Two Decades of a Bush in the WH is Two Decades Too Many

When some folks were complaining about the length of time the Clinton’s had lived in the White House, including the potential time Hillary could have been president, I noted that was nothing compared to the time the Bush’s have occupied the White House, which of course, gets no mention. Now, here comes CNN, with the news that there could be potential Bushies running again.

For only the second time in nearly three decades, there won’t be a Bush on the presidential ballot this November. But that absence may not be a permanent one, the current White House occupants hinted Sunday.

President Bush was asked by a SkyNews correspondent whether the end of his term marked the end of the Bush presidential dynasty that began with his father’s Oval Office tenure 20 years ago.

Amazingly (only because they have been so inflammatory lately), CNN actually got the number of Bush occupied years correct and used that two decades in the first sentence, and then used it again. Congrats to Rebecca Sinderbrand for showing people just how long we’ve had a Bush in the WH. Now to complete the picture to the disasters that have occurred. How about Iran-Contra for starters, then preemptive strikes against  Iraq and  (coming up) Iran. Failing economies

We all know, that for years, Jeb is being “groomed” to follow in daddy’s footsteps. But the climate is not right for a Jeb run. Take a look at the issues that concern the people the most. Here’s the most likely scenario that could happen, and, no, I’m not using a crystal ball: Obama will win in November, barring any October surprises. During his time in the WH, the repugnuts and Blue/Bush Dog dems will continue to block any and all progressive measures Obama puts forth. The people will get pissed that nothing has “changed,” Jeb will run in 4 years time, and probably win.

Corporations, especially the oil companies, want a Bush in office.