Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I'm Tired of Bushes and Clintons - by Jeff Cohen

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 01:43 PM
Original message
I'm Tired of Bushes and Clintons - by Jeff Cohen
I'm Tired of Bushes and Clintons
Submitted by davidswanson on May 3, 2006 - 12:17pm.Campaigns
Published on Wednesday, May 3, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
by Jeff Cohen

Every presidential election since 1980 has had a Bush or a Clinton on a major party ticket. And the pundits say we're likely to see a Clinton atop the next Democratic ticket.

Unlike the last seven presidential elections, I dream of a 2008 contest that is Bush- and Clinton-free. Our country needs new leadership and fresh ideas beyond the realm of just two families.

Of course, influential political families are as old as the Republic. Our nation's first vice president and second president was an Adams; his son was our sixth president. A Republican Roosevelt dominated U.S. politics at the turn of the 20th century; a Democratic Roosevelt, his distant cousin, was even more dominant decades later (joined by our country's greatest first lady, a Roosevelt by birth as well as marriage, who toiled for human rights for years thereafter.) Then came the '60s and the brothers Kennedy...but both John and Robert were killed before the age of 47.

more at:
http://www.democrats.com/node/8804
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. The Clintons are nothing like the Bushes
To argue that the Clintons have had (and continue to have) as much influence as the Bushes on American politics is just ludicrous. The Bushes have been in the business for almost thirty years, as major players...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Bushes have been major players since WW2.
Edited on Wed May-03-06 01:47 PM by blm
And my beef with Clinton is that he could have opened the books on IranContra and BCCI and chose not to. Had he done so at the time, the Bushes would have been fully esposed to the American people and no Bush would have been even allowed NEAR the White House, let alone inside it. And 9-11 would never have happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Actually, they are
Check out Clinton's enforcement of labor law and what was happing with wealth concentration during his 8 years. Was he better than Stupid? Hell yes. Do we want another one just like him? HELL NO.

I'm sick of dynastic rulers. I'm sick of political families who think office is hereditary. I'm heartily sick of stupid sheep who vote name recognition without understanding the implications of doing so.

No more Bushes. No more Clintons. I don't even want any Kennedys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. That's not what I am saying
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim4319 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. Isn't it much longer than 30 years?
I thought Prescott had some political influences? Not to mention George Sr.'s ties to the CIA, back during the Kennedy administration.

But I agree, the Clinton's time in the spotlight is no where near as long as this family of oil baron's!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Yes, but it they were relative unknowns then
I'm simply discussing the time in the spotlight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. The Bush/Walker legacy goes back to the early
part of the 20th century.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. how did this get to dem.com?
Isn't Jeff a major Green?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. I don't care if he is...I agree with him.
We are a democracy, not an aristocracy. I'm sick of dynasties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. i hear you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
11cents Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Every election since 1980 has had a Bush or a Clinton?
Uh - yeah, if you're not considering the fact that only two of those elections had a Clinton and the rest had a *Bush.*

Jesus. Intellectual dishonesty doesn't come much riper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
3. Amen!
No more Bush's--No more Clinton's--no more dynasties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullimiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
8. im a lot sicker of bushs than i ever was of any clinton.
hillary tried to get us universal healthcare. bill blew out on nafta and the telecom bill but he did a lot of decent things for the majority of this country.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
9. I agree with him
Yes, the Clintons aren't nearly as bad as the Bushes, but I don't like the idea of influential families passing off the baton from one to another, each bringing with it the same tired old cadre of advisers. We need NEW ideas and FRESH blood, not just the same old recycled proposals!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gatorboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
11. This is the dumbest thing I've ever read.
Bush comes from a political dynasty. The entire family has poisoned the well. Clinton Dynasty? There's two of them...That's it.

It's attack of the fair and balanced.... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim4319 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. I agree with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
12. Part of me agrees
Another part of me sees the bullshit of putting the sane Clinton in with the insane President Bush and the incompetent president Bush.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rniel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
17. Well get ready for Bush '08
Jeb Bush that is....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
19. Just because this writer is sick of the Bush's shouldn't feel the need
Edited on Wed May-03-06 02:31 PM by cat_girl25
to drag the Clinton's into it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. cat_girl...Bill stepped into the roll of "annointed son" with great ease.
That's alarming, IMO. Too close for comfort. Just my 2 cents. That's where I think this article is coming from.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lexingtonian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
20. And I'm tired of pointless whiners like Jeff Cohen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wash. state Desk Jet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. Point to point
Ragan Bush-Bush-Clinton-Bush-? See the hill. ?T. Roosevelt- Bull moose,Hillary Clinton. The republican party at the time of T. Roosevelt held special place for people they wanted to slip into obsurity.The vice president.Nobody remembers who the vice president was for very long (obscurity.)A way to get ridd of something the party sees as trouble makers. Roosevelt was not well received by republican party right,as we know it today,thats why they made him vice president though it was voted so.The bull moose thing ,Hillary ,Monica Luewinski- Whats that old saying take care of whats in your own back yard befor you advise other,s on how to.What about what goes on within the house or hut?So Hillary is sticking to Bill, the plan. Kerry, Quote, The last thing this country needs is two republican partys.So Hillary bull moose,boulla boulla and two for the price of one.Round and round we go.War is hell and politics is war.Does the saying as it goes eliminate the competition ring any bells?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
22. I've been saying that for over a year.
No Bushes
No Clintons!

I'm tired of the same 2 families running our country (into the ground).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
23. I hope a HClinton-JebBush choice is not the one History has in store.
But the rules make it clear that they're allowed to run if they wish to, and I am not in a position to impose my personal preferences over the will of primary voters if these two wind up as their respective parties' nominees.

With both of them well-funded and well-known, it just means that voters who prefer other candidates must consider volunteering longer and working harder to nominate someone else.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
24. At least there was eight years of peace under Clinton n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
25. This would have held water if he had written it in 1999. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NightOwwl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
27. I believe Hillary Clinton feels entitled...
to be the presidential nominee in 2008.

I hope the general public feels just the opposite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debbierlus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
28. I agree with him

Hiliary had been unimpressive as a Senator.

But, beyond that, we do not need any more division right now.

Hiliary is too much of a lightening rod to be a good Presidential candidate.

Feingold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
29. There's been a Nixon, Bush or Dole on EVERY GOP ticket since 1952 except
for 1964 when Goldwater's rebellion briefly upset the GOP applecart..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wash. state Desk Jet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Than came 1968
A different toon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orwell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
31. How about...
...a trilateralist free election. That would get rid of both the Bushes and the Clintons as well as a good portion of their policy advisors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug 28th 2014, 06:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC