And the same rules applied for Daddy's Daddy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush

And the same rules applied for Daddy's Daddy's Daddy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Prescott_Bush

The political "brand" has altered our democracy.

Just as Coke and Pepsi spend millions of dollars on advertising, political "brands" also spend a lot of money so you will remember their name. Having multiple family members who can use the political brand name saves a lot of money that other people have to spend building name recognition.

Political brand names are usually built due to wealth and connections, but sometimes a charismatic leader can establish a new political brand name that quickly becomes widely known and respected.

I wish nobody had the advantage of using a well known political brand name to get elected. People should be elected because of how they will govern and not based on their last name, bank account, or connections.

The most important thing to look for is how the political brand is being used. The Bush brand supports the goals of a few imperial dominator types who want everything based on how much money we have with little need for an open and transparent democracy. The Clinton brand represents people who want to operate a sustainable society.

Big difference between one political brand trying to reduce democracy and the other trying to make it work.

What will the Obama brand represent? Right now it is hope and change with respect for democracy.

Hasn't the Guardian heard about the voting machines the "schmucks" will be voting on?

Why does everyone pretend that our vote counts?

Democracy in the USA is dead. Like this author clearly lays out, America has now become the opposite of what the Founding Fathers wanted: "royal families" now own and occupy our government, and make laws to benefit themselves and their ilk at our expense. Little wonder fewer than half of all registered voters even bother to vote. I compliment their intelligence and plan to follow suit. What a pathetic farce america has become. I'm already so sick of all the phony hype surrounding this 2008 election--and we have to endure media saturation election headlines for the next NINE MONTHS until November 4th. It draws an eerie parallel to how right after Halloween all the stores crank up the christmas props and music and we must endure it until after New Years (but much worse!). Oh, the droll monotony of reading newspapers and websites that myopically fixate on election coverage as if nothing else in the world existed or mattered but who is, or is going to be president of the united states. Yuk. One thing is for sure: america feels more like living in a Kingdom than any democracy.

Don't forget that it's the "schmucks" who love celebrity in all its forms, and dynastic celebrity is just another version of the real "religion of the masses."

RichM, please read Stephen Zunes' article "Behind Obama and Clinton" and consider the different outlooks of these two candidates. And the potential different outcomes for our country. I think who they choose for their advisors is a good indicator of where they want to go. I remember Brzezinski opposing the invasion, which surprised me. I actually like that Obama has a mix of advisors, albeit weighted toward diplomacy over aggression. Hillary's advisors sound like an MIC corporate board, no exceptions.

I see Bill Clinton is ignoring the fact that he accelerated the upward migration of national wealth, or that his fantastic job creation resulted in lower paying jobs than the ones he destroyed. How convenient. But I'm not forgetting that. So is Hillary running on Bills' record?

kathyodat

I'm no Clinton fan, but the article overlooks that Bill, at least, did come up from nothing. It also overlooks that this country has a long tradition of presidential dynasties, including Adams (John and son John Q), Harrison (William Henry and grandson Benjamin) and Roosevelt (Theodore and cousin Franklin). And that's not counting the successors who didn't make it. One of the Tafts ran for the Republican nomination during the 1940s. Bobby and Ted Kennedy both cashed in on their brother's initial success. This phenomenon has a long history at the Congressional level too. How to explain the incredible unpopularity of inheritance taxes on the rich? We all want to favor our kin. To Americans, that IS merit.

RichM__ Thanks so much for enlightening us on how miserable both Democratic candidates are so we will know not to vote for either of them.

Now tell us who we are supposed to support as someone has to get the job, and we won`t know who it should be until you tell us.

If that lousy Hillary does happen to manage to lie and cheat her way in with the help of her scoundrel husband, that is not the worst thing to worry about.

That would be the idiots that put George the Decider in for two terms as he has practically ruined the country.

Hillary may have said it right, it took a Clinton to clean up after one Bush, and it may take another to clean up after this one, hopefully in four years, that would make twelve for each dynasty, and then maybe a return to normality.

