Equating a geographic “dynasty” (a true contortion of the essence of the term “dynasty”) with a FAMILY, especially a family with such a uniform political perspective is ridiculous.
The intent of the article is transparent.
NO MORE DAMN BUSHES. They have done damage ENOUGH!!!!!
At first, I was going to disagree. It's a metaphor after all and that involves finding similarities in things that aren't exactly the same. Jefferson and Madison were closer to one another than some Roosevelts or Harrisons or Tafts or Stevensons or Frelinghuysens spread out over generations were. The New York Yankees were a "dynasty" (metaphorically), but that doesn't mean that Ruth and Gehrig and DiMaggio and Mantle and Jackson and Jeter were blood relatives.
But after reading through the article -- yeah, the writer does make way too much of the "Virginia Dynasty" or the "Ohio Dynasty" which were very different from people just electing members of the same family. Simply brushing aside the concerns people have about "creeping elitism, the decaying republican character of the government, or a monarchical impulse in the people" as the author does, doesn't make any good case for Jeb (or Hillary).