I don't think the "Bushes" are actually in charge of diddly-squat. It's one of the reasons my "hating" them is so ludicrous and it's a primary reason they just sail along so placidly whether they're on top of the world or getting squashed like a bug by the likes of Clinton. They're raking it in, they get to play power-monger, people pay them to fly all over the world and get treated like royalty ... what spoiled frat boy of a politician/banker's son wouldn't like -- or feel somehow entitled to -- that sort of life?
I think they've got lots of power, lots of connections and even some firm ideas on what they want. But I don't think they've set out to rule the world (or even the United States) ... certainly not by trying to assassinate Reagan.
They aren't the deepest of thinkers. Listen to them speak.
They at least make sense when they talk...unlike your fanciful excursions into what I am sure you feel is "deep thinking". DEEP THOUGHTS .. By ASKE15.
This would be an astute observation but for the long heritage of just such a thing that proceeds it. It goes back at least to Mark Hanna. His big mistake of course was thinking it was smart to tuck Teddy R into the vice-presidency as a joke. Since then, they have generally gone for weak VP's. The crowd is the old Taft (Ohio, same state as Hanna) crowd, and state of Mainer's are natural bed fellows. Taft of course got the shaft from TR. Later they tried to hook up the 52 convention against Ike for Taft II, but then thought better of it remembering what Teddy did to Taft I. Taft III is big bushie and gave him Ohio this time around.
As a sidelight, Taft II was the guy that fed Robert Moses the inside lead on cornering Federals funds to NYC and gave Moses and the Port Authority the power to redesign the city to their own personal tastes, people be damned.
In some circles, there is a certain amount of suspicion that this crowd had something to do with JFK's last trip to Dallas, though I am more inclinced to believe that was just unintended blowback from the CIA's brilliant assasination program against Castro.
Notice the preoccupation with I's and II's and III's. It's a sort of dead give away like that Southern flag so many RINO's wave.
what spoiled frat boy of a politician/banker's son wouldn't like -- or feel somehow entitled to -- that sort of life?The kind that likes baseball?
No, make that loves baseball.
I think it is pretty clear that one of two things is true. George W. Bush loves baseball, or he was determined enough in his quest to become President that he adopted a public persona during his Skull and Bones days (and that persona was one of a person who loves baseball). And both of those options are incompatible with your idea that George W is, disinterestedly, going along with the flow.
All of the other powerful Bushes had gained experience and expanded the family collective wealth (not that they pooled it or anything) in private endeavors. Not all of these endeavors were of the same type. George W. chose baseball, owning his own team. He had played in college. Even after selling the Rangers, he kept going to games. He speaks as if he knows what he is talking about regarding baseball. After being elected President, he set up t-ball leagues to play on the White House property. He threw out the ball for a World Series game. I think this is sufficient evidence to say that either 1) he loves baseball, or 2) he is trying really hard to make everyone think he loves baseball.
So if he loves baseball and had all along, then why would an already rich guy like him sell the Rangers and go into politics? Jeb was interested in the political route so the family would be covered, and George had the best job in the world (other than player) that a baseball fan could have. And what sort spoiled baseball fan frat boy of a politician/banker's son wouldn't like -- or feel somehow entitled to -- that sort of life?
Kinda shoots a hole in the idea of him just going with the flow created by the stirring of the powers that be above, doesn't it?
Especially when the other alternative (that the baseball thing is all just part of an act) also is incompatible with the idea that he is just a leaf in the breeze.
Listen to them speak.Do you equate thinking quickly with thinking well? I don't. A lot of the problems that the two Georges Bush have with speaking is they get tongue tied when trying to think on their feet while already speaking. As a person who has had periods in his life where he has had a borderline stuttering problem, I speak from experience when I say that a person's ability to spit things out while thinking has little correlation to a person's thinking ability overall, unless I have had periods in my life where I inexplicably got dumber, and periods where I inexplicably got better.
I look at what Bush the second has done, and I don't see a stupid man. I see a very shrewd one. Maybe he is, as you basically stated above just a pawn, going along with what those above him tell him to do, and they are the shrewd ones shrewdly making him do many shrewd things while his tongue foibles convince many of the truth, that he is really a dim bulb (shrewd of them to use the dim one, since its truth makes it less likely anyone would pull the string and see their shrewd puppet master moves, eh?).
But for that to be true, then he really would have to be apethetic and going along with the flow to boot, but he loves baseball...
No, I think I will go with my own theory which is equally unpopular as yours, Askel. I think George W. Bush is a lot smarter than people realize, and I think he is more motivated than most people realize.
I do not know exactly what those motivations are, but based on the general direction of his moves (particularly regarding reversing the direction of many things Clinton started with the UN) I tend to think he has earned a good amount of my trust.