LAT: US Needs Leader In 08 Who Does NOT Inherit Office Because Of Their Last Name

[kpete]

Anyone but a Bush or a Clinton

The U.S. needs a leader in 2008 who doesn't inherit the office because of a last name.

By James Burkee

HAVING REFUSED a third term as president, George Washington offered the nation a farewell address in 1796, urging Americans to cherish the Union and to avoid the "baneful effects" of political partisanship. Successors such as Thomas Jefferson warned against the formation of an "unnatural" aristocracy of men who inherited great fortunes and political office.

Both of these warnings have been overlooked in the debate over Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2008 presidential run. But if she secures the Democratic nomination, wins and serves two terms, by 2017 the United States will have been governed by either a Bush or a Clinton for 28 years. That's three decades governed not just by the same two families but much of the same supporting staff. As Dick Cheney is a name familiar to both Bush presidencies (as George H.W. Bush's secretary of Defense and his son's vice president), so too may a
Hillary Clinton presidency resuscitate familiar names such as Harold Ickes, Paul Begala and James Carville.

.......................

..............George W. Bush would not be president today were his name not George Bush, nor Hillary a senator from New York absent the Clinton name. This nation's traditional commitment to meritocracy inclines many to reject these "unnatural" aristocrats, who never garner widespread popularity.

more at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-burkee22jan22,0,7673503.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

[jbonkowski]

1. If HRC wins it will be in spite of her WH years

Not because of them. The "baggage" created by both the real press and the Scaife funded smear jobs are what create her negative image with a large portion of the public.

jim

[xultar]

6. Exactly.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. You can say that again! n/t

[Unperson]

3. Second dat. n/t

[AndyA]

4. Just as long as we NEVER have another BUSH is the White House.

Or Congress.

Or anything. That family just needs to move to their new estate in Paraguay and never set foot on American soil again.

[Solo_in_MD]

7. Are you going to apply the same standard to the Kennedys

lets be careful what we wish for here...

[rinsd]

14. This is Clinton hating dressed up in a talking point that is palatable

If one of the Kennedy's decided to run for Prez, I doubt you would see many people from this thread bemoaning a dynasty.

[AndyA]

22. We've only had one Kennedy in the White House, and that was 44 years ago.

He was in his job for less than 4 years. And he didn't start a war based on lies, wreck our finances, or ruin our relations with other countries.

We've had two Bushes in the White House now for a total of 11 years. Separated only by the 8 years of sanity with Clinton in the White House.

Kennedy is generally regarded as a great President, while Bush I was mediocre at best, and Bush II is...well...a disaster, and is headed to go down in history as the worst pResident ever.

I'd be willing to give another Kennedy a chance at this point, but NEVER EVER again for a Bush.

[rinsd]

5. Geez what a steaming pile of an editorial

First it calls the Reagan era non-partisan which is a joke. And it does so to cram in the author's off the top of their head theory about the need for a clear leader in partisan times. It calls Johnson a strong President beased on his voting total not acknowledging the circumstances. It also fails to mention that he was "forced" out from running for re-election.

It cites the Truman and Carter eras as hyper partisan yet loooks on the very brief Ford era with rose colored glasses.

It speaks of an American natural instinct born of our national founding and tradition that resents and rejects relatives running while conveniently ignoring the Kennedys and the Roosevelts.

And my fav

"
The nation needs a candidate who can win 55% or more."

Which hasn't happened very often in the last 60 years.

[HamdenRice]

8. Hillary "Isabelle Peron" Clinton

Hillary "Isabelle Peron" Clinton is the only Democratic candidate I would not vote for. I just don't get the idea that because she was Bill's wife, she is entitled to a Senate seat, let alone the presidency.

As first lady, she made an utter mess of the health care initiative by trying to keep private insurers dominant in the system, and it's failure led to countless deaths of uninsured people in the decade since.

I noticed that in the wake of her announcement, she has proposed making health care universal in New York for children. WTF? Why just children? Because for certain moderate centrist independents, anything with the word "children" in it "polls" positively. A real progressive, or someone at least as "liberal" as California governor Arnold Schwartzenegger, would be proposing statewide universal health care.

She still has not rejected the Iraq War. Is there any sentient being left other than George Bush and Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton who still support this illegal, immoral, criminal war?

Hasn't she yet demonstrated her near Bush-level incompetence by now to every objective American?

I just don't get it. Just because she was Bill Clinton's wife does not entitle her to the presidency any more than it should have entitled Isabelle Peron to be president of Argentina just because she was Juan Peron's wife.

[rinsd]

12. Huh?

"As first lady, she made an utter mess of the health care initiative by trying to keep private insurers dominant in the system, and it's failure led to countless deaths of uninsured people in the decade since. "

Because single payer was wholeheartedly embraced by the GOP Controlled Congress?

