Sabato: "That every President from 1989 to 2017 may be a Bush or a Clinton is a national disgrace"
In his June 21 column, Larry J. Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia who is frequently featured as a nonpartisan political commentator by media outlets, wrote that the possibility of no one but Bushes and Clintons in the White House from 1989 to 2017 is a "national disgrace." Sabato stated:
A much more reasonable criticism is directly related to the dominating presence of Hillary Clinton in this election cycle. The population of the United States now exceeds 300 million, and the talent pool of the world's only superpower is deep and rich. How is it that the country is on the verge of filling its highest office for the sixth consecutive term from one of two families? That every President from 1989 to 2017 may be a Bush or a Clinton is a national disgrace. What has happened to the American Republic? How does it differ from a banana republic -- where a couple of dominant families often run everything for generations? Have we driven the vast majority of the potentially best Presidents out of the contest because of the high personal and professional costs of running for office? Are we the voters responsible because we are too lazy to go beyond the simplistic attractions of familiarity and high name identification? Or, most disturbing of all, has our political system become ossified, so that we are too fearful of change to seek out the most outstanding leaders among us for the toughest job in the world?
His comments raise the issue of whether the media will continue to feature him as a dispassionate commentator, given Sabato's clearly stated his views on what the election of Hillary Clinton would mean for the nation.
Sabato's recent television appearances include:
- On the June 21 edition of NBC's Today, Sabato was identified as a political analyst.
- On the June 13 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Sabato was identified as being from the University of Virginia.
- On the April 23 Special Report, Sabato was identified as being from the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.
- On the April 5 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, Sabato was identified as a Ph.D. and director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.
- On the April 5 edition of Special Report, Sabato was identified as being from the University of Virginia.
- On the April 2 edition of CNBC's Kudlow & Company, Sabato was identified as the director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.
- On the March 21 Kudlow & Company, Sabato was identified as the director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.
- On the February 12 Special Report, Sabato identified as being from the University of Virginia.
- On the February 12 edition of National Public Radio's News & Notes, Sabato was identified as the director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.
- On the January 29 Kudlow & Company, Sabato was identified as the director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.
- On the January 25 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams, Sabato was identified as a political analyst.
- On the January 25 edition of ABC's Nightline, Sabato was identified as a professor from the University of Virginia.
So it was okay for another Bush to take the office eight years after his daddy held it, but now that it's a Clinton, it's a problem. I'm sure it'll be okay again once Jeb takes a stab at the Presidency.
One could argue that Sabato's comment, by implication, states that George The Decider is a national disgrace. See, the glass is actually half full.
BITTERMARV:
How could any thinking person read that article and come to the conclusion you cam to?
For the simple reason that Sabato wasn't making this complaint in 2000. Duh.
By all means stick around here, Kevin. You're always good for some unintentional comic relief.
How do you know that Sabato was not making this complaint back then? Do you base that on research or did you just pull it out ... thin air?
Actually, I agree with Mr. Sabato 100% and I'm a reliably liberal voter. I'm sick and tired of Hatfield vs. McCoy, de Medici vs. Strozzi politics. It's just so distant from what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.
Excuse me, Skye, but the framers of the Constitution didn't even have term limits in mind--that didn't get added until the middle of the 20th century--so a single person could have been elected in perpetuity. And there's nothing whatever in there that prevents people from the same family from holding the office (Adams, anyone?).
If you don't want to endorse Mrs. Clinton, that's your right, but please base your decision on issues and not on trivia like her last name.
PLRR and MM,
Term limits are not the question (issue) in this case. Term limits are a lazy response to a problem of residual power.
The issues here are that:
1. a consistent theme has persisted through these terms in corporate welfare and conglomeration.
2. With media conglomeration there is an extremely high hill to overcome to get alternative news, views, and understandings out.
3. Why is media matters taking this question up. This is a not a Hillary defense site, it is a media watchdog site. What should be listed on this site, are the things the media did not cover each night, because they were covering, Paris Hilton, or some feel good story of a dog that saved an owners life by licking their face in a fire.
