the base (read:white bigots in the former Confederacy), the Cubans in Miami might not like that the GOP's Hispanic Best Friend is Mexican, and non-Cuban Hispanics almost certainly would reject the implied campaign slogan of "I'm Hispanic, so vote for me"


/or he could take a third option and not run at all
 
2014-01-27 10:35:39 AM

EvilEgg: The problem is he will be campaigning against W's legacy.  Which, while strangely improving, still turns off moderates and I am not sure there is word for the reaction he inspires in Democrats.

It is probably the same word that Hilary inspires in Republicans.


Revulsion? Abhorrence? Disgust? Contempt?
 
2014-01-27 10:36:21 AM

somedude210: George the 3rd, the boy king!


So one of the "little brown ones" has grown up?

Seriously, America, you could have just imported a monarchy at a cheaper price than growing your own.
 
2014-01-27 10:37:31 AM
The link I like to post in every George P. Bush thread that we get -- http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/george-p-bush/george-p-bush-stalk i ng-758409
 
2014-01-27 10:40:20 AM

somedude210: The Bush family is actually a dynasty. We've had Bush 1 be both a Vice President and President. W (Bush 1's son) become President after being governor of one of the largest states in the Union. His other son, Jeb, was a governor in another state altogether. and now Bush 1's grandson is getting into politics. *That* is a dynasty.



...and before George H.W., there was Senator Prescott Bush.
 
2014-01-27 10:46:53 AM

King Something: EvilEgg: The problem is he will be campaigning against W's legacy.

There's only two ways for him to avoid campaigning against W's legacy:

1. Run under the name "Prescott Bush" instead of "George Bush" or "George P. Bush" -- avoids Uncle George's legacy (land wars in Asia, economic nosedive, etc.) but then has to deal with Great-Granddad Prescott's legacy (Nazi gold, etc.)

2. Run under the name "Jorge Garnica" -- by using  his mother's maiden name instead of his father's name, he avoids all the bad parts of his family legacy (since it all comes from Jeb's side anyway); and by using "Jorge" instead of "George," the GOP would be able to say they have a Hispanic candidate. Trouble for them with the latter is that wouldn't endear them to the base (read:white bigots in the former Confederacy), the Cubans in Miami might not like that the GOP's Hispanic Best Friend is Mexican, and non-Cuban Hispanics almost certainly would reject the implied campaign slogan of "I'm Hispanic, so vote for me"


/or he could take a third option and not run at all


I think he should use the name  Barry Soetoro.
 
2014-01-27 10:48:02 AM

bmongar: dittybopper: No more Bush's.  No more Clintons.

Do you realize, that if a Bush or a Clinton gets elected in 2016, that a Bush or Clinton will have been either president or vice president for 32 years out of the 40 years between 1981 and 2021?  That 80% of the time a Bush or a Clinton will have been either president or vice president?

No farkin' thank you.  Political dynasties like that are anti-democratic.

Excluding someone because of their family is also anti-democratic


Oh, I'm not excluding anyone.  They are, of course, free to run.  I'm exercising my democratic right to free speech argue that electing one or the other of those two narrow choices is a bad idea.

But I would *NEVER* even hint that a law, regulation, or other actual legal impediment for them to run would be a good idea.  That would be a case of the treatment being worse than the cure.
 
2014-01-27 10:51:17 AM
"The little brown ones" are finally useful, eh George?
 
2014-01-27 10:57:30 AM

Wasteland: Arguing that someone should hold office because of their family's history is retarded.  Arguing that someone shouldn't hold office because of their family is equally retarded, and for most of the same reasons.


Well, no.

There is a unique danger in electing members of the same family over and over again:  Lack of political diversity.  The same people will be hired for the same sorts of positions:  Think Cheney and Rumsfeld.

And I don't think anyone argues someone should hold office *BECAUSE* of their family's history, but it often works out like that not because of deep thought amongst the citizenry, but because low information voters recognize the name and say "Hey, I liked X's brother|father|husband|wife when they were in office, so I'll vote for X because I recognize the name and they have the right letter after their name".

Of course, there is no real cure for the "right letter after the name" zombie voters, but you might at least get some people to think about who might be better by actually making them look at who the candidates are instead of "Oh, yeah, I recognize that name, they've got my vote".
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report