Letters: Are the Clintons really a dynasty?

Re "Tarnished political brands," Opinion, April 2

I am tired of hearing about the Bushes and the Clintons as comparable political dynasties. We've had one Clinton elected to the White House, and his wife served as a senator and then secretary of State in the Obama administration.

There is no comparison to the actual Bush dynasty. George H.W. Bush was head of the CIA, vice president and eventually president. His eldest son was governor of Texas and then president; another son was governor of Florida.

Jonah Goldberg even tries to make the case that President Obama looms large in the Clinton dynasty's "brand." This is far off the mark, but you can be sure it won't stop Republicans from trying to set up these false equivalencies, hoping some fool will bite.

Mary Reed

La Crescenta

Reading about these dynasties causes me to wonder to what depths the United States has sunk. How is it that the best efforts of this great nation result in reruns?

Is there no one out there from a plain old American family with an honest soul willing to run for president?

James S. McBride Jr.

Laguna Beach


Letters: The IPCC's wake-up call

Letters: What to do with an Israeli spy

Letters on letters: Ganging up on a millennial

Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times
EDITION: California | U.S. & World