NYTimes (Bumiller): A Few Years, and Then Another Bush?

[Dudley_DUright]

Bush III? Or has the dynasty run its course? Those are the questions some Republicans are asking themselves as political talk bubbles up yet again about President Bush's brother Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida and his interest in the White House. The chief driver of the mini-buzz is the current occupant of the White House, who has said twice this month that his younger brother would make "a great president."

No one, the president included, is suggesting that the younger Bush will run in 2008, and Governor Bush, whose second term is up in January, has adamantly ruled it out.

But Republican Party leaders continue to talk seriously about a continuation of the dynasty, a Bush III administration, with Jeb as a candidate in 2012 or 2016, when the memory of the current president's dismal poll ratings will be less of a factor. That, at least, is what happened the last time around: President George Bush's unpopularity at the end of his term in 1992 did not hurt his eldest son when he ran for president eight years later.

"Look, I think he'd be a great president," the current President Bush said in response to a question about Jeb's intentions at a restaurant industry trade show in Chicago last week. "But he said he's not going to run in 2008, and I think you've got to take him for his word. He's been in public life now for eight years, and I think he wants a breather."

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/29/washington/29letter.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!! Already they are starting to lay the groundwork for 2012. This family should be banished from the country, let alone the whitehouse. The only good news in this report is Bumiller is going on book leave and won't be catapulting the propaganda in the NYTimes for awhile anyway.

[Minnesota Libra]

1. OMG - this is too scary even for words. nt

[tenshi816]

2. Jeebus.

Why do the Republicans love those fuckwits so much? What is it about the Bush family that appeals to them? Is that really the best they can do?

[TankLV]

9. Is there noone else in this party of CRIMINALS and SYNCOPHANTS that could

run besides somebody with a "bush*" name?

What is wrong with these people?!?!?!

[Betty]

13. because they are easliy manipulated

puppets. They are empty suits that are useful as front men.

[monarch]

3. Writing biography of Condi--how surprising n/t

[Dudley_DUright]

8. I take that back, she will be catapulting the propaganda

in book length form. Here is a DailyKOS suggestion for Bumiller's title:



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/1/134550/6013

[w13rd0]

4. The Bush family...

...should be banished from the family. Can anyone cite me any examples of good works these parasites have done? Any of them? They've cost US taxpayers billions upon billions of dollars, and thousands (perhaps millions when you factor in the damage they've done to regulations, the middle class, the environment) of lives. They need to be sent straight to hell or uranus, whichever we have the means to send them to first.

[Dudley_DUright]

5. I notice that Newt also got the Jeb for president talking points

Gingrich: Gov. Bush could be president

His brother's approval ratings are in the cellar, and that whole dynasty thing doesn't help. But don't underestimate Jeb Bush's prospects as a future presidential contender, says former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Probably '08 is a little bit tricky, but " '12 or '16 isn't. And he's a young enough guy (53) that he has a great future," Gingrich said on the Political Connections television show airing today on Bay News 9. "I just think his natural, personal ability is so great that people are going to realize he is not his father and he's not his brother. He's a very unique, charismatic leader with extraordinary capabilities. ... Jeb Bush may well be the most innovative (governor) in the entire country."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2311288

[napi21]

6. They were talking about this on the WJ this AM.

Thee 3 reporters on a panel answering callers questions, and the subject came up about who the leading candidates were in both parties. The across the board opinion was that the Pub candidate will completely depend on what happens in the Nov. 06 elections. If there is a turn against the Pubs this fall, it will be good for McCain and Guliani, but f nto, then it will be good for the guys like Allan. Then one of the panelists said that theusual wise pick for the Pub party would be aa 2 term governer in an important State, like Fl, Pa, or Ohio, and that would mean Jeb, but so many people are tired of a "Bush", Jeb will have to wait at least 4 or 8 years to run.

Personally, I'm hoping the dislike for "Bush" gets so strong, our Country NVER considers another one, EVER!

