Jeb Bush

[Adam's Apple]

Although Jeb Bush has stated he wants to take a break from politics after his current term as Florida governor ends and will not make a run for president in 2008, some writers are already working to discourage any possible candidacy by Jeb, stating that three Bushes occupying the White House in 20 years would not be a good thing for the country and people would not be receptive to another Bush candidacy.

Why would Jeb’s candidacy be a bad thing for the country and why would people not be receptive to him? Do you agree with these assumptions? Would you rather not have another Bush succeed George W. because there has already been a Bush 41 and a Bush 43? I have long heard that Jeb is the most gifted politician in the Bush family, so if we think George W. has been a good president, why wouldn’t we want to continue his presidency with someone who may be even better? Why should the fact that his father and his brother have already occupied the Oval Office be a strike against Jeb?

 

[Nienna]

Maybe people are thinking along the lines of term limits. One person can only have two terms in the White House, to discourage a "dynasty," to keep one person from having too much control, to get fresh ideas, etc. I'm all for the Bush family, but maybe this is where others could be coming from.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I agree that the fear of a so-called “dynasty” is the message the media is trying to get across with regard to Jeb’s potential presidential run in 2008. However, when Kennedy was president, with his brother Bobby running as a candidate to succeed him as president and Teddy waiting in the wings, I don’t remember any concern expressed in the press about a potential Kennedy dynasty. As a matter of fact, at that time the press gleefully ranted about the prospect of the Kennedy’s becoming America’s first “royal” family. How the press euphoria suddenly dissolves when it is a Republican family named Bush who may become the “royal” family.

I don’t think Americans ever have to worry about establishing a dynasty at the highest level of our government. Our president is elected to the office--he does not assume the office through lineage like European royalty-- and no Bush can ever become president if the people and the Electoral College do not vote to put him there. And then his service is limited to a maximum of eight years. We have had Roosevelts, Kennedys, and now Bushes, and none of these famous political families have been able to dominate the American political scene for a very long period of time.

 

[CSM]

I agree that the fear of a so-called “dynasty” is the message the media is trying to get across with regard to Jeb’s potential presidential run in 2008. However, when Kennedy was president, with his brother Bobby running as a candidate to succeed him as president and Teddy waiting in the wings, I don’t remember any concern expressed in the press about a potential Kennedy dynasty. As a matter of fact, at that time the press gleefully ranted about the prospect of the Kennedy’s becoming America’s first “royal” family. How the press euphoria suddenly dissolves when it is a Republican family named Bush who may become the “royal” family.

I don’t think Americans ever have to worry about establishing a dynasty at the highest level of our government. Our president is elected to the office--he does not assume the office through lineage like European royalty-- and no Bush can ever become president if the people and the Electoral College do not vote to put him there. And then his service is limited to a maximum of eight years. We have had Roosevelts, Kennedys, and now Bushes, and none of these famous political families have been able to dominate the American political scene for a very long period of time.

You forgot...Adams!

 

[Bullypulpit]

Although Jeb Bush has stated he wants to take a break from politics after his current term as Florida governor ends and will not make a run for president in 2008, some writers are already working to discourage any possible candidacy by Jeb, stating that three Bushes occupying the White House in 20 years would not be a good thing for the country and people would not be receptive to another Bush candidacy.

Why would Jeb’s candidacy be a bad thing for the country and why would people not be receptive to him? Do you agree with these assumptions? Would you rather not have another Bush succeed George W. because there has already been a Bush 41 and a Bush 43? I have long heard that Jeb is the most gifted politician in the Bush family, so if we think George W. has been a good president, why wouldn’t we want to continue his presidency with someone who may be even better? Why should the fact that his father and his brother have already occupied the Oval Office be a strike against Jeb?

The 22nd Amendment was passed in 1951 after FDR had been elected to four terms in office. A president with this much staying power made members of the legislative branch uncomfortable, particularly after the dictatorships that had een over-turned so recently in Germany and Japan as well as the one that was currently squatting in Moscow.

To see another member of Bush family in the office of POTUS so soon after the current one would be to throw over the vision of the Founding Fathers of a nation free of the dynastic legacy of England and Europe. For it would, indeed be a dynasty, and would only serve to further erode the Constitution and the separation of powers.

As for Jeb, being a gifted politician does not make one a gifted, or a good, leader.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Four or eight years in the office of President does not a dynasty make. If Jeb should be elected president and serve eight years, where is the Bush waiting in the wings to succeed him? End of dynasty.

And Jeb has proven his leadership ability as a successful, two-term governor of Florida, where he has had to handle a multitude of problems of a very diverse population.

 

[Merlin1047]

The 22nd Amendment was passed in 1951 after FDR had been elected to four terms in office. A president with this much staying power made members of the legislative branch uncomfortable, particularly after the dictatorships that had been over-turned so recently in Germany and Japan as well as the one that was currently squatting in Moscow.

First, we're dealing with three different people here. While you can certainly argue that HW and GW would have an influence on Jeb Bush, the same can be said if the Dems run Hillary. Also, as previously pointed out, where was all this concern when the Kennedys were set to do something very similar?

Your analogy of Japan and Germany doesn't hold. One was an emperor who inhereted his office through lineage, the other was simply a nut. We don't have the mechanism to place an emperor into office and there is no way to forsee if any president might turn into a demagogue like Hitler as that could happen immediately after he takes office in his first term.

To see another member of Bush family in the office of POTUS so soon after the current one would be to throw over the vision of the Founding Fathers of a nation free of the dynastic legacy of England and Europe. For it would, indeed be a dynasty, and would only serve to further erode the Constitution and the separation of powers.

Somehow I doubt your objections would be quite so enthusiastic if this was the family of one of your liberal darlings running one sibling after another.

The founding fathers sought to avoid investing the office of President with the trappings of royalty because they did not want to end up with the same system of government which plagued most European nations at the time. I don't see how you can correlate having three different but related people in non-consecutive occupancy of the White House with the establishment of an emperor or king. Clinton separated the presidency of HW and GW. Guess that's a good thing if for no other reason than it gave us some perspective on the difference between mature leadership as opposed to a freshman idiot.

So as I see it your argument on a so-called "dynasty" eroding the Constitution and separation of powers is simply a construct of the fact that your dislike for GW spills over onto anyone related to him. There is no erosion of anything. These are three different people - not clones. The Constitution is satisfied and I fail to see how anything is eroded.

As for Jeb, being a gifted politician does not make one a gifted, or a good, leader.

Ya just couldn't help it, could ya? There's that gratuitous shot that we all look forward to. How about applying that same philosophy to that spawn from hell, Billary Clinton? Hmmmmm?

 

[krisy]

I agree with Merlin and Adam. It doesn't seem very American to me to tell someone they can't run for President,because other family members have and won. If the American people want him there,that's where he shall be. I do see where this could be frustrating for Democrats,but what should also be frustrating,is someone telling you who you can and can't have the option of voting for,simply because of who their relatives are. These are 3 different people as Merlin said,and I see nothing wrong with it,just like the media had no problem with the Kennedys.

I don't know if Jeb will run or not,and if he says no,then he probably won't(at least in 08). I personlly think he has been a good leader and shown a strong sense of morals. I think the media speculation too,has been a bit much about 08 allready though.