KINSEY:
You have a mistaken notion. You seem to think Media Matters "should be covering" what the national media FAILS to cover.
That is not MMFA's mission. The mission is to RESPOND to misinformation. This requires giving documented and sourced rebuttals to the lies being told to the American Public.
While it might be a good thing to cover things NOT SEEN in today's (rightwing) Media, that is a completely separate mission from being reactive.
So where's the misinformation here? Why can't people voice opposition to aristocracy?
Me too, Skye.
You hit it right on the kisser skye12.I too am disgusted at our country. We champion the virtues of democracy -- at the barrel of a gun no less -- while maintaining the 'divine right of kings'. First, the House of Roosevelt, then, the House of Kennedy, The House of Bush, now, we’re expected to bow and all hail to the inevitable, The House of Clinton. Ugh -- and I'm a liberal.
Sabato is right. I don't know if his motives are pure, but there should be a nepotism amendment just as they have a 2 term limit.
On the concept of a "self made man".
It's the American Dream. Humble beginnings, maybe a broken home, poverty, and a blossoming desire for excellence and achievement. "Any child can be President!" was told to free and enterprising students in civics class in school.
Bill Clinton defied probability, attended college, excelled, and was named a Rhodes Scholar.
Bush had no financial limits, but was limited intellectually. Wealthy parents hoped for the best, but son George brought disappointment; "Gentleman's C's" from Yale ... attainable by the scion of alumni if they don't even attend classes. No intellectual curiosity, didn't like to read, scorned "intellectuals". Preferred fraternity hi-jinx, drinking, and cheerleading.
Many companies have several Vice Presidents, and of those many feature a "son" who gained the position by virtue of nepotism. Other Vice Presidents EARNED their position by hard work, diligence, and value to the company's progress.
There is no contest, in level of respect, or in admiration on an American Dream level, between the "self made man" Clinton represents, and the spoiled rich-kid screw-up that Bush represents.
Given responsibility, one would expect Clinton to continue to excel, and Bush to continue to screw up.
History confirms what common sense suggests.
You really love throwing the "n" word around, don't you? Using a Southern dialect in your posts allows you to do so with impunity, I guess.
I was going to make the same remarks as the previous two commenters, but mine were not as witty as theirs.
So.... guess it's LOLpresident time!
It will be really cool when someone figgers out how to pipe in Benny Hill music with that link!
Funny that you say that. I always hear Benny Hill music n my head during a press conference with Bush or Cheney.
Sabato: "Are we the voters responsible because we are too lazy to go beyond the simplistic attractions of familiarity and high name identification?"
Well, 'we', the people cast more votes for Al Gore than for Bush in 2000. Don't blame us for the 'disgrace' who's now in office.
Jeb Bush '12!!
you mean 24 at best. We've got Hill and Obama covering the next 16 years!
You're not going to post the entire Bush families IQ test results, are you?
He just did! Jeb is the only one with a lick of brains, so that 12 represents the family total.
He just did. Jeb is the only one of 'em with a lick of brains, so that 12 must be the family total.
Doubled over laughing. That was priceless Beach ;-)
So George W.'s IQ must be around -40?
I agree with Sabato that having only Bushes and Clintons in the presidency for an extended period doesn't say much for American democracy. On the other hand, I find it telling that Sabato expresses this "concern" now, and not in 1999 and 2000 when George W. Bush was a candidate.
In addition, I question Sabato's knowledge of US history and politics. How does he not know or why does he choose not to mention three generations of Bushes holding national office? How about the current crop of Kennedys, Meekses, Bayhs, Fords and Blunts? I pose the same question about the Aldriches, Chaffees, Bankheads, Harrisons, Tylers, Adamses, Roosevelts, Gores, and Simpsons. Hell, even the sons of Lincoln, Garfield, McClellan and Grant received plum political appointments based on nothing more than name recognition.
I regard Sabato's comments as nothing but a way to attack Hillary Clinton without appearing to do so directly.