[BillZBubb]

7. Sadly, the sheeple ARE DUMB ENOUGH TO DO THIS!

Fool me once (Bush I) shame on you, fool me twice (Busholini) shame on, shame on--we won't get fooled again (Jebthro)!

[salin]

10. Bush 1 tanks an economy, and starts a war

Bush 2 tanks an economy and drives the standard of living WAY down and trumps his father's record breaking deficits, leaving a HUGE bill for each tax paying American for generations to come; Starts a war and gets us mired there - and is attempting to start another war. Given the second bush's efforts to out-trump the Dad from bad to worse for the country - one can only imagine what little would be left of our country and what dire straights Americans would be in at the end of a third Bush presidency.

[Demeter]

11. May Lightning Strike You Dead, Bumiller, For Even Thinking of Such

a horrible thing, let alone wishing it on your country.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. WTF is wrong with people, thinking that just because somebody

was a president once, all their relatives should get to be president, too? It's been going on, at least occasionally, since the beginning -- there was John Adams (#2) and then his son, John Quincy Adams (#6); there was Theodore Roosevelt and distant cousin Franklin (Eleanor was also Theodore's niece); John F. Kennedy and his brother, Robert, who ran for the Democratic nomination in 1968 and might have been elected; and now there's Poppy and W and, God help us, maybe Jeb; and there was Bill Clinton and now maybe Hillary.

Come on...! it shouldn't be a hereditary office. Having a president as a father or a brother or a spouse does not make somebody qualified to be president, too (not that any of the Bushes were ever qualified in the first place). In fact, having a president as a relative should disqualify someone as a candidate. That goes for Hillary, too.

In a country of 300 million people, aren't there any candidates out there besides Bushes and Clintons?

[adnelson60087]

14. Republicans are determined to have a Monarchy

and since it can't be the Reagans, they settled for the Bushes. Damn, The Founders would be crying...

[yurbud]

15. If not a Bush, another right wing pusch, but next time worse

every time they go further.

In the 1950s, McCarthy was considered a "loose cannon" but Eisenhower, though he worked within the rules himself, profited from his accusations.

Nixon seemed to up the level of dirty tricks against political opponents, and tried to claim "unitary executive powers, but Congress and the public would not go along with it.

Reagan brought in hero worship and large scale circumventing of congressional oversight and law-breaking in Iran-Contra. Congress and the courts reacted but the public did not.

While Reagan was an affable, non-threatening guy himself, the right wing media started to emerge and use the same methods of personal attack as McCarthy.

The Newt revolution was the first step of putting the McCarthyite rhetoric of talk radio into practice. Personal attacks like the endless investigations of President Clinton's sex life went from being the job of the Enquirer and Globe to Congress. If the right couldn't win, they would at least stop the other side from governing. This time the public turned on them.

With Bush, it was the first time all the elements of the machine were working together, the media, Congress, and even the White House. Members of the executive branch publicly said those who disagree are aiding our enemies, talk that in the recent past would only come from Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter. Voter intimidation, purges, and rigable electronic voting machines are used to insulate them from all but overwhelming votes against them--which they may get now that the public has realized what's going on.

What is missing each time is the Democratic response, investigation, and follow through. When Bill Clinton lies about sex, the GOP doggedly pursues it all the way through impeachment proceedings, in spite of less than 30% public support.

When Democrats have evidence of serious wrong-doing from Watergate to Iran-Contra, the October Surprise in 1980, and now as they are signalling they will do with Bush, their pattern has been to forgive and forget, and extend the olive branch--which the Republicans promptly sharpen and stab them in the throat with.

If Democrats do this AGAIN, the next assault on democracy might not be reversible. This one might not be reversible.

If the Democrats get back in, they need to investigate which interests have been driving our foreign policy since WW II, who they benefit, who they hurt, and exactly what illegal methods and corrupt politicians they use.