"I noticed that in the wake of her announcement, she has proposed making health care universal in New York for children. WTF? Why just children? Because for certain moderate centrist independents, anything with the word "children" in it "polls" positively. A real progressive, or someone at least as "liberal" as California governor Arnold Schwartzenegger, would be proposing statewide universal health care."

Of course they would. Most "real" progressives(especially those who need to qualify such terms) care about speaking truth to power than getting things actually passed that could help people.

"
She still has not rejected the Iraq War. Is there any sentient being left other than George Bush and Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton who still support this illegal, immoral, criminal war?"

What a steaming load.

"Hasn't she yet demonstrated her near Bush-level incompetence by now to every objective American?"

No. Just to people that either worship Limbaugh or have some delusion that if Hillary were out of the way Kucinich would be in like Flynn.

[HamdenRice]

20. huh?

1. Hillary never proposed single payer health care financing. She proposed a Rube Goldberg mix of insurance company control and regional "networks" of health care providers bargaining over prices. Progressives didn't like it or support it because it bolstered insurance company control of the system, and the Republicans didn't want any kind of reform at all. No one really understood it, and everyone recognized immediately that it was too complicated to actually work.

Remember, the Democrats had Congress. But Hillary would not rely on the Democratic majority and tried to woo Republicans who would barely recognize the legitimacy of the Clinton presidency. Pure political idiocy: she did not rally progressive Democrats to universal health care financing, and tried to pre-emptively compromise with (ie surrender to) Republicans before even taking an aggressive Democratic position.

2. It is just as feasible at this point to get universal health care financing as universal health care for children. Once again, she is hedging, triangulating and polling rather than doing what has to be done and is feasible. If California can get it done, why not New York, which is more liberal?

3. Please point to me Hillary's statement in opposition to the war. Then we can talk about who is writing "steaming loads." BTW, throwing around stupid insults when you have nothing substantive to say is a transparent rhetorical trick that convinces no one.

4. Another stupid rhetorical trick. Are you saying that Hillary and Kucinich are the only choices? Don't you ever, ever read newspapers?

[oasis]

23. The votes of the American people will "entitle" Hillary to the presidency. I checked.

It's been been that way for better than 200 years.

Are you comparing a 21st century U.S.A. to a 50's banana republic?
:eyes:

[HamdenRice]

25. Just like the "votes" of the people "entitle" W to the presidency

The point is that once the propoganda machine kicks in, Hillary can be shoved down our throats, the same way W was, even though her actual policy positions are unpopular.

[gatorboy]

9. I'm getting a little sick of hearing about the Clinton "Dynasty"

That isn't a dynasty– That's a Duo.

Now the Bushwhackers on the other and, that's a dynasty of aristocratic dunderheads.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Agreed.

It's nepotism.

[quickesst]

11. As far as I know....

The only president to come close to "inheriting" anything, and that's the shrub, who's inheritance came by way of cheating, lying, and criminal behavior. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has inherited nothing, except the public's willingness to bow before the words of pundits who wrap their words in "fluff for the easily manipulated". There has been two bushes in office, and one Clinton. Exactly which one is a dynasty? Get back to me when we elect Bush the fifth, or Clinton the Nineth. In the mean-time, get a grip. Thanks.
quickesst

[blm]

16. Bush 2 wouldn't have even been allowed to run at all if Poppy hadn't managed

to get BillClinton to cooperate and cover up for his crimes of office.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[rinsd]

13. Should Robert Kennedy have been allowed to run?

After all according to some on this thread aristocracies/dynasties are icky.

So are they really icky or are your Clinton hating undershorts showing?

[oasis]

15. How does the name "Hillary Rodham" strike you Mr. Burkee? (n/t)

[NNN0LHI]

17. The LAT's big recent accomplishment was Iraqs "Winnebagos Of Death"

Thats who dreamed that one up.

They think I forgot?

Fuck the LAT.

Don

[WinkyDink]

18. Oh, NOW the paper has had it, huh? After TWO Bush regimes?

I'm no HRC fan, but I think we're owed one, if they want to keep score.

Poor Jeb. And Pierce. Heh.

[minkyboodle]

19. aside from the motives of the editorial

I do think that if Hillary wins and gets two terms
that 20-28 years of 2 families in the executive office
speaks badly of our democracy. I'm more against Hillary's
nomination because of her politics and possible elect-ability but I
do think that 2 families running the highest office
for 20+ years is not a good thing in general.

[Jawja]

21. We need a Constitutional Amendment

that restricts heirs, siblings, spouses, cousins, etc. of Presidents from seeking the office of the Presidency or Vice Presidency for a least 20 years.

This will prevent an "elected" monarchy or inherited rule by aristocracy.

[The Backlash Cometh]

24. I just want a real change. I feel like it's deja vu.