Anyone But a Bush or a Clinton

James Burkee, writing in an LA Times Op-Ed, makes the argument that it's time for a president other than a Bush or a Clinton:

HAVING REFUSED a third term as president, George Washington offered the nation a farewell address in 1796, urging Americans to cherish the Union and to avoid the "baneful effects" of political partisanship. Successors such as Thomas Jefferson warned against the formation of an "unnatural" aristocracy of men who inherited great fortunes and political office.

Both of these warnings have been overlooked in the debate over Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2008 presidential run. But if she secures the Democratic nomination, wins and serves two terms, by 2017 the United States will have been governed by either a Bush or a Clinton for 28 years. That's three decades governed not just by the same two families but much of the same supporting staff. As Dick Cheney is a name familiar to both Bush presidencies (as George H.W. Bush's secretary of Defense and his son's vice president), so too may a Hillary Clinton presidency resuscitate familiar names such as Harold Ickes, Paul Begala and James Carville.

And it might not end there. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, encouraged by Republican leaders and the current president (who said, "I would like to see Jeb run at some point"), has not ruled out a White House bid or a vice presidential slot on the ticket in 2012 or 2016.

If Washington's caustic, partisan atmosphere is to change, the era of Bushes and Clintons needs to end in 2008. ...

Pundits compare 2006 to the late Nixon years, with a country disillusioned by war and a deep distrust of its political leadership. In one of his last interviews, former President Ford lamented the "extreme partisanship that exists in the nation's capital today," suggesting that partisanship is even worse than in the post-Watergate era he inherited.

The nation needs today, as it got in Ford then, a president respected by both Republicans and Democrats who can restore trust in politics. It needs new faces and new ideas if it is to confront advancing crises of war, debt and entitlement reform. And it needs a president who can assume office in 2009 swimming in the political capital that only a mandate can bring. The nation needs a candidate who can win 55% or more.

And that will not happen with a Bush or Clinton on the ballot.

I think Jeb Bush has a lot on the ball and has the leadership skills and intelligence to become a great president. However, it is time for somebody different. In the calculation above, the author doesn't count the eight years Bush 41 served as Vice President, so if Clinton were to hold office through 2017, you'd have no less than 36 years with a Clinton or Bush in one of the two top offices.

Burkee makes a good point about support staff as well. Bush 43 has recycled many former members of his dad's administration as well as previous Republican presidents. A President Clinton (*shudder*) would likely recycle some of her husband's old cronies. It's time for new blood on Pennsylvania Avenue.

I don't believe that voters want to make the presidency a hereditary position, and that, among many other things, will prevent Ms. Clinton from winning.