Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What's Wrong With 28 Years of Bush-Clinton?

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
DrFunkenstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 11:20 AM
Original message
What's Wrong With 28 Years of Bush-Clinton?
I think the prospect of having two intertwined political families running the country for more than a quarter of a century would provide stability to the country. Much like a monarchy. I've always thought that America was too wrapped up in the notions of democracy, anyway. I say that if you liked how things have been going since 1988, don't fix what ain't broken.

Besides I doubt that the GOP candidate would even bother to run against the prospect of dynastic rule. After all, why would they want to be able to label themselves as agents of change?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. I want Edwards to start sharing the wonderful resources and
rights that the millionars club has been hording.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddiejoan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
2. Ronnie's Hat
doesn't seem to fit Obama very well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
3. Bush - Clinton - Bush. Failure - Success - Failure
Remind me again what the problem is with continuing the pattern?

By the way, there are plenty of historical precedents. John Adams & John Quincy Adams. The Roosevelts. The Kennedys.

I guess that RFK had no right to run for election after JFK served. And Teddy Kennedy ran, too. What was he thinking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
THUNDER HANDS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. I'm going to be 30 when the next president is sworn in
and if it's Clinton, that will mean that for more than half my life, I've only seen either a Bush or a Clinton in office.

Whereas my parents, by the time they were my age, had seen...

Kennedy, Johnson, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Carter.

I've seen, Reagan, Bush, Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
24. So, it's Hillary's fault that two of the last three presidents were Bushes?
That's an interesting argument.

I'm more concerned about the issues than someone's last name. Your parents (and I) might have had Nixon and Ford, but I don't exactly consider that a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #3
13. The Roosevelts? You're kidding? They were distant cousins
and their admins were separated by 30 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #13
29. What's your excuse for the Kennedys?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #13
35. 24 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
31. We resisted most of those
The election of Jon Quincy Adams was at least as close and controversial as Bush in 2000.
The distance of the Roosevelts makes it hard to claim they were different parties.
RFK would have been elected, I'm sure. But by the time Teddy thought he would give it a go the U.S. had lost love for the Kennedys. The fact that the scandal was not kept under wraps points to lost love.
There is certainly a common power mechanism that is propelling this dynastic machine. People may be feeling some positive results, but I wonder why more people don't question the danger of damage to our democracy that comes with this cycle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
4. Between both of them they have practically deregulated everything /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrFunkenstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. What is The Difference Between CEO Pay and Average Pay Since 1988?
I'm sure it is probably lower now. How many minimimum wage hikes have we seen since 1988? Probably a bunch of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. yup, and as you imply not a livable wage at that /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
5. One problem with the characterization
is that Bush I was president for 4 years, not 12.

I was an adult during Reagan's presidency - nobody ever claimed George H. W. Bush was the real power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kucinich4America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. You gotta be kidding me!
Where I come from, nobody ever believed Reagan was the real power.

Did you know that Donald Regan and Ed Meese were the only members of the original Reagan cabinet chosen by Reagan himself? All of the others were longtime Bush Crime Family hacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. I'm not kidding
Bush was perceived as a weak vice-president; a wimp.

You're just rewriting history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kucinich4America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. I'm not rewriting shit.
Reagan was literally the "acting president". Poppy Bush picked the cabinet, and he was running the show. And what better way to hide that fact than to spin a myth in the Whore Media about him being a "wimp".

This guy was career CIA. He knew damn well what he was doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Were you alive at the time? A politically aware adult?
I'm not aware of any contemporary accounts or historical ones that agree with you. Nancy was more powerful in that administration than Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. Nancy's astrologer was more powerful than Bush!
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Yep!
I remember reading that Bush was very unhappy that the extent of his contact with Reagan was lunch once a week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kucinich4America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #25
38. Those treasonous sons of bitches are what made me politically aware in the first place.
When the Iranian hostages were released the same day Shit For Brains I was inaugurated, I knew it was no coincidence. And that was the beginning of my existence as a political junkie, including a lot of research on the Bush Crime Family.

Nancy and her fucking astrologers weren't the ones behind Iran/Contra. Or Iran vs Iraq. Nancy's astrologer didn't have family ties to John Hinckley or Osama Bin Laden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. ok
you're too far into conspiracy theories for me to find this discussion worthwhile. Have a good day!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
6. I imagine that if the elections...
I imagine that if the elections that get them there are valid and accurate, it's less a vote for monarchy and more a vote for a qualified candidate-- regardless of bloodline, color, sex or religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueManDude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
8. it beats 8 years of McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #8
33. Yeah, let's lower our expectations..
cause we don't deserve better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueManDude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. You need to take a deep breath
Edwards, BO and Hill are fine people and would make terrific presidents. If you're so wrapped up into this fight that you can see that then you should take a break.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #8
37. At this point I am almsot willing to take 4 years of McCain
instead of 8 years of Clinton. 5 years from now he will be what 100? I doubt he will make a second term a defeat of the DLC warmonger wing of the party is starting to look a lot more atractive to me Ill take the chance on Mccain if we hold the congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CountAllVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
11. this is why I voted for Obama
enough is enough!

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JCMach1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
12. Don't even conflate the Clintons with the Bushes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GalleryGod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
14. Well...possibly a "fresh team" taking a look at problem solving.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmunchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
15. I know that you are joking because any selfrespecting human being wouldn't seriously think that
a dynasty that included BushII was in any way OK for this country is a little low on the integrity scale as well as the IQ scale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxsolomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
16. jeb will only be 63 in 2016.
and in 2024 chelsea will be 44, so we could buy that as "the torch is passed to a new generation".

people (and by people, i mean corporations - same thing) like the stability of empire - democracy is messy!

the 2 family system is just a logical extension of the 2 party system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
18. A friend said why not Giuliani - A competent Dictator may be a good thing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
19. If we have to have an aristocracy, can we get one with some class?
None of these people make a credible Tsar
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #19
27. LOL!
Nice. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
21. The Bush part is what is wrong with it. The Clinton part is what is right about it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
22. I like Edwards. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmallind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
26. Well two things
The math assumes facts not in evidence is one

And the Bush part is the other.

So assuming the facts roll in as predicted the answer would be very simple: The 12 years when it was a Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rageneau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
28. 12 years of Bush SUCKS! 16 years of Clinton will be good for America!
There's a difference between black and white, good and evil, Bush and Clinton.

Every year of both Bush presidencies has been a complete disaster for America.

The first Clinton Administration encompassed 8 of the best years America has ever had.

Therefore (follow me closely here, half-wits), a Bush presidency and a Clinton presidency are NOT the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlyingSquirrel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
34. I can think of 4 or 5 things worse than Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton...
Bush-Clinton-Bush-McCain
Bush-Clinton-Bush-Romney
Bush-Clinton-Bush-Huckabee
Bush-Clinton-Bush-Thompson
Bush-Clinton-Bush-Giuliani.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
the other one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
36. And then 8 of Jeb. And then Chelsea should be old enough...
Fuck that shit. I would rather we become part of the British Empire again. I like Queen Elizabeth, and her grandson is going to make a great king. As long as we are going to have royalty run this country, I want it to be King William.
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 May 16th 2024, 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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