mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
It's Official
When Dynasties Collide
Features Icon
show comments
  • Fat_Man

    Please God. Anybody but Jeb Bush. Anyone.

    • Andrew Allison

      Fauxcahontas? LOL. I don’t think he’d be the best choice for the GOP because of his brother’s baggage, but I’m curious as to what you find so objectionable about Jeb Bush. Seems to me he’d be a better candidate than, e.g., Romney — at least he speaks Spanish.

      • Fat_Man

        No. I meant as the Republican candidate. The Bush Family are wonderful patriotic Americans who have contributed much to our country. But, this is a republic, not a monarchy. We have gotten all we need from the Bush Family. I am sure we can find somebody else to run for President.

        • Boritz

          Maybe we can agree on this wording – Memo to Bushes:  You’ve done enough.

      • ojfl

        That is my biggest objection to Mr Bush. Whatever his ideas he will be forced to defend his brother the entire campaign and will have no time to debate said ideas.

        • Andrew Allison

          You raise a very good point. But if he refuses to engage in irrelevant discussions about the past and sticks to his beliefs? The electorate may prove to be as tired as I am of, “It’s Bush’s fault.”

          • ojfl

            I think many of us are tired Mr Allison but the media will not allow that to happen.

    • FriendlyGoat

      Hillary Clinton. Elizabeth Warren. Jim Webb. (No particular order of preference. Any of them would be great.)

  • wigwag

    Whatever your political persuasion, the idea of a presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush is too nauseating to contemplate. Of course, ultimately if that’s the race we face, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

    • rheddles

      It’s exceedingly probable that neither will get a nomination. Both are too out of touch with their party’s center. Neither has done anything lately except rake in personal dollars. Both will repel the base with their sense of noble entitlement.

    • FriendlyGoat

      Not at all. I’ll take Hillary gladly and never quibble about the tiredness of the two names. It’s about the policy.

      • wigwag

        Hillary would be better than Jeb, but Mitt would be just as good or better than Hillary.

        Jeb Bush would be a disaster; he practically invented the Common Core and the requirement that American school kids spend 80 percent of their time taking standardized tests (that are so shockingly poor that they don’t measure anything) or preparing to take the tests.

        For that alone, Bush is the worst candidate in either the Democratic or Republican field.

        Jeb is far worse than Dubya.

        • FriendlyGoat

          I can agree with the first half of your top sentence, but (of course) not the second. If we believe Hillary would appoint better judges than Jeb (and I do), then there is no reason I can believe Mitt would appoint better judges than Hillary.
          For me, it’s about the policy tone, not the personalities, not the administrative skills, not the resumes, not the supposed experience, not any particular thing any of them have ever said or done. A president either largely represents the left or he/she doesn’t. Jeb doesn’t. Mitt doesn’t.

  • amoose1959

    “especially at a time when an increasingly unequal society raises questions about whether the American Dream still works. ”
    How did you make it: 6 figure salary, tenure, IRA, and great pension plan? Family connections, you beat the system, friends in high places???? Phony altruism.

  • dankingbooks

    Two people who will never be president: Jeb Bush and Elizabeth Warren. Nobody wants another Bush in the White House, and Elizabeth Warren is somewhere to the left of Michael Dukakis.

    Hillary has got a shot, but not a very big one. The Republicans would have to nominate Jeb Bush for her to win.

    • FriendlyGoat

      But Elizabeth is trying to peddle the truth with everything she speaks. It just so happens that far left is where truth is admitted.

      • Andrew Allison

        Then how to explain the the largest GOP House majority since 1929? Oh, yes, it’s those damned stupid voters who just don’t know what’s good for them. Might I gently suggest that believing something to be truth doesn’t make it so. As for Fauxcahontas peddling truth, GMAB.

  • Anthony


    • FriendlyGoat

      You and I agree on some things, but I hope that “you” are not to blame for the sorry state of our political campaigns and I know that “I” am not.

      Wigwag can speak for himself and he did. Whomever has ever supported a single conservative on the Supreme Court is to blame. No one else.

      • Anthony

        FG, consensus is… well you know! I definitely don’t write to TAI anticipating any although you are definitely a mind I appreciate contributing here. In relation to my above comment, I did not intend to infer cause specifically (sorry…campaigns) and was (as I have inclination) writing generally to “topic” choice by way of American electorate. That is, electorate consists of many parts but many of these parts are mutually and irrationally antagonistic on grounds irrelevant to the welfare of each – various ethnic, religious, nationalistic, regional, occupational, class, caste, and cultural differences have in most cases nothing to do with their personal and mutual welfare. Yet the either/or choices electorate finds itself in are akin to WigWag’s aphorism (if I may call it that). Further, whether one agrees or disagrees with WigWag’s contribution he has provided operable commentary at TAI for the last six years to my reckoning – but as you say, the man can…

        • FriendlyGoat

          I’m not mad at Wigwag. But we mere citizens are not exactly the cause of a Supreme Court of old setting a precedent that a corporation is a person with rights of a person. Neither are most of us the cause of a recent Supreme Court thwarting laws designed to keep incorporated entities from overwhelming the sensibilities of citizens with a perpetual spew of political fog. We should not be throwing up our hands and blaming ourselves.
          We should be getting our thinking caps on and identifying why our campaigns have so much money in them.
          Then we should be getting Supreme Courts to support us instead of supporting mainly the richest guys in the room.

          Our founding fathers no more envisioned freedom of speech to mean freedom for unlimited repetitions of electronic messages to the masses from overlords of hidden identity than they would have thought they could fly over the Atlantic.

          • Anthony

            I’m sure he agrees.

  • Curious Mayhem

    Bush … Clinton … aaaaahhhhhhhh!

    Mitt would be much better than either. Hillary would be more on the ball than Jeb, with politics not as absurd as the Obama era. But she is now part of the Demo-pluto-cracy. How’s that going to play with the faux populists like Elizabeth Warren, herself a 1%-er and ignorant of basic finance and economics?

  • Pait

    Bob Dole was a Nixon? News to me.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service