Jonathan Turley – For those who are already upset about the prospect of the country again being given simply a choice between a Bush or a Clinton in the general election, they might not want to read the recent interview of President George W. Bush and Bill Clinton in Time magazine. In a revealing aside, Bush shrugs off the real significance of the result of the election so long as it is either a Clinton or a Bush: says it really does not matter so long as it is either a Bush or Clinton: “What difference does it make,” he said at the time, “if the order is Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama/Clinton or it is Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama/Bush?” It appears that we have a dynastic democracy.
Many Americans are disgusted with the duopoly of not just the two main parties but the two main families controlling the parties. Like Henry Ford saying that customers can have any color so long as it is black, Bush’s comment also suggests that there really is little difference between which color you pick: blue or red. It is either part of some dynastic game of duopoly.
The two parties seem prepared to ignore the sentiments of most Americans and again force a choice between a Bush and a Clinton. The reason is that most Americans are independents and do not vote in the primary. Moreover, the Bushes and Clintons continue to exercise a huge degree of control over their respective parties. The Clintons particularly have been adept in lining up the establishment figures and party leaders who are still “ready for Hillary.”
Bush seemed to dismiss all those candidates who are mere pretenders to the throne: “I can’t tell you who is going to win, but I can tell you what’s going to happen. There’s kind of a general pattern. And there will be flash in the pans, there will be this crisis, there will be the funding thing. There will be all these things that happen, but eventually the person who can best lead their party will be nominated.”
Notably, Bill Clinton in the same interview insisted that Hillary never thought anyone would be “ready for Hillary.” He says that when he asked her to marry him, he told her that rather than marry him, she should go to Chicago or New York and get into politics. He recounted how she responded that “Oh my God … I’ll never run for office. I’m too aggressive, and nobody will ever vote for me.”
For many critics, the story is particularly ironic since it may be difficult for anyone not to vote for her or a Bush in what is increasingly being called a dynastic democracy.
Jonathan Turley is a Guest Contributor for Shift Frequency
SF Source Jonathan Turley July 2015
[widget id=”text-44″]
Hillary Clinton is a sociopath. She is a great con artist. Has gift of gab. Possesses sense of entitlement. Has no empathy for slaughtered Americans in Benghazi under her watch. She’s a compulsive liar. Pretends to be smart to her blindly loyal followers (which is what all sociopath’s rely on), but when asked questions about her wrongdoing, never seems to “recall” anything. And she’s lacks insight into the needs of Americans. The insight she does pretend to know is scripted and phony (con artist). Moreover, she is constantly embroiled in scandal. Her husband betrayed her. She betrayed our country in Benghazi. It’s time for her to go away. Go be a grandmother. Go be a wife. Quit burdening the American people with your mental illness. There is no cure for a sociopath other than to run away from them. To have a sociopath in office is one of the most sadistic things that can happen, because they gain power and it fuels their mental illness.
Thank you, J Lera. You sum up Hillary’s sociopathic character and unfitness for the Presidency admirably. Much appreciated :-). g