There definitely are some political "dynasties" in our past and present. And it could get worse, there could be Clintons and Bushes as far out as the eye can see. (Hillary, Jed, Chelsa, and the next generations) Will it actually happen? Probably not, but it is food for thought.
i heard ellie mae will be jed's running mate. [a little humor, oscar]
But it wasn't an issue in 1999. We'd just had 2 terms of Bill Clinton, no Bushes had been elected yet.
Yes, I just said something stupid--pardon me! I didn't go back far enough.
Dont forget Taft one of the real dynasties in Ohio
Yet another "reasonable" comment that is unreasonable because it only seems to be used on democrats.
It's reasonable to question politicians harshly, but it only happens to democrats.
It's reasonable to focus on the cost of policy proposals, but it only happens to democrats.
It's reasonable to lament political dynasties, but it only happens to democrats.
It's reasonable to hold presidential candidates to a high moral standard, but it only happens to democrats.
Steeve, Bill's post right above yours spells out exactly what is wrong with Sabato's "concern."
You may want to read it so you won't have to put forth a lot of other silly hypotheses.
Note to Spooky....
I have no comments about Bill and Steeve's posts, but before you comment to someone, that someone else already covered the same material they did, you might want to check the TIMES THE TWO COMMENTS WERE POSTED.
Steeve posted his comment a couple minutes after Bill, and it's likely Steeve was typing at the time Bill posted his comments.
I have posted a comment, only to find that 4 people filled the space above mine with exactly the same thoughts while I was typing.
I liked Steve's comments as well as Bill's. What silly hypothesis? None.
may be splitting hairs, but Hillary isn't of the Clinton family the same way that Bush is of the Bush family. He is a legacy. Bill Clintons daddy didn't feed him with a silver spoon. And Hillary is from another family.
I doubt Hillary would be a national figure without Bill, to be sure.
But to characterize the Bushs like the Clintons as political legacies is improper. Even if she wins, which she hasn't yet. So sure, this smells like a cheap shot on Hillary. Get em while you can boys...this filly is running on.
I doubt Hillary would be a national figure without Bill, to be sure
I have to disagree with this comment. Hillary got her connecitons to Washington long before Bill. Right out of Law School she was working on the impeachment hearings of then Pres. Nixion. She had already caught the attention of a lot of movers and shskers. She made the decision to go to AK to be with Bill and still had a pretty impressive connection with the Carter adminstration and others. Who knows where she would have gone on her own without Bill. She might have stayed in DC and had a pretty inpressive career that could have led her to the WH on the REP ticket-- after all she was a Goldwater Girl at one time. Maybe Bill would not have gotten to DC without her. It is chauvanistic to think that the only reason she got to where she is because of her man.
My comment wasn't sparked by male chauvanism (?). I have great admiration for many women who have gone into poltics and been successful. Hillary would make a fine president. I hope she wins if she is nominated, and I may well vote for her in the Tennessee primary.
But this is the first time I've ever heard anyone opine that Hillary paved the politcal path for Bill. That Hillary created that political monster that took on the entire conservative party and won, repeatedly. Gingrich, Dole, Bush 41, and the nastiest campaign ever waged against a presidential candidate (until 2000)...Bill beat them all.
Hillary is a fine atty. She's a remarkable woman. She's capable of doing so many things as a leader.
But she pales in comparison to Bill Clinton, in the politcal realm. As do all of us, IMO. He is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that the GOP fear more than anything else, if Hillary wins the nomination.
Nobody is as cool and comfortable-in-his-own skin, nor as politically crafty and cunning, and above all else, as charismatic as Bill Clinton.
Now you can claim she gave him these attributes, and perhaps you believe that Bill has held Hillary back all these years. But whatever caused it...we'll never see another politcal creature like him in a long long time.
Thats one Tennessee fellow's humble opinion.
So what are the genetic markers that identify a Clinton? And how did Hillary get them?
If its possible to be a metaphysical Clinton how would this be (Everybody duck!) identifiable.
So what are the genetic markers that identify a Clinton? And how did Hillary get them?
One would think that the typical Clinton genetic markers would be the "B-D" code. Hilary got them when she moved to arkansas. Fortunately, they moved out quick enough so Chelsea may not be affected by it, but it's too late for the parents.
Where is Claude "Louis" Rains when you need him?
This isn't headline material - I rather agree with Sabato. Media Matters can't pounce on every piece that's critical about Bill Clinton; he wasn't president that long ago (assuming no president is perfect, the most recent less so) and if you want to be seen as objective you have to accept that not everything he did and stood for was inherently benign (which seems to be your case).
the difference would be that w. made it on nothing, absolutely nothing, but his name. the dumbest, most unqualified, laziest person to ever fill the office. karl rove's science project. why anyone who calls himself a conservative would support this man is beyond me.
I'm not sure how, or for that matter, what conclusion you're trying to draw here. That fact of the matter is that as much as this administration has done to destroy the constitution I can't help but feel that Sabato has a legitimate point. I am very uneasy with the idea that the office of the Presidency seems to have turned into a baton passed from Bush to Clinton, so on, so forth. After Hillary do we look forward to Jenna followed by Chelsea? Regardless of the political differences between the two families I find these "successions" very troubling. pjmh
Clinton was a national disgrace? I do not think so. Check the facts and check what the American people thought about Clinton Mr Sabato.
Although I agree that Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton would be a somewhat embarrassing part of American history, I think Sabato is being a bit disingenuous here. Family dynasties have always dominated politics on every level, thats just what the system has become. Sabato is pulling out the folksy populist card, whatever his intentions are. Aside from that, he is also making a ridiculous equivocation between the Clinton and Bush families, comparing a highly ambitious couple with a family with a long and dark political history. If Sabato wanted to be even more honest, he would also mention the revolving door that keeps the same bastards in power for decades in various appointed positions, just enough out of the public eye that they escape scrutiny.
I agree that would be a disgrace, but isn't the fact that the Republicans have run a Bush or a Dole on every ticket since 1976 just as big a disgrace?
Sabato is a brilliant analyst. He called all but one of the 2006 races spot on.
I think his last comment is ill considered and wrong. However, I fail to see how it taints his excellent record. He makes a number of important points about Hillary in his article, from sexism toward Hillary to her being unfairly tainted by scandal.
Aaaaarrrrrgh!!! Those two Adams started this whole debacle and when Bush the first became Bush the second, YOU WERE NO WHERE TO BE FOUND!! Thanks for the trip down memory lane, Sabato...
Sabato is superficially looking at names: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. He should look at the records of the two Bushes and Bill Clinton. The elder Bush was a failure (even in the eyes of Republicans) and failed to get re-elected and George W. Bush will always be remembered for the disasterous Iraq War which is bankrupting the US financially and politically around the world. On the other hand, Bill Clinton's presidency was very successful: he reduced the government deficits while the country thrived economically. If another "Clinton" (Hillary) can do the same as the first one, I'm all for it.
A "dynasty" follows the aristocratic "bloodlines" of most of the history of European nations, with ROYALTY being "entitled" and "destined by GOD" to be the ruling family. MONEY of course figures in, along with family power, connections, and an arrogance of destiny. "SON and HEIR" meant HEIR to the throne.
The Bush family fits this description, and it is one that should be abhorent to free Americans.
For Hillary Clinton to run for president fits none of this model. She is not a "blood heir" to any throne, she was married to a man who gained the presidency without ANY family help. He came up from NO family money, power or position. He was (and IS) a "commoner".
The only advantage Hillary gained from her husband's eight years in the White House is that she has been "PRE-ATTACKED" by the Rightwing Smear Machine relentlessly for over a decade, and come out unscathed. This brutal "vetting" awaits any and all Democrat candidates, and the "Swift Boating" can virtually sink a candidate's prospects, unfair as that may be.
Sabato, I believe, is lamenting NOT that it's a "dynasty" arrangement, but the the Rightwing has already thrown everything in their arsenal at this woman, and she's going strong ... so now the Rightwing doesn't know what else they can do. THIS terrifies the Rightwing, not her wedded NAME.
I think you're on to something there, Tex. Great post.
I don't see your problem with Mr. Sabato. I really don't. He was also involved with the Macaca episode.
And I share his concerns over two families running the White House over several decades. Our political system, is becoming more of an aristocracy all the time. There are legacy politicians all over who rise to office based on their parents' names. If you don't come from a name family, you're at a disadvantage.
I guess I'm not as much of a fan of royalty as Media Matters.I just read through the comments here and, again, don't see the problem.
We should be able to have a free and open discussion about the aristocratic nature of our politics. MMFA wants to tarnish Prof Sabato for raising a valid point.
Did he not raise it in 2000? Who knows? Who claiming he did not has done the research? Certainly not MMFA.
This is a valid point that needs discussion.
You know, I'm really sorry to see MMFA take sides in the Dem primary. But they're becoming like part of the Clinton campaign.
Maybe MMFA can provide some substantive discussion on why an aristocratic approach to selecting our leaders is not a problem.
I am no fan of GW Bush, but disgrace? I'm not so sure. And I'm also not so certain that I want Gore either. I'd like to see someone new as well.
It is a little disingenuous of Media Matters to post that one small excerpt and accuse Sabato of some type of "anti-Democrat" bias. First of all, throughout the article he says many kind words about Obama, calling him "charismatic" and "exciting". Secondly, he even says about Clinton that "No one questions her intelligence, abilities, policy aptitude, and experience." How exactly is this piece a hit job when he praises her qualifications for office?!
The real issue at hand here is that Media Matters is trying to protect their chosen candidate (Hillary Clinton, as most of you regular visitors probably have noticed by now). Anything short of an out-and-out endorsement (which shouldn't be expected of a non-partisan anyway) is labeled a "hit job" and evidence of a "conservative bias". Pointing out any inconvenient facts about Hillary is not allowed. Praising Obama, bashing Bush, and calling out George Allen last fall is all overshadowed by merely noting that Clinton's election would mean 24-28 years of presidents being from two families.
I'm not going to say Sabato is some raging liberal who is with us every step of the way, but calling him a conservative lackey rings pretty hollow. Check his Media Matters file... for a man who has been on the news so much (check that list at the end of the article), he certainly hasn't said much that offends me, or the Media Matters people who compile these quotes. Bottom line: the bias is with Media Matters, which cares more about Clinton than the Democratic Party, and more about both than it does about our democracy.
How about Media Matters is a national disgrace--for misrepresenting the views of a non-partisan political analyist who was making a point that Media Matters, in their infinite mental retardation, cannot grasp.
While I don't disagree with the worrisome aspects of Sabato's statement...
Let me assure everyone that Sabato has definite right wing leanings. As someone who has -- being from VA -- watched Sabato from his start on regional TV news -- he is "dial a quote" -- until this. He has always showed a right bias. Basically, he is attacking the Democratic frontrunner and if it was Obama he'd be attacking him also.
And I expect he'll get around to it soon enough.
I guess he means the American voters are a disgrace since they are the ones electing Clintons & Bushes over & over.
If that is what he means, I would tend to agree with him.
Actually, I agree with Sabato. It is a national discrace that we can not field a more dirverse field.
x-ray
I'm not a fan of Sabato, but I think you are giving him a bum rap here. Although I wish he had made the same statement during the most recent presidential election, I think he is trying to raise the issue of political dominance by an elite few, as well as that of a distracted or disinterested electorate, and the corrosive impact on the electoral process. That is a legitimate point, and one that is often made by progressives. There are richer targets for our efforts than Sabato---I think this one is wasting energy on an unworthy target.
Is that photo Larry J. Sabato or Dr. Phil wearing a bad rug (or a dead muskrat)?
"That every President from 1989 to 2017 may be a Bush or a Clinton is a national disgrace."
I see that as a valid observation, at least worthy of discussion. But maybe I just don't want another eight years of my Bushite father emailing me anti-Clinton jokes (though now that his boy Bush is in, he doesn't want to hear anything about politics from me).
Cf. Barbara Ehrenreich's recent comments:
What Americans need most, after fifteen years of presidential crimes high and low, is to wash their hands of all the sleaze, blood, and other bodily fluids, and find themselves a president who is neither a Clinton nor a Bush.
http://ehrenreich.blogs.com/barbaras_blog/2007/06/who_is_hillary_.html