The common denominator among politicians is money. Endorsements bring in more money. They are all political whores begging for endorsements but it's far past time that the Clintons stop pimping themselves and retire.
Hoa binh

A slight alteration of the classice line from the cult film "A Boy and His Dog"

name the modern presidents

Reagan Bush Clinton Bush Bush Bush

and then came Armegedon

RichM__What is an idealogical conservative like you doing on CD anyway? You refuse to admit Clinton or the Dems did anything right in their eight years, yet you do not put the blame for the present disaster where it belongs, squarely in George Bush`s lap. Remember, Bush and his lackeys had six years of total control when the Dems might just as well have stayed home, for all they could do about it. At least the Dems did not tromp on the Constitution and ruin our standing in the world, as Bill was well accepted by other countries, while we have no friends left now, thanks to George. I would not call raising the income tax base to 85% of Social Security benefits of the upper middle class and the rich a trifle, and those folks would not think so either. Maybe you really are rich, and you are one of those that got hit so now you are another Clinton and Democrat hater.

Kernel, Cynthia McKinney was on Democracy Now today.

If you want to see an intelligent person, who speaks for peace and justice in more than glittering generalities, check out the transcript.

Cynthia McKinney opposed the war, and supported impeachment, and questioned 9-11 (what did Bush know and when did he know it-long before everyone else and long before the commission revealed how much Bush did know), she questioned Rumsfield on the missing trillions from the Pentagon, demands justice for Katrina victims, and much more.

Oh, but a courageous honest voice for the American people isn't electable. So continue to follow the Clinton Obama drama ad nauseum.

Since I consider ILLEGAL immigration the most serious problem we have to deal with, no candidate has my vote.

Consider the results of ILLEGAL immigration:
Lower wages because of the mass of people who will work for virtually nothing.
Exhorbitant costs borne by taxpayers for schools, hospitals, food stamps, Section 8 housing, police, and many other things.

I realize this is the wrong blog to write this, but WAKE UP PEOPLE. If they went home and caused as much stir as they cause here they might change their own country. We wouldn't need so many living quarters, so many uninsured drivers. In short, we wouldn't have to hire so many workers at substandard wages. They may pay taxes but nothing like what home owners pay for them to be here.

Hillary has already been chosen as the next president.

Or do you think that the decision to place someone in the highest office in the land would be made by the unclean masses?

Think again. The presidency and the decision to elect someone is far too important to be left up to the public. If that were to happen, there would be chaos. Bush would have to declare martial law and suspend the elections until he could make sure that the RIGHT decisions are made.

RichM, nice post. Personally, I feel the enablers are worse than Bush himself ...at least he has ignorance as an excuse. I too feel that Obama is less bad, mainly because he's younger and hasn't had as much time to make quite as many dirty deals. But honestly, I don't dread a Republican victory much more than either Barack or Hillary (and I think we have a better chance of this than most of us realize). More of the same, either way: American people, you're on your own.

RichM, OK, you're a purist. I always was. But right now I feel hopeful about Obama. I'm convinced he wants to change things. And while Hillary voted against a cluster bomb ban, he voted for it. It wouldn't have hurt her to vote against it, although it might have annoyed AIPAC and her MIC sponsors. But gee, we know she's a lying shithead.

I believe that if Obama won he wouldn't makes changes as fast as we want or go as far as we want, but he would be going in the right direction. And that's a start I can live with without holding my nose. And I love how he inspires new voters to join us. That is where change can really happen. They're excited and optimistic, hopeful and enthusiastic. That's something I haven't seen for thirty years. We need it. So I'm supporting him and feel satisfied with my decision.

kathyodat

Mostly, those on the right believe the US is a legitimate meritocracy.

Yet, anyone with even the smallest shred of intellectual honesty must be forced to abandon that fantasy when he or she takes an honest look at George W Bush, who served twice in the White House without even being elected legitimately once.

Bush 43 is definitive proof that the US is not a meritocracy. The myth of meritocracy is sure good for business, though, isn't it?

The following email just arrived from my oldest son after I sent him the link to the Obama music video. This is a person who has never voted for a Democrat and I thought never would, not even Kucinich, who he would have voted for in a heartbeat if he wasn't a Democrat. I think we're seeing a revolution. By the way, my son is nine days older than Barack:

He is the most exciting candidate from either party since Robert Kennedy. The music video captures the appeal he has to the young; 16 years of baby boomers running the White House is enough already.

