Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Republicans and the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton 28 year dynasty.

For at least a year now, Republican pundits have been having hissy fits about the liklihood of 28 years of rule by just two families.

This is, certainly, something to think about, but it takes a lot of chutzpah for the Republicans to make it an issue.

A little history: back in the late 60's and 70's, Republicans were in a perpetual sweat about the possibility of a Kennedy dynasty: John, Bobby, and Ted. John and Bobby, of course, were both assassinated - but not until Ted lost a primary run, and their God Reagan got elected, did the Republicans stop being afraid of a political dynasty.

So, did any of these anti-dynasty Republicans show even the tiniest bit of concern about running the son of a President who had been out of office for only 8 years? Not that I remember hearing. Father-son dynasties are, apparently, better than brother-brother-brother dynasties, at least if the father and son are Republicans.

And while the current Bush was riding high in the polls, there were whisperings about Jeb's running after W. finished his two terms. That talk has stopped, at least for the moment, because most Republican pundits know in their heart-of-hearts, that the current Bush is a disaster of such monumental proportions that Americans are not likely to vote for his brother.

But, you know something? If Hillary runs, wins and gets that 8 years these Republicans are already granting her, I wouldn't be at all surprised if these anti-dynasty pundits roll out Jeb.

So, before you decide to vote against Hillary solely because you don't like the idea of a dynasty, ask yourself who you voted for in 2000 and 2004. If you voted for Bush the son, you have no moral standing for voting against Hillary on an anti-dynasty platform.