Title: The Bushes and the Clintons Post by: TomC on February 27, 2005, 07:31:45 PM Does this scenario make anyone's stomach turn like it does mine?
1989-93 G. H. W. Bush, 41st Pres 1993-2001- William J. Clinton, 42nd 2001-2009 George W. Bush, 43rd 2009-2017 Hillary R Clinton, 44th 2017-2025- Jeb Bush, 45th That's 36 years of Bush-Clinton! And likely 20 more years of bitter partisan divide. And only 1 election where a Bush and Clinton ran against one another, until... In 2025, George P. Bush and 78- year-old Clinton's second wife, Tiffany... Title: Re: The Bushes and the Clintons Post by: Rob on February 27, 2005, 07:33:23 PM Yes, that would be sickening. The worst part is that it's actually somewhat plausible.
Title: Re: The Bushes and the Clintons Post by: Notre Dame rules! on February 27, 2005, 08:32:57 PM Hell, you could have Chelsea running against George P.
Title: Re: The Bushes and the Clintons Post by: TomC on February 27, 2005, 08:35:58 PM Yeah, but the second wife thing shows Clinton's overly ambitious desire to stay in the middle of things. Plus, the notion of the 22nd amendment being grounds for divorce was an interesting precedent.
Title: Re: The Bushes and the Clintons Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on February 27, 2005, 09:26:33 PM The voters had a chance to stop this by voting for Kerry, but I guess they like dynasties.
Title: Re: The Bushes and the Clintons Post by: Notre Dame rules! on February 27, 2005, 09:29:40 PM Kerry is a cousin of Dubya, so it would still have been a dynasty of sorts.
Title: Re: The Bushes and the Clintons Post by: Erc on February 28, 2005, 12:25:07 AM If you take that tack, then pretty much every President but the Johnsons, Hoover, Kennedy, and Reagan is a dynasty of sorts.
Title: Re: The Bushes and the Clintons Post by: A18 on February 28, 2005, 12:35:25 AM If you take that tack, then pretty much every President but the Johnsons, Hoover, Kennedy, and Reagan is a dynasty of sorts. Yeah, the relation is way too weak to be meaningful. Title: Re: The Bushes and the Clintons Post by: MaC on February 28, 2005, 01:13:12 AM someone, mphh, waste basket, gonna spew...
Title: Re: The Bushes and the Clintons Post by: Notre Dame rules! on February 28, 2005, 06:43:33 AM Why is it that many of the ems on this site have disdain for the idea of a Bush and/or Clinton Dynasty, but pine for a return to the Kenedy Camelot?
JFK= good RFK= weak Teddy= gag! John-John= fluff (may he rest in peace) Title: Re: The Bushes and the Clintons Post by: ian on February 28, 2005, 02:51:15 PM Kerry is a cousin of Dubya, so it would still have been a dynasty of sorts. Is that true?! Title: Re: The Bushes and the Clintons Post by: Brandon H on February 28, 2005, 04:32:55 PM 9th cousins, thrice removed.
http://msn.ancestry.com/landing/strange/bush4/tree.htm http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4286105/ (this one says 16th) http://msn.ancestry.com/landing/strange/bush3/tree.htm (Bush & Powell) http://msn.ancestry.com/landing/strange/bush2/tree.htm (Bush, FDR, and Winston Churchill) Also found one a few weeks ago that says Bush and Cheney are related, though I think it is to Barbara Bush rather than George H.W. Bush. http://genealogy.about.com/od/presidents/a/family_trees.htm Title: Re: The Bushes and the Clintons Post by: BobOMac2k2 on February 28, 2005, 05:39:52 PM Don't worry, it will be me running against the P. Bush...
Title: Re: The Bushes and the Clintons Post by: Notre Dame rules! on February 28, 2005, 08:24:49 PM Ian,
Yes, it's true, but it is a distant relation. Title: Re: The Bushes and the Clintons Post by: Joe Republic on March 02, 2005, 10:54:03 AM I read something somewhere that in every Presidential election until the last one, voters had chosen the candidate that had more royal blood. The trend stopped in November, however, because Kerry had closer links with the various royal families of Europe than Bush.
Seems like America is more keen on dynasties that you'd think. |