Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Friday, January 17, 2014

Barbara Bush Doesn't Want Jeb Bush to Run for President

Posted by on Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:05 AM

Zeke J. Miller at Swampland transcribes Barbara Bush's comments on why Jeb Bush shouldn't run for president:

I think this is a great American country, great country, and if we can’t find more than two or three families to run for high office, that’s silly, because there are great governors and great eligible people to run. And I think that the Kennedys, Clintons, Bushes, there are just more families than that. And I’m not arrogant enough to think that we alone are raising, but we’re — we’re raising public servants, whether they’re feeding the poor, like Lauren is, who’s fed 68 million children around the world, or Barbara, who’s bringing global health to the world, or Pierce is working for Big Brothers, Big Sisters.

But there are a lot of ways to serve. And being president is not the only one.

Here's video:

The important sentence in the above quote is the one where she name-checks the Clintons. If Jeb Bush doesn't run for president and Hillary Clinton does run for president, the Republican Party will make a big show out of that statement. Though it's hard to believe the party of George W. Bush making a political issue out of presidential dynasties, that's absolutely something that could happen.

 

Comments (23) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Pope Peabrain 1
Haven't the Bushs done enough damage to this country? Now they want to burden us with more of their idiots.
Posted by Pope Peabrain on January 17, 2014 at 8:24 AM · Report this
TomJohnsonJr 2
Yeah, she knows Jeb doesn't have a chance in any case, so she's just digging at Hillary. Classy old lady.
Posted by TomJohnsonJr on January 17, 2014 at 8:30 AM · Report this
raindrop 3
One of the greatest First Ladies to have graced the White House.
Posted by raindrop on January 17, 2014 at 8:31 AM · Report this
TomJohnsonJr 4
End of @3: "...during a Bush administration."
Posted by TomJohnsonJr on January 17, 2014 at 8:37 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 5
@ 3, yeah, nobody called Geraldine Ferraro a bitch with more class than Barbara Bush.

Anyway, regarding the possibility of the GOP attempting to make hay of a so-called Clinton dynasty, when George W. Bush had absolutely no qualification for the presidency save his lineage... There is a reason why "IOKIYAR" (it's okay if you're a Republican) is a common internet abbreviation on political boards, and why there's no corresponding one for the Democrats.
Posted by Matt from Denver on January 17, 2014 at 8:39 AM · Report this
6
There is a huge problem of dynasties in America politics. The British scoff at us for our presumptions of "no class".
Politics are hereditary, just like skilled labor. In fact, that concept blinds our American concept of achieved wealth. Old money and new money still exist.
Jeb Bush shouldn't run because he is an embarrassment to their family. He makes W look smart.
Barbra Bush is a clandestine of a public servant. The public would hear more from her then anyone else about service and aptitude. She is the embodiment of a first lady stepping up. How does Michelle Obama compete. She has her nutrition advisement. It may be about servitude vs entitlement. Nonetheless, it still adds up to dynasty. She just advertised possible future running mates. It it's no news to.them. There isn't a member of the American aristocracy that hasn't had a hand dipped in the well, including JFK. This is a launch. This isn't about Jeb Bush. It is about putting the front runners for the 2020 bid.

Posted by pussnboots on January 17, 2014 at 8:47 AM · Report this
raindrop 7
@5: 44 men have become president with varying levels of "qualification" including the current. Whether or not they are qualified is a subjective opinion.
Posted by raindrop on January 17, 2014 at 8:47 AM · Report this
Phoebe in Wallingford 8
@7: I believe that's 43 men. Although Obama is the 44th president, Grover Cleveland had two non consecutive terms. Thus there have been only 43 individuals that have become president.
Posted by Phoebe in Wallingford on January 17, 2014 at 9:01 AM · Report this
9
I have always mightily disliked this woman and, reading this, nothing has changed.

First, she knows Jeb couldn't win.

Second, she had to dig at the Clintons who are nothing like the Bushes or the Kennedys but she's always been bitchy that way.

Third, it's Jeb son, George Bush (yes, there's another one) who will run for president and maybe win, way off in say, 2030. He's smart, handsome and part Hispanic.

Fourth, her granddaughter has "fed 68 million children" - I call BS on that one, Barbara.
Posted by westello on January 17, 2014 at 9:10 AM · Report this
Phoebe in Wallingford 10
Nobody knows this far out who can or can't win, e.g. that grade-B movie actor can't possibly win. She's dearly worried that he might win and the emotional cost that has on the family - for a third time! Bless her heart.
Posted by Phoebe in Wallingford on January 17, 2014 at 9:24 AM · Report this
Phoebe in Wallingford 11
It would be a good guess that George H. W. isn't thrilled with the idea either.
Posted by Phoebe in Wallingford on January 17, 2014 at 9:34 AM · Report this
Catalina Vel-DuRay 12
I'll say this - she's less ugly than she used to be. She's not as bug-eyed as she used to be. But she's still trash.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay http://www.danlangdon.com on January 17, 2014 at 9:36 AM · Report this
rob! 13
The Bush family doesn't just squirt out selfless public servants, of course. As industrialists, they've been making money arming both sides in world conflicts for going on a century and a half. And for every little Lauren lending her Bushy glow to an unfortunately-named food-relief charity, there are two or three others (like her dad Neil) milking family connections to the political office-holders for personal gain.
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on January 17, 2014 at 9:48 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 14
@ 7, in the case of W, it really is not.

Nothing to say about Barbara now? Google "rhymes with witch."
Posted by Matt from Denver on January 17, 2014 at 9:58 AM · Report this
15
America likes its presidents and presidential candidates to come in one of two flavors.

One group is "born in humble circumstances, but worked his way up," a description that fits Abe Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and Barack Obama.

The other is the "born into a a distinguished family with a history of public service" which describes the Bushes, Al Gore, Mitt Romney, and John McCain.

Bill Clinton was born in humble circumstances. If Hillary is a dynasty candidate, it will because she and Bill created one, not because they inherited one, which describes both Bush presidents to date.
Posted by Clayton on January 17, 2014 at 10:27 AM · Report this
16
@2,@9, Don't be too sure. Hillary will still be carrying the baggage of years of Bill Clinton smearing from right wing corporate media and she will also be excoriated 24/7 once she officially declares. You also have to remember that much of the public doesn't pay attention to politics and has short term memory when it comes to elections and politicians. Jeb comes off as an anti-W---A wonky conservative with brains, who will have centrist appeal in the swing states, whereas Hillary will be toxic. Furthermore, the Bushes have enormous institutional power to not only get the support from the business community, the financial sector, the military/intelligence establishments, but the voting machine companies when the totals get a little close.
Posted by neo-realist on January 17, 2014 at 10:54 AM · Report this
17
@15: Right? I'm surprised it took 15 comments to make that point. The Clinton's aren't a dynasty (yet) as their power isn't inter-generational. They're a power couple - a husband and wife pair with equal ambition and ability. If Chelsea runs for high office and wins thanks to the bump she gets from her last name, THEN it's a dynasty. Mrs. Bush is just making a subtle smear here, and like most smears it doesn't hold up to a nuanced evaluation of the facts.
Posted by Juris on January 17, 2014 at 11:20 AM · Report this
18
@7 Bush was seen as SO qualified that he's been the headline speaker at the last two Republican Presidential Conventions and... er... wait, that's right he wasn't!

Qualifications? Yeah. What bullshit. I'll say it's subjective. Ronald Reagan would be to lefty to qualify for spot on the GOP ticket today. Fuck. Attila the Hun and Hitler would be too liberal for Republicans.

Qualifications. Don;t make me laugh. It's competency that matters.

And you extremist morons keep nominating and electing "qualified" incompetent morons like Duhbya Bush and Sarah Palin. And look where it's got you?

Your "qualified" morons have lost you the presidency TWICE. To an "unqualified" black guy with a funny name. In a down economy. During, not one, but two wars - that you idiots lost.

How the fuck does that happen?

Oh. Yeah. Qualifications.
Posted by tkc on January 17, 2014 at 11:47 AM · Report this
19
There has only been 2 Clintons of relation to Bill Clinton in National office. The aforementioned and his wife. Hardly a dynasty.
Posted by Daniel Francis on January 17, 2014 at 11:57 AM · Report this
keshmeshi 20
Still wearing those ugly pearls I see, but at least she's graduated from muumuus.
Posted by keshmeshi on January 17, 2014 at 12:50 PM · Report this
passionate_jus 21
@15 for the win

@16 You are completely wrong. Clinton is not toxic at all. The fact is almost everyone in America has an opinion of her, even people who never follow political current affairs. And in every poll she beats everyone handily except for Christie, who most people only know about from the Tonight Show (prior to his bridge scandal).

She is starting from a great position.

She has been attacked by the right wing for more than twenty years now (you know, she killed Vince Foster), and still she is on top.

She will also be able to raise a ton of money, perhaps more than Obama even.

She starts out in great shape.

Posted by passionate_jus on January 17, 2014 at 1:22 PM · Report this
passionate_jus 22
Hilary Clinton is in much better shape for 2016 than she was in 2008.

At that time a lot of people really were worried about her being part of a dynasty. Of course at that time we had had 28 years of either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House, starting with Bush Sr as VP.

Now of course there has been an 8 year break with that "fellow from Kenya".

At the same time she has proven herself able by being Secretary of State.

And if Republicans want to attack her because she was first First Lady, they do so at their own peril. They already are losing the woman's vote by a huge margin due to candidates saying stupid things about rape. If they want to lose women by an even greater margin I say go ahead.
Posted by passionate_jus on January 17, 2014 at 1:29 PM · Report this
23
I will vote for Hillary in 2016 because I think she has integrity and experience. If the mother of an ex president can make a statement to show her support for another republican president (whoever that might be) it's a waste of words on a public that is sick and tired of republican manipulation of Govt. and she can go away.
Posted by longwayhome on January 18, 2014 at 8:42 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy