A tale of 2 Families
 

I forget which political show I saw this on or even who did the report, but i remember that the guy reading his commentary said something that really struck me.

Basically, despite who you have voted for and who you would vote for or even support, there is something fundementally skewed when 2 families begin to assume 20+ years of leadership.

Here is the breakdown:

Bush Snr - 4 years in office
Bill Clinton - 8 years
GW Bush - 8 years
(if elected) Hillary 4-8 years.

Basically, This would mean that approximitly a quarter of a century would have either a Clinton or Bush in office.

I know I am not doing this the same level of detail that the original guy did. But even so, despite what one's political belief is, it does create an interesting thought.

I meant to add this to the OP, this thought is best looked at from a objective non-party based point of view. I realize if you are pro-Rep or pro-Dem it is easy to start saying the "Yes, but..."

I guess my point is sometimes I feel like we have moved from a Republic to a Semi-Monarch based government.

I hope this doesn't come off as snide or anything, but perhaps it should.

The bottomline is people still vote these people into office (although I would imagine that point might be contested in Dubya's case). This is the innate flaw of our system, being that of two parties, it comes down to electability really. It would seem that at least we have the illusion of choice when it comes to voting.

They really are one family. Clinton calls Bush Sr. his surrogate father.

God save the king.

Wow, there's no prescendence for this. Except for the Roosevelts who had 18 years in power over a 44 year period. Oh, and the Adamses who had 12 years over 28 years. And if there's any family that's viewed as royalty in this country, it's the Kennedy's.

Nothing new here, nothing to see. Who's the heir-apparent after Hillary? Chelsea's not old enough and I doubt that any with even the last name Bush will be electable in the next 20 years, just like if you'd tried to run for national office with the last name Nixon in the 70's or 80's.

It's an interesting theory, but it's all predicated on Hillary getting elected in '08. She's not even the Democratic frontrunner right now, so this conversation should probably be tabled for at least a year or so when we see who gets the nomination. If that happens, I'll give you theory a lot more credence, but right now it's just an interesting coincidence in my mind. For now, I'll just keep hoping that Bill Richardson gets the Democratic nod.

That's interesting. You think W scotched Jeb's chances? Jeb was always referred to by his father as "the smart one"...

Yes I do. Jeb's got his own issues, not the least of which is a drug-addicted daughter. Leave aside for a moment W's abysmal approval rating that most likely won't go up much before the end of his term, and Jeb still had a strike against him just because he was the brother. I think that a sizeable-enough minority of the Republican rank-and-file would have been uncomfortable enough with the nepotism issue to make it difficult for him to ever get the nod on the national stage. Add back in the approval rating and most of the independents would run for the hills.

I think that Jeb is perfectly electable as a senator in Florida, but I can't imagine him being successful on the national stage since his brother would be at the forefront of any campaign. In Florida he can run on his own name, but nationally I don't think that's possible.

Then again, maybe I'm as full of shit as some people think.