A Bush Dynasty Begins to Look Real [The NYT Adam Clymer: It's Jeb in 2008]

November 10, 2002
A Bush Dynasty Begins to Look Real
By ADAM CLYMER

WASHINGTON — UNTIL last week, American history had not been very kind to the idea of political dynasty at the national level.

After John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams, whose presidencies were failures but whose other services to the nation honor them, there were the undistinguished terms of Benjamin Harrison and his grandson William Henry Harrison, as well as the failures to win even state office by the sons of Franklin D. Roosevelt, himself only a fifth cousin to Theodore.

The Kennedys produced one martyred president and two brothers whose presidential hopes ended in a hotel kitchen in Los Angeles and on a bridge at Chappaquiddick, though Edward M. Kennedy's durable liberalism has changed the nation more than his brothers did. But the next generation of Kennedys produced two minor congressmen and a lieutenant governor, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, whose loss in the race for governor of Maryland on Tuesday was the family's first general election defeat since John F. (Honey Fitz) Fitzgerald, her great-grandfather, was beaten in a race for governor of Massachusetts in 1922.

But it is hard to imagine a better week for one family's dynastic prospects than the one that began with President Bush, after taking the risk of relentless campaigning, regaining a Senate majority for his party and becoming the first Republican president to gain House seats in an off-year election.

There was more. Those victories would have seemed hollow if Mr. Bush's brother Jeb had not been re-elected governor of Florida, withstanding a Democratic challenge that labeled him the party's No. 1 target. Not only that, Jeb Bush's easy victory made him an obvious presidential candidate for 2008, and President Bush's announcement that he would keep on Dick Cheney as vice president avoided anointing a rival to his brother.

Mr. Bush's domestic political success was crowned Friday at the United Nations, when the administration, after a patience that many critics and some supporters doubted, won a Security Council resolution demanding renewed weapons inspections in Iraq and warning of "serious consequences" if Baghdad resists. That vote, unlike the results on Election Day, was unanimous.

Now that Mr. Bush has won a political victory more decisive than in 2000, when he finished second in the popular vote, it is hardly too early to examine the nature of the Bush dynasty, and why — at the moment at least — it has largely escaped the antagonism that led the founders to fear any hereditary power or titles. Such sentiment prompted political foes to compare the Adamses to the Stuart kings of Britain and the Kennedys' adversaries to warn that eight years of Jack, eight years of Bobby and eight years of Ted would, after all, conclude in the Orwellian 1984.

It is a plainly surprising dynasty. Stephen Hess, a Republican speechwriter who wrote "America's Political Dynasties" in 1966 (when the elder George Bush was winning a seat in the House), said, "I have always thought of the Bushes as the accidental dynasty," one that came to its ambitions late. He noted that the first President Bush moved away from Connecticut, where his father, Senator Prescott Bush, had a political base, and "drifted into politics pretty late in life."

After a failed run for the House in 1978 when he was 32, George W. Bush next ran for office in 1994. In between, family money and family friends' money had staked him in various efforts, including his tenure as managing general partner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, where he made his own fortune.

Robert S. Strauss, the former Democratic national chairman who has been a friend of the Bushes for years, said the 1994 candidacy was widely viewed "as rather a fool's errand, defeating a reasonably popular sitting governor," Ann Richards. "Certain members of his family thought it was a mistake," Mr. Strauss said, "but he showed in that campaign for governor that he had political instincts that served him exceedingly well."

They were talents different from his father's. The younger Mr. Bush is much more of a Texan than his father, and less of a student, both in college and later. He is more comfortable in crowds and with small talk, and less at ease with reporters. Where his father was respected, the son is likable.

Even the liberal Texas writer Molly Ivins, who last week called President Bush "shallow, spoiled and of mediocre intelligence," said, "I really think you would have to work at it to dislike him." Friends call him relaxed and unpretentious, a style that comes across on the stump or when he works a rope line — and one that paid off in his last-minute campaigning for last week's election. Robert M. Teeter, a Republican pollster who worked for the elder Mr. Bush in his 1980, 1988 and 1992 campaigns, said "I don't think the country perceives this as a dynasty," because of the personality differences. "It perceives them as separate entities," related, of course, but not "a political unit" as the Kennedys seemed to be in the early 60's.

That distinction in the Bushes' political personalities may help account for the short interval between their presidencies. Sixty-three percent of voters opposed President Bush's father when he was defeated in 1992, but his son managed to win election after a gap of only eight years, not the 20 it took voters to forget the elder President Adams.

President Bush showed this fall how his strategic political instincts differ from his father's. In the 1980 primaries, the elder Bush was cautious. After upsetting Ronald Reagan in Iowa, he wasted five weeks with blandness, doing little to give Republicans reasons to like him. Instead he relied on momentum, "the Big Mo," and lost badly in New Hampshire.

The younger Bush, on the other hand, disregarded warnings that he was risking his popularity by campaigning intensely for candidates who might lose in last week's election. He was right; as Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, said last week: "You can't sit on your popularity — it just atrophies. But you can reinvest it and make it grow."

He has also been lucky, in being underestimated in the 1994 and 2000 campaigns, and in how the Florida results were decided in 2000. But all long-lasting politicians have luck; President Bush's father, for example, had the good fortune to have Michael S. Dukakis for an opponent in 1988. And as another baseball executive, Branch Rickey of the Brooklyn Dodgers, once said, "Luck is the residue of design."