If he wins the nomination he will win the presidency; if Hillary wins the nomination and McCain is her opponent – it will be four more years of Republican control. For me, I might consider voting for Barack, but I never vote for the Clintons (they're a sleazy team); throw in all those like me, a motivated Republican base (that's the big Hillary factor), and McCain's appeal to so called moderates like Schwarzenegger and Lieberman and you can see the Democrats loosing yet again – we just knew they could find a way to loose a slam-dunk election.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY

kathyodat

RichM__ Surely you are old enough to remember that HW Bush got us into another unnecessary war as he did not use diplomacy either to solve the problem over there, but had to send over the army like his kid to keep his Saudi and Kuwaiti princes happy. Consequently, our budget went in the tank and a big debt was running up.

Clinton took over with a budget deficit of over 200 thousand and improved it every one of his eight years in office. When he left office there was a budget surplus of over 200 thousand and there was discussion of paying off some of the national debt. Social Security and Medicare- caid were also in good shape. Bush took care of the whole surplus in a short time with his handouts to the rich. Then he starts another war we did not need and charged it to our kids.

I believe there is plenty of evidence that Clinton needed to clean up after HR Bush, and the present one has left an almost impossible mess behind for anyone to handle, Hillary or whoever.

Rich M is right.

The first time I heard Obama parrot the line, "of course, we'll need to keep some troops in Iraq to protect our vital national interests in the region" -- I cringed.

This is a simple way to tip his hat to the powers that be and indicate that he is open for business.

The United States is a psychopathic nation!

It murders and goes calmly on about its business.

RichM__ meant to say billion instead of thousand in previous post. Too bad now we have to be talking trillions. The new Bush budget is about three trillion so will add much more to the debt for the kiddies to enjoy, to the tune of around an expected 400 Billion shortfall the next two years. It would be nice if our biggest worry was Billary!!

The failure of the American narrative.

"Shooter" - A movie you don't want to miss!

For the most part, I stay away from movies where people are being murdered and things are being blown-up; but I must admit, the violence in this movie didn't prevent me from a good night's sleep. There is a dark side of our being we try to ignore and where revenge can actually be sweet. This is one of those movies that makes us question our sense of justice and what we are.

If you're wondering why I mentioned this......it's about the haves and have-nots.

I am no Democrat, and am no fan of the Clintons, and certainly do not appreciate the idea of a ruling elite or of political dynasties, can you say Kennedy? But the reality is we have a ruling elite, like it or not, and voting against Hillary Clinton just because she is the wife of Bill Clinton our former president, like him or not, is dumb!

Tomorrow will be quite interesting. Afterward I hope we get a lull in the Clinton bashing, whether she does well or not.

All this Obama fever has me feeling a bit queasy.

Who ever gets it, the next president Republican or Democrat, is going to have a real mess to clean up. We the people should not expect too much from him or her. These are just people, not saviors.

Lobster:

You consider the biggest problem illegal immigration. Others think its the economy. Some say its the war, and they mean losses of money and soldiers. But our biggest problem is that we have attacked a country that was not a threat to us, and caused the death of 1 million Iraqis. This is still going on. That is our biggest problem.

Picture yourself with a bloody knife in your hand, your shoes sticking to the bloody floor, and the body of the man you just killed at your feet. What is your biggest problem again?

Any population that adores its sports athletes and hollywood stars the way Americans do is bound to fall for this political system. Americans seem to think that appearing on television elevates you to a higher order. They have an automatic respect of anyone famous. This hick quality is a problem.

Images and feelings. The gut feeling. This is how the decison is made. A few will consider the stands of the candidates on the issues.

The smallest number will be those who decide out of concern for the ongoing, unjustifiable, death of Iraqis.

Did the Clintons do anything right? Probably something.

But RichM did leave something out, the Telecommunications Act of 1996(I believe), which set up the conservative coroprate media we have today.

Not to mention the WTO, perhaps the biggest assault on world democracy in pursuit of corporate profits.

I believe RichM is actually more socialist than an "ideological conservative". Like him, I do not put the blame for the present disaster squarely on George Bush, because it is an institutional problem, even though he is evil himself. If it was not him, it would be somebody else.

Additionally, Clinton bombed Iraq, and encouraged sanctions that had grotesque results for Iraqi children as well. I cannot speak for RichM, but I am not rich, and I believe there are quite good reasons to be a "Democrat hater". Mainly, their consistent rollover for corporate greed and need to prove their "toughness" on foreign policy.

But Obama's pedigee is corporate: he has the backing of the nation's corporate elite. they view him as safe, a player they can work with.

