Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston



Thursday, February 26, 2015

Do You Want Another Bush in the White House?

Andy Borowitz of The New Yorker explains why that would be a nightmare:

 (The Borowitz Report) — In an effort to distance himself from the legacy of his brother, George W. Bush, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush will use a major foreign-policy speech on Wednesday to assert that, if elected President, he would harm the nation in completely different ways. 

 “A lot of people are looking at me and thinking that I’m just going to be a rerun of my brother,” Bush told reporters before the speech. “They are greatly underestimating my ability to create chaos and destruction in ways that are uniquely mine.” 

As an example, Bush said, he was unlikely to invade Iraq for a third time, calling such an action “too derivative.” “George already did it, and Dad did it before him,” he said. “Call it my independent streak, if you will, but I want to spawn some disasters of my own.” 

To that end, Bush said that he and his foreign-policy team were already scanning the globe for “new and different places” where the United States could become involved in open-ended and pointless quagmires. 

 “I see boundless opportunities for the reckless and totally optional insertion of American military force,” he said. “No offense to my brother, but there were a few spots that George missed.”



skudrunner said...

A better question is do we want another Bush vs Clinton campaign. I vote no.

I am all in for the Princess. She would be the first in two areas.
1. First native American
2. First women

Infidel753 said...

I think he should invade China. It's a country everyone has issues with, and considering how long Vietnam kept the military-industrial complex in clover, China would be the ultimate Republican dream.

BB-Idaho said...

Bush gives me the willies.
Walker scares the crap out of me.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Walker sez her took on the Unions, so he can take on ISIS!

Dear Gourd! Where do they get these ninnies?

Ducky's here said...

I don't think Warren wants to run, Skud.

My preference is that she doesn't. I think she's more valuable in the Senate and she should be able to retain that seat as long as she likes.

Rational Nation USA said...

I think it won't matter which party standard bearer waltzes into the White House in 2016. Conflict will find us and we'll react.

Besides the nation needs conflict, it can't afford not to keep the MIC in high gear. Very many jobs and peoples livelihoods depend on it.

Rational Nation USA said...

Ducky; as long as she likes? A good argument for term limits.

Rational Nation USA said...

BB Idaho, I watched Ted Cruz at CPAC, now there's a dude that that ought to give everybody pause. Smart, articulate, knows all the hot bottom TP's , and CRAZY as hell. Just what the 30 second sound bite type like.

Infidel753 said...

I assume everyone is wise to RN's endlessly-repeated "both sides are the same" schtick by now, but in case anybody needs a reminder:

"Which party standard bearer waltzes into the White House in 2016" will determine whether we get continued negotiated phase-out of Iran's nuclear program or another Middle East war that would make the Iraq fiasco look like a pillow-fight. It will also determine whether we get more Kagans and Sotomayors on the Supreme Court or more Scalias and Thomases.

There's a lot riding on this.

Rational Nation USA said...

We shall see.

Anonymous said...

Do we want another Clinton in the White House?

Rational Nation USA said...

Infidel 753, while it may serve your purpose to characterize the "both sides do it" meme for the purpose of attempting to marginalize the point I am making, which is... both political parties bear some responsibility for the present circumstances this nation finds itself in at present.

Preferring to view the trajectory of American political and governmental trends I look outside of and beyond just current events in making the statement that both political parties bear some responsibility.

If you ask which political party is MOST responsible today, in the present, the answer is the republican party and the unhinged conservatives and libertarians. Some might say it is backlash from the progressive years of TR, WW, and FDR et all. Frankly, I am not prepared to state this is so, although certainly there are those who have nothing but disdain for the three historical figures.

It seems to me that anyone who denies a shared responsibility is viewing history from a partisan perspective and therefore is part of the problem.

You know what is said about opinions and viewpoints right?