Jeb Bush, will he run?

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yeah, you know what you have to do to get sent to jail in France?

How do you know for sure how many people are imprisoned in North Korea, China or Iran?

If we could get the Democrats and Republicans off their failed war on drugs we would improve not just that rate but reduce South American violence and give them the chance to develop more stability in their political and economic forms.

 

[RobDownSouth]

False premise.

They did in 2010 and won hardily and the the Rove-Bush wing joined with the Democrats to destroy them.

*sob....we'll always have 2010...*

After getting your situational Native American testicles kicked in 2006 and 2008, your Republicans came up with a winning