This means there isn't going to be any...ANY substantive change on any issue affecting Americans.

The election is over; it was auction. Edwards lost; we all lost.

kernel, we all know Bush is a scumbag, but the Democrats are supposed to be on our side. And they expect and consider it their right for us to support them while they are screwing us. And their fool supporters seem to take the same view, that they are entitled to our votes while they ream us. At least Bush is good to his base, the "haves and have mores".

kathyodat

RichM,

Isn't it also true that it was Clinton who began the accounting legerdemain of treating the Social security Trust Fund (which is now empty) as if it were revenue, thus making the budget look as if it was in surplus?

It was also on his watch that Greenspan and others developed - and began to implement - the use of fictionalised government economic statistics: deliberate overstatements of employment growth (the CES Net Birth Death Model) and economic growth (via hedonics and chain-weighting in the Personal Consumption Expenditure Deflator), and understatement of the CPI (again through hedonics and chain-weighting).

The latter is a big saver: since many government pensions and other transfer payments are CPI-indexed (as they ought to be - people must be compensated for having given up current dollars in exchange for future, debased dollars). A lower CPI (one that has no bearing whatsoever on changes in the cost of living) results in lower growth in a relatively fixed segment of government benefit payments - especially for TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities).

And the propaganda methods used to sell the lower CPI (again, which commenced with the Clinton years) would make Bernays proud... get journalists - morons to a man - talking about the 'core' CPI (excluding food and energy, because 'core' Americans don't eat or drive).

The Core CPI is produced ostensibly because food and energy prices are 'volatile'... it is supposed to correct somewhat for MONTHLY volatility. Fine, that's OK.

Then when it turns out that this supposed volatility is all one way (UP) journalists are so conditioned that they continue to focus on the 'core'... so monthyl and quarterly volatility adjustments (which core CPI is designed to remove) are no longer the point - people talk about the 'year on year Core CPI' as if volatility in food and energy is multi-year.

Finally, I ought to point out that I am not anti-Clinton per se. it is just that both Clintons are members of homo politico-bureaucratiens - a parasitic class who for whatever reason disdain private sector activity in favour of coercing the funding of their tawdry existences out of the tax base.

Oddly - and to their eternal shame and damnation - both appear to have been talented enough to have had reasonable careers in the private sector (unike Greenspan, who was an abject failure when he tried to run his private consulting company... he was FORCED to seek shelter at the public teat as his business failed its clients by being consistently wrong, and "Townsend, Greenspan" went under with no clients whatsoever).

Cheers

GT
France
http://marketrant.blogspot.com

Chunga's Revenge writes:

"But the reality is we have a ruling elite, like it or not, and voting against Hillary Clinton just because she is the wife of Bill Clinton our former president, like him or not, is dumb!"

So you say we have a "ruling elite" but you still advocate "voting" for the choices they give us?

COWARDICE! Snivelling, grovelling, pathetic COWARDICE!

I want everyone to see this. THIS is precisely why the U.S. has failed, or is failing, as a Republic.

If a Republican is sworn in as President in 2009 because the People refused to vote for the "right" person from the Democratic Party that our Betters have chosen for us than SO BE IT.

If the Current Tyranny pales in comparison to what will come because the People refuse to Legitimize the Corporatist Selection Process with bovine passivity than SO BE IT.

Some of you people need to grow a spine and have some fuckin' self-respect.

Or failing that at least awaken from your Slumber.

There has been far to much space on this site wasted discussing the intracacies of the Democratic Party Delegate-Elections.

THE WORLD HAS NOT BEEN REDUCED TO "TSUNAMI TUESDAY" AND OBAMA?CLINTON? JUST BECAUSE YOUR MIND HAS!

Wake. up.

While there is still time to Plan for What's Coming.
.
.
.
.
.
Or you could just go to hell, I'm starting to think that might be more helpful.

-matti.

RichM hit the nail on the head with his analysis of voodoo government statistics.

Accurately stating the inflation rate contributed to Ford losing the 1976 election and Carter losing the 1980 election. Reagan and subsequent presidents made sure that they cooked the statistics to keep wages and entitlements shrinking.

Not only does the folly of not including food and energy prices in the CPI ignore the fact that everybody eats andmost of us need to get to commute (so we can don't get totally swamped by the inflation that the government understates), it also ignores the fact that most of the US is cold in the winter and everybody needs heat.

