« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Veepstakes

By: AndrewHyman (Diary)  |  April 28th, 2012 at 11:05 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Columnist George Will recently said: “If Jeb Bush is to be Romney’s running mate, it would mean that in seven of nine presidential elections there would be a Bush on the Republican ticket…. And it gets hard to argue that we’re not a tribal society at that point.”

I don’t know who Romney ought to pick, but it seems messed up to rule out someone because of his last name. If picking the best person is the goal, then name-ism could get in the way of that goal. And why try to read qualifications into the 22nd Amendment that aren’t there? Jeb Bush has not served two terms in national office, so he’s eligible.

Suppose that Jeb Bush not only is elected Vice-President, but also eventually serves two terms as president (a HUGE assumption). The Bushes would STILL have not exceeded the approximately twenty years that the Roosevelts served as president. Teddy Roosevelt served almost two full terms, and FDR served a little bit more than three full terms.

In the current Veepstakes, there are many solid contenders from a variety of backgrounds. Jeb Bush is one.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • AndrewHyman

    For trivia buffs, Theodore Roosevelt served as vice-president from March 4, 1901 – September 14, 1901. Harry Truman served as vice-president from January 20, 1945 ? April 12, 1945. So, if we round off, the Roosevelts served approximately twenty years as president.

    • AndrewHyman

      Prior to the Twentieth Amendment, the date was March 4 instead of January 20. The last inauguration to take place on the older date was Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first one on March 4, 1933.

  • conservativerock5

    At some point you have to say no. I voted for the previous Bush’s, but afterwards I have researched their history and do not appreciate their connections with the world elite trying to make centralized world government…which both of them pushed for.

    • gekster

      I didn’t know they were doing that.

      • conservativerock5

        For the past century there have been strong efforts by leading politicians and the wealthy elite to centralize the world, with the end goal of world government. Things like the U.N., IMF, World Bank, E.U. NAFTA are all ways to consolidate power and reduce national sovereignty.

        • gekster

          Please provide links, ok.

        • Dave_A

          You really believe that tripe?

          NAFTA is simply a trade agreement – an incremental way of doing something we SHOULD have unilaterally done in the 80s (eliminate tariffs).

          EU? Well, apart from the fact it’s failing, the logic behind it had nothing to do with ‘world’ government and everything to do with a bunch of old-world countries realizing they’d never compete with the USA economically without a similar land-area and population…

          IMF? We (the USA) own it…

          World Bank? See IMF

          UN? This boogeyman got old in the 90s… Seriously, they’re a bunch of impotent, incompetant fools who survive as an organization simply because the US and Europe provide legitimacy for the whole circus….

          There is not, and never will be, any threat of a ‘world government’… A new cold-war? Sure… That theoretically could happen (and would be East vs West again)…

          But a ‘world government’ – that’s impossible… You’d have to have complete agreement between all the major world powers, a whole lot of very rich nations would have to become much-less-rich, and powerful people would have to give up a good deal of their power…

          It goes against human nature, and simply CANNOT HAPPEN without supernatural intervention…

        • streiff

          that is all

  • Pingback: Newton Taulman