Bush-Clinton Dynasty, only blocked by Obama

I didn’t vote for Clinton because of this.

  • In 1980 Poppy Bush became Vice President.
  • In 1988 Poppy became President
  • In 1992 Bill Clinton became President.
  • In 2000 George W Bush (junior) became President.
  • In 2008 Hillary ran for President.

If if she had won, we would have consolidated power into just two families hands for effectively 36 years. Only this Obama kid popped up and wrecked that plan with the help of the Democratic Base.

  • In 2016, the new Duopoly fixed the race by running both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. Both announced as “front runner” before they had officially announced.

This time the Republicans stepped in and elected an orange game show host to ruin the plan. He was so bad by Election Day that I actually voted for Clinton, even though I said I wouldn’t.

We don’t have Royals in America. This is what hurt Romney too, he’s a legacy candidate as well but not a part of the Bush/Clinton dynamic.

The Clintons and Bushes have the same Trade policies, same monetary policies, similar regulatory goals. Bill and Poppy were even closer on economic policy, military policy, science policy and legislative agendas. Dubya was a deviation but in all of the worst directions.

Bill and Poppy were competent Presidents. Hillary would be profoundly competent and I suspect Jeb would too.

Heck Obama was fairly close to Poppy’s policy structures. Most competent Presidents will be.

This isn’t about policy, it’s about legacy and aristocracy.

Hillary is a brilliant policy wonk. A type A over achiever who is smart, responsive and hyper qualified. She’s also as slippery as her husband, inherently occluded in speech, perpetually on defense and 25 years of that coupled with operating at the height of political power has made her unapproachable . She’s a bad campaigner, who fails to connect at deeply emotional levels.

..

I am not being ageist. I’m being realistic. Bernie won’t run because he’s too old. Biden won’t run because he’s too old. McCain could’ve run but he knew he was too old. 75 is pushing the human bodies limits for taking on an office that visibly drains its occupants like there is a vampire in the Resolute Desk. Any 3 of these guys could’ve won but they had a legacy candidate in the way.

The Democrats need some new, out front faces. Pelosi, Feinstein, Shumer, Boxer and the Clinton’s have had their time in the sun.

.. The working class doesn’t like these entrenched politicians. Witness Trump. They pulled Obama ahead of Hillary in 08 because they want new and different.

.. Trump is a mess but he’s not such a mess that the working class is going to go back to the old aristocracy. Hillary looks better by comparison but that’s not the same as better.

If the Dems want a legacy, draft one of the Kennedy grandkids. It’s been satisfactorily long enough for them to run without the taint of legacy. The Republicans can maybe draft a Hoover. They’ve had enough lately.

Hillary Will Run Again

Reinventing herself as a liberal firebrand, Mrs. Clinton will easily capture the 2020 nomination.

Get ready for Hillary Clinton 4.0. More than 30 years in the making, this new version of Mrs. Clinton, when she runs for president in 2020, will come full circle—back to the universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand of 1994. True to her name, Mrs. Clinton will fight this out until the last dog dies. She won’t let a little thing like two stunning defeats stand in the way of her claim to the White House.
This was arguably the most successful version of Hillary Clinton
But Hillary 2.0 could not overcome Barack Obama, the instant press sensation. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Mrs. Clinton held fast to centrist positions that would have assured her victory in the general election. But progressive leaders and donors abandoned her for the antiwar Mr. Obama. Black voters who had been strong Clinton supporters in New York and Arkansas left her column to elect the first African-American president.
.. Licking her wounds, Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state while she planned her comeback. It was during this time that the more liberal Hillary 3.0 emerged. She believed she could never win a primary as a moderate, so she entered the 2016 primary as a progressive like Mr. Obama. Then she moved further left as Sen. Bernie Sanders came closer to derailing her nomination. This time she was able to contain her opponent’s support, crucially by bringing African-American voters into her camp.

.. But Mrs. Clinton’s transformation during the primaries, especially on social and cultural issues, cost her an easy win against Donald Trump. As Hillary 3.0 catered to the coastal elites who had eluded her in 2008, Mr. Trump stole many of the white working-class voters who might have been amenable to the previous version. Finally she had the full support of the New York Times and the other groups that had shunned her for Mr. Obama—but only at the cost of an unforeseen collapse in support in the Midwest.
.. She will not allow this humiliating loss at the hands of an amateur to end the story of her career. You can expect her to run for president once again. Maybe not at first, when the legions of Senate Democrats make their announcements, but definitely by the time the primaries are in full swing.
Mrs. Clinton has a 75% approval rating among Democrats, an unfinished mission to be the first female president, and a personal grievance against Mr. Trump, whose supporters pilloried her with chants of “Lock her up!” This must be avenged.
.. Expect Hillary 4.0 to come out swinging. She has decisively to win those Iowa caucus-goers who have never warmed up to her. They will see her now as strong, partisan, left-leaning and all-Democrat—the one with the
  • guts,
  • experience and
  • steely-eyed determination

to defeat Mr. Trump. She has had two years to go over what she did wrong and how to take him on again.

.. Mrs. Clinton won’t travel the country in a van with Huma Abedin this time, doing small events and retail politics. Instead she will enter through the front door, mobilizing the army of professional women behind her, leveraging her social networks, and raking in donations. She will hope to emerge as an unstoppable force to undo Mr. Trump,
  • running on the #MeToo movement,
  • universal health care and
  • gun control.

.. The generation of Democrats who have been waiting to take over the party from the Clintons will be fuming that she is back and stealing their show. But they revealed themselves to be bungling amateurs in the Brett Kavanaugh nomination fight, with their laughable Spartacus moments.

.. Mrs. Clinton will take down rising Democratic stars like bowling pins. Mike Bloomberg will support her rather than run, and Joe Biden will never be able to take her on.

.. Don’t pay much attention to the “I won’t run” declarations. Mrs. Clinton knows both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama declared they weren’t running, until they ran. She may even skip Iowa and enter the race later, but rest assured that, one way or another, Hillary 4.0 is on the way.

Geopolitics Trumps the Markets

America led a 30-year hiatus from history. It was nice while it lasted, but it’s over.

That crashing sound you heard in world markets last week wasn’t just a correction. It was the sound of the end of an age.

During the long era of relatively stable international relations that succeeded the Cold War, markets enjoyed an environment uniquely conducive to economic growth.

.. The results were extraordinary. Between 1990 and 2017, world-wide gross domestic product rose from $23.4 trillion to $80.1 trillion, the value of world trade grew even faster, more than a billion people escaped poverty, and infant-mortality rates decreased by more than 50%. The number of people with telephone service grew roughly 10-fold.

This hiatus from history was, by most measures of human flourishing, a glorious era. Now it has come to an end, or at least a pause, and the world is beginning to see what that means.

.. the basic elements of economic globalization appeared firmly in place.

  • Russia, the most obvious challenger to the geopolitical order, was an insignificant and diminishing player economically.
  • And China, notwithstanding its rapid economic growth and its anxiety about American military power, was unlikely to challenge the economic basis of its own success. Geopolitics might have been back, but that wasn’t an issue for markets.

That complacency was misplaced. The return of geopolitics means the basic framework for economic policy has changed. In periods of great-power rivalry, national leaders must often put geopolitical goals ahead of economic ones. Bismarck’s Germany could have saved money buying armaments from Britain, but building a domestic arms industry was worth the cost. If the U.S. is in a serious strategic competition with China, an American president might well be willing to sacrifice some economic growth to banish China from important supply chains.

,, by invoking “national security,” the Trump administration has found a legal basis, with roots in the Cold War and even earlier, to assert sweeping powers over the nation’s commerce. It has upended a generation of U.S. trade policy in a dramatically short period of time.

.. The new era of geopolitics is unlikely to be an era of small government.

.. The Trump administration is

  • reversing some of the regulatory excesses of the Obama era, and
  • the president’s judicial appointees are prepared to rein in the administrative state.

.. A recalibration of the U.S.-China relationship was likely inevitable as the world’s oldest civilization became an economic superpower.

Hillary Clinton, who as secretary of state clashed with Mr. Obama over the need for a tougher approach to China, would not be a popular figure in Beijing if she had won the 2016 election.

From Wall Street to K Street, Companies Gauge the Risks of Doing Business With Saudi Arabia

One of the roughly 10 lobbying firms that represent the Saudi government, the Harbour Group, has dropped it as a client, and others are considering following suit, according to people familiar with discussions, as Saudi Arabia struggles with a backlash over allegations that it murdered the journalist, Jamal Khashoggi.

The lobbying firms are privately discussing how to proceed, these people said. But some have already decided that the prospect of continued paychecks from Saudi Arabia — once a prized and profitable client — is not worth the risk to their reputations.

But for financial and technology companies, several of which have multibillion-dollar ties to Saudi Arabia, the calculus is more complicated. Few executives have backed out of the conference, which is called the Future Investment Initiative but is known colloquially as Davos in the Desert.

Uber’s chief executive, Dara Khosrowshahi, was one of the few to announce that they would back out.

.. The Public Investment Fund, a large Saudi sovereign wealth fund, invested $3.5 billion for a 5.6 percent share in Uber in June 2016.

The fund’s managing director, Yasir Al-Rumayyan, took a seat on Uber’s board. Prince Mohammed is the chairman of the Public Investment Fund.

.. Blackstone’s chief executive, Stephen A. Schwarzman, remains an advisory board member and is expected to speak at the conference, which is held at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Riyadh, where Prince Mohammed locked up hundreds of wealthy Saudis last year in what he called an anti-corruption campaign but critics said was an effort to crush dissent.

.. Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, is also still planning to attend

.. Peter Thiel, the technology venture capitalist who was once an ally of President Trump and is known for his independent streak, is still a member of the event’s advisory board but had never planned to attend the gathering, according to a person close to Mr. Thiel.

.. Richard Branson, the billionaire British entrepreneur, said that he had suspended his directorship at two tourism projects near the Red Sea and that his space ventures would halt their discussions over proposed investments from the Public Investment Fund.

.. Saudi Arabia has been a coveted client, thanks to its reputation for paying above-market rates and its status as one of the United States’ most reliable allies in an unstable region, which seemed cemented by the ties between Prince Mohammed and the Trump administration.
.. The debates about dropping the Saudi account also reflect the skittishness of the lobbying industry at a time when it has faced mounting scrutiny from federal investigators, including the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, about how foreign interests try to shape American politics and policy.
.. The highest-paid firms representing the Saudis in Washington are the international public affairs consultancy
  • Qorvis MSLGroup, which is being paid $279,500 a month, and the
  • Glover Park Group, which was started by former Clinton administration officials and is being paid $150,000 a month
.. Another two firms are being paid $125,000 a month —
  • Hogan Lovells, which has Norm Coleman, a former senator of Minnesota, as its point person for Saudi work, and
  • Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, which has a bipartisan team composed of Marc S. Lampkin, a former aide to the former House speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio, and Alfred E. Mottur, a top fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

.. Not all of these firms will drop the Saudis. Some are leaning toward maintaining their contracts, in part because they predict that if they were to abandon the country en masse, it could lead to reduced cooperation from the Saudi government.