Two years into a presidential term is too early to judge its success: Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan would have been judged failures at that stage. Moreover, Senate Democrats or Republican overreaching could easily thwart the objective of recording domestic achievements by 2004, and no one knows the political impact of a potential war with Iraq.

But Mr. Bush probably has his eyes open to those risks. After all, no family that lived through the 1992 election knows better than his how quickly the public mood can shift. And he has, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said of one President Roosevelt (historians now believe he was referring to Theodore, not Franklin), "a first-class temperament" for the job.

Jeb is awesome!!!! He's more conservative than W and is not one that compromises his principles. He said he would bring One Florida to us and he did and we're a better state for it. he's also cut taxes and held teachers and schools accountable. I can't wait to vote for him in '08

Not a good idea, if you ask me. He'd be a great president, but people would resent crowning Jeb after George.

If he wants to be president, he should wait, get re-elected again, run for Senate in 2006 (lost of people already upset with Bill Nelson), and then go for it in 2016.

He'd be a great president, but people would resent crowning Jeb after George.

I understand how some people, here in the GOP base, may fear that, but in all honesty, I must tell you this: to people like my Dem swing voter elderly parents, GW and Jeb are two totally different entities.
My parents enthusiastically voted for JEB! here in FL, but they are not certain at all about war with Iraq and the nation's economic future.

They like GW, but they have a cautious 'wait and see' attitude towards him. And, GW played no role at all in convincing them to cast their votes for JEB!

Coming from this source, the intent of this story is mischievous. It sets people talking again about "Bush dynasties," something Bush had to live down once before during his election campaign, when Dems claimed he was the privileged son of his father who had never done anything to earn his way. As a result, Bush can seldom be seen in public with his parents. The very word "dynasty" is mischievous.

I happen to think that Jeb Bush could be even better than George W. But it will never fly. It would be too easy for the media to attack as nepotism, favoritism, etc., etc.

In any case, that's six years out. It's not yet time to talk about it--which is another reason why Clymer brings it up now.

The funniest line was Wolfie Blitzer on CNN trying to trap John McCain. I think it likely that McCain if his health holds, will try for the presidency in 2008.

They were trying to get McCain to trash Jeb and say that he opposed Jeb for 2008. McCain obviously did not want to endorse Jeb and he certainly didn't want to trash him.

So McCain named Jeb, Jeb's son and Dubya's daughters all of which he said might very well be presidential timber. McCain said, with a straight face, it was quite possible the the Bush family might very well supply the nation with outstanding presidents through the end of the 21st century.

The look of Wolfie's face was priceless.

It is nice to see how Clymer's mind works. His newspaper was unable to predict a politicl event 8 days in the future with all of their polling and pundit expertise. Now, they believe they can predict something 8 years in the future!

Before anyone speaks of dynasties, we shoud remember that only 29,000 votes made Norm Coleman Senator from Minnesota. Less than that made Talent a Senator in Missouri and Sununu in New Hampshire. The Country is still split down the middle.

We should all be grateful to the President for his help, but circumstances and the efforts of all will be required before there are any future victories.

Getting back to Clymer's mind is hard. He gave no new views or information on anything. Basically rehashed old data in a way any child could do. I guess being a newspaper person is easier than I thought.

Well, not to defend Adam Clymer, but I would add that many posters throughout the JEB! threads have mentioned they would like to see Gov Bush beat Senator Hillary CLinton in 2008. I think that is what will happen, though I agree with you that framing the discussion in "dynasty" lingo is irrelevant. However, I was somewhat surprised the NYT is acknowledging Gov Bush WON as opposed to "McMumble lost." Because I truly believe Gov Bush DID win.

"Only a world-class moron (or clymer, ftm) would have Benjamin Harrison as William Henry's grandfather."

Apparently, the fact-checker budget at the NYT has been slashed. Or, more likely, they believe Timesmen don't need them...

Even the liberal Texas writer Molly Ivins, who last week called President Bush "shallow, spoiled and of mediocre intelligence," said, "I really think you would have to work at it to dislike him."

Ah, yes. The charming Miss Molly. It takes no effort whatsoever to dislike her.

And, if the President is so damn dumb, what does that make Molly and her Democrats?

the undistinguished terms of Benjamin Harrison and his grandson William Henry Harrison

CLYMER ALERT!
According to the White House (not to mention my own history lessons - this ain't rocket science, boys and girls), Benjamin Harrison was the 23rd POTUS and W.H. was the 9th POTUS.
That would make the alleged grandfather-grandson relationship quoted quite near impossible.
Click on Benjamin Harrison or William Henry Harrison
As for "undistinguished", I would say that William Henry Harrison's term as POTUS has been unmatched in its brevity.

That is one flat-out excellent point you make, but I'd go even further:

It is nice to see how Clymer's mind works. His newspaper was unable to predict a political event 8 ~~days~~ hours in the future with all of their polling and pundit expertise. Now, they believe they can predict something 8 years in the future!

He'd be a great president, but people would resent crowning Jeb after George.

Does anybody really think of it as "crowning" anymore?
Besides, It'll be Jeb Bush vs. Al Sharpton - no contest.

I 'd like to see more evidence of Jeb's temperment before thinking he is of the right stuff.Does he possess the same kind of wisdom and straightforwardness that GW has? Is he as personable? As decisive? With at least as quick a mind to simplfy complex issues? Does he have star power like his brither? Able to get a room of powerful people to bend his way? In fact, is he a leader with the same type of character as GW?

America had to wait 20 yrs for another man like Reagan to emerge in GWB, so this type don't grow on trees.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.