Is it OK for two families to control the presidency for 28 years?

[BlueAwards]

Poll question: Is it OK for two families to control the presidency for 28 years?

I am impartial on this topic, I am simply curious to see what you all think. If Hillary wins in 2008 (this question, however, has nothing to do with her personally), she could potentially serve until 2017. That would mean the Bush family and the Clinton family would have controlled the presidency for 28 years, over a quarter century.

So.... what do you think?

[Capn Sunshine]

1. America is conditioned to like royalty

and politicians serve that purpose rather nicely. As long as they cooperate with the corporate message.

Washington saw the danger in this long ago.

[yurbud]

2. Which Bush will be next? George P, Jenna, Barb, Noelle?

[SteppingRazor]

3. When you consider that Bush Sr. ran the show for a lot of Reagan's years..

The number gets even higher.

[Gato Moteado]

6. i doubt bush sr ran the show.......

....he was as much a puppet as reagan and the chimp. i haven't seen a bush family member that could run a lemonade stand, let alone run the country.

[BlueAwards]

7. Excellent point, lol - nt

[A HERETIC I AM]

9. You underestimate GHWBush

Don't forget, he was a bona fide WWII hero (A pilot) and served as the head of the CIA.

I didnt like Shrubbies pappy but he was 10 times the president his son is.

Next in line will be Jeb. Just watch.

[wicket]

15. Well, he did run the CIA at one point

Scary thought!

[Gato Moteado]

25. yeah, and look at the other brainiacs that have run the cia

i'm not impressed with any of them

[Yupster]

27. Bush ran Reagan's show?

Well there's some revisionist history.

Reagan had little respect for Bush. Thought he was a wimp. Didn't give him squat to do.

[ananda]

4. only if you're like..

.. the Roosevelt's or the Kennedy's.

[Dead_Parrot]

5. As a rule, no...

There are very good reasons for the presidency to be limited to 2 terms, especially if the familly has buisness interests: The amount of power-by-proxy that the Carlyle group has is stomach churning. I'm not aware of the Clintons having that sort of link to any buisness interests, but I still don't think it's a good idea.

[spag68]

8. Political familys

I think you are a rethug spy, trying to stir up sentiment against Hillary. I don't think any thinking dem. will fall for the bs that the rovian fundys dream up any more.

[NativeTexan]

10. Right there with ya spag!

Hillary, with all of her great qualities and faults, is so much better than what we have now, or ANYTHING that the Grand Ole Pedophiles can EVER come up with!!

Do we have someone better? That is what the primary process is about. We will argue, cuss, bite and fight. And then pick a nominee that we will vote for.

I am not a member of an organized political party....

I AM A DEMOCRAT and PROUD OF IT!!

[BlueAwards]

17. ???

I clearly said the question had nothing to with her personally... just the concept of having two families in power for so long. I don't think that is a remotely irrational question to ask - any good democrat would consider it, as we should.

I have mixed feelings about it as I said in the post.

[NativeTexan]

24. Ok.....I understand.

[BlueAwards]

16. That's just ridiculous

My goodness! This was as innocent a post as one could be. I have started an organization to recognize good democrats, the last thing I am is remotely conservative and I take great offense at the accusation.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. It's inherently unhealthy

But it could become a far lesser evil in 2008 if Hillary gets the nomination than letting the Republicans hold onto the Presidency for another four years. They can tie her to Bill if they think that will hurt her, but they can't play the political family card after just running a father and son team.

I don't think this is a trivial concern at all. It is taking politics by name recognition to a whole other and increasingly dangerous level. It's related to the reason why Action Movie Stars and Professional Wrestlers are getting elected to be Governors.

[TankLV]

12. No - but if it were the Kennedy's the current crop that thinks it's dandy

would be foaming at the mouth!

I voted "No" altho I just have major trouble with REPUKE families, not Democratic ones.

[wyldwolf]

13. Yes

If the American people VOTE for it.

[AtomicKitten]

20. wow

that is, like, so democratic

[wyldwolf]

28. A unique approach, I know. We should try it.

[Lars39]

14. In their Arkansas days, Bill and Hillary were known as "Billary"

because if you got one, you automatically get the other one.

[karynnj]

18. Fine, so Billary was President for 8 yrs already

[Lars39]

21. Yup, that's how I see it, too.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Hell fucking NO!

What is this? England?

[MercutioATC]

22. Well, WE voted for them...

...it's called Democracy (or, if you prefer, a representative Republic)...

[LittleClarkie]

23. Where's the "FUCK NO!" option

I suppose the simple negative will have to do.

[Jamison]

26. I voted NO!

I liked Bill Clinton a lot, but the Clintons have changed. Look at how Bill is always doing things with Poppy Bush. If Hillary gets elected, things would not be much better than they were under W. As far as I'm concerned, the Clintons have joined the BFEE by association.

[seabeyond]

29. i didnt like bush. still this was another reason i didnt want him

i am fine wit hillary, yet still this is a strong reason i oppose having her as president. no.... i dont want two family rule. and almost feels like they have worked this out. does jeb come in after hillary. and then chelsey after jeb. i mean wtf....

[Blue_Tires]

30. as an aside

is it OK for the filthy rich to control the white house and congress for the past 230 years, and forseeable future? i think not