There is, indeed, much in a name. Names, like definitions, fundamentally change the perception of something, while doing nothing to change the thing itself. This is true both for the man with dynastic line his intent, and for many other words he uses as well.
Let us take love for example, a word oft spoken by the man seeking his birthright royal. Love is a powerful word, one with a deep emotional effect. The phrase “act of Love” conjures up all sorts of images, ranging from noble sacrifice to, in the minds of some, the downright pornographic.
So, this raises the question of what his highness Jeb means when he says illegal immigration is “an act of Love.”. He may well be right, after all, one can likewise argue, with bear equal veracity, that burglary is an act of love (It’s quite reasonable to suppose that burglar would love to have your stuff, thus his taking of it is an act of love). Robbery likewise.
Or… perhaps those for whom the phrase conjures up pornographic imagery are right after all, and the phrase simply means that we’re about to get royally f…d.
*****************
@ Rand; I know I’m pushing the boundaries of tasteful posting here with the final line above one, so if you have any objections whatsoever, please don’t hesitate to nuke this reply.
Earnest & Julio Gallo?
Objecting to Bush because of his family name is ridiculous. And it’s proven by the fact that the majority of people who object to Bush on those grounds are pushing Hillary, voted for Al Gore JUNIOR (people forget that) and hare even hyping CHELSEA CLINTON for a congressional seat.
The legit reason to object to Bush is he’s come out in favor of common core and comprehensive immigration reform.
There are a lot of people who vote Republican that do not want another Bush. Maybe in another generation.
@ MarkD
I object to Jeb Bush, and his name is sort of part of it. The reason his name is relevant is that he’s part of a political family – a political dynasty, and I find the concept of political dynasties highly objectionable. I’d feel the same on that issue if he’d adopted his wife’s name. It’s not the name itself I object to, but the concept of dynasties. It’s unhealthy for democracy for so much power and influence to reside with one family. I feel likewise about the Kennedy and Clinton clans. Dynasties in congress bother me, but I find those involving the presidency more troubling.
However, my objections to Jeb Bush don’t stop there. His own words are an even greater cause of my dislike of him than the dynastic aspect.
And BTW, I’m a republican. I certainly did not vote for Gore, nor Clinton.
The last time I voted for a Democrat for ANYTHING was Clinton/Bush, when Poppy had done such a horrible job that even knowing what a vermin Clinton was I couldn’t stomach another term of his antics.
If the RNC nominates Jeb, I will pull the “Straight Democratic Ticket” lever… because it’ll be proof positive that the Republican party itself is too sick and stupid to govern and needs to be put out of its misery.
Rightfully, his name is objectionable only because it represents his patrician roots, which are expressed in the political instincts evident in his father and brother as well as himself.
Changing his name, of course, doesn’t change his roots or his instincts, but if there are voters out there who don’t know he’s a Bush, changing his name would deprive them of a clue they might need in deciding whether to support him.
And that would, actually, make him more “electable” in the non-Rovian sense.
There is, indeed, much in a name. Names, like definitions, fundamentally change the perception of something, while doing nothing to change the thing itself. This is true both for the man with dynastic line his intent, and for many other words he uses as well.
Let us take love for example, a word oft spoken by the man seeking his birthright royal. Love is a powerful word, one with a deep emotional effect. The phrase “act of Love” conjures up all sorts of images, ranging from noble sacrifice to, in the minds of some, the downright pornographic.
So, this raises the question of what his highness Jeb means when he says illegal immigration is “an act of Love.”. He may well be right, after all, one can likewise argue, with bear equal veracity, that burglary is an act of love (It’s quite reasonable to suppose that burglar would love to have your stuff, thus his taking of it is an act of love). Robbery likewise.
Or… perhaps those for whom the phrase conjures up pornographic imagery are right after all, and the phrase simply means that we’re about to get royally f…d.
*****************
@ Rand; I know I’m pushing the boundaries of tasteful posting here with the final line above one, so if you have any objections whatsoever, please don’t hesitate to nuke this reply.
Earnest & Julio Gallo?
Objecting to Bush because of his family name is ridiculous. And it’s proven by the fact that the majority of people who object to Bush on those grounds are pushing Hillary, voted for Al Gore JUNIOR (people forget that) and hare even hyping CHELSEA CLINTON for a congressional seat.
The legit reason to object to Bush is he’s come out in favor of common core and comprehensive immigration reform.
There are a lot of people who vote Republican that do not want another Bush. Maybe in another generation.
@ MarkD
I object to Jeb Bush, and his name is sort of part of it. The reason his name is relevant is that he’s part of a political family – a political dynasty, and I find the concept of political dynasties highly objectionable. I’d feel the same on that issue if he’d adopted his wife’s name. It’s not the name itself I object to, but the concept of dynasties. It’s unhealthy for democracy for so much power and influence to reside with one family. I feel likewise about the Kennedy and Clinton clans. Dynasties in congress bother me, but I find those involving the presidency more troubling.
However, my objections to Jeb Bush don’t stop there. His own words are an even greater cause of my dislike of him than the dynastic aspect.
And BTW, I’m a republican. I certainly did not vote for Gore, nor Clinton.
The last time I voted for a Democrat for ANYTHING was Clinton/Bush, when Poppy had done such a horrible job that even knowing what a vermin Clinton was I couldn’t stomach another term of his antics.
If the RNC nominates Jeb, I will pull the “Straight Democratic Ticket” lever… because it’ll be proof positive that the Republican party itself is too sick and stupid to govern and needs to be put out of its misery.
Rightfully, his name is objectionable only because it represents his patrician roots, which are expressed in the political instincts evident in his father and brother as well as himself.
Changing his name, of course, doesn’t change his roots or his instincts, but if there are voters out there who don’t know he’s a Bush, changing his name would deprive them of a clue they might need in deciding whether to support him.
And that would, actually, make him more “electable” in the non-Rovian sense.