Fascinating discussion, with good points being raised all round. Militantliberal makes an important point in reminding us that the kind of dynastic situation represented by the Bush's and Clintons isn't something new to our society. While Americans do have a tendency to idealize our own history and historical figures, a more realistic examination of the social and cultural norms that governed the lives of colonial Americans might provide some insight.

Reflecting the norms of the societies from which they originated, early Americans lived under a strict class system with three tiers: slaves (primarily black, but also including Native Americans and other non-whites) and indentured servants (almost exclusively white), working class folks (farmers, tradesmen, mariners and shopkeepers), and the ruling elite (religious leaders, professors and landowners). Although there were differences in the beliefs of colonial leaders with respect to religious practices, ownership rights, social conformity, etc., from the earliest settlements, it was the elite class who created the rules under which the rest of the colonists lived. Slavery and indentured servitude existed in all of the thirteen colonies. Although it became a far more lucrative institution for the large plantation owners of the southern colonies, it was widely accepted by the vast majority of early Americans.

While those in the working class enjoyed a greater opportunity for economic success and freedom to practice their religious beliefs, this rarely translated into an elevation in social status. It was the ruling elite who established the social order and the institutions that governed the colonies. The architects of the Revolution were almost exclusively from the ruling elite, and one could argue that their motives were as heavily influenced by economic self-interest as by any idealistic scorn for the established social order. The prosperity they enjoyed in the New World was no doubt tarnished by having to financially support the demands of a far off ruler, whose interests seemed to grow more and more contrary to those of the Colonies.

Although the founders sought to create a system of government free from a ruling monarch and with a greater balance of power, American society was well established by the time of the revolution. One could argue that the order of the classes was already deeply engrained, having perhaps more power to shape our social evolution than the establishment of any new principles of government. The disparity between the ideals reflected in the Bill of Rights (i.e., "all men are created equal") and the persistance of both slavery and indentured servitude long beyond the Revolution seems to support the idea that social and cultural power can exert a far greater influence on human society than governmental institutions or ideals. Even in a society aspiring to social and economic equality, the ruling elite seem to find and exploit opportunities to secure their position at the top of both spectrums. They establish the social institutions (churches, businesses and schools) that ultimately have far more power over the daily lives of individuals than government does. They use those institutions to ensure an unlimited supply of the gentry (parishoners, consumers, laborers, and students properly trained to view themselves as future consumers and laborers) who support them.

While most Americans certainly enjoy a greater level of opportunity to live in relative peace and freedom, the influence of age-old human social and economic hierarchies is insidious, expressing itself in ways both subtle and glaring. One could argue, I suppose, that our social order offers both advantages and disadvantages, albeit in disproportionate degrees, to Americans at all social and economic levels. It seems to me that keeping a tight rein on the influence of the elite is a good thing. Every social experiment in establishing human societies has fallen somewhere between the extremes of anarchy and totalitarianism, some more historically successful than others. Perhaps there can be no perfect human society, with all of us living in complete equality.

But it's a wonderful thing to keep striving for.

Perhaps it is time to either re-institute the 90% income tax for the portion of incomes over, say, $100,000 per year. Or, declare that those who want to fight wars hereafter have to pay for them out of their own pocket, not everybody else's.

Lizard: I think you'll have to agree that "we the people" did not choose to go to Iraq. Also, "we" did not elect GWB who DID choose to go to Iraq.

SO what are "we" going to do about it. I've done everything I can think of to get us out of there.

Maybe Obama will be an improvement, maybe not as long as we have a slew of corrupt people surrounding the White House. But Hillary is probably in the bag with our rotten voting machines. I'm waiting for a true candidate who is really for the people, for the poor, and misfits, the hard working bloke who can't afford health insurance, for the many single parents who are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, but whose children can't hopeto attend college(they will lucky if there continues to be elementary schools in the future) As for Obama, lately on his ads he refers to Martin Luther King as if voting for him is voting of the dear departed MlK. Slippery, unknown, with no outstanding credentials, but then maybe he's better than a Hickabee or McCain, probably not.

Social security was solvent until the Bush administration. Fhe dissolution was part of the 1000 points of light (a republican contract on america) by a republican congress. Clinton actually stopped or slowed the assualt on entitlements. Social security opperates on 3% of it's budget. It was one of the most effective programs until it was raided for the general fund which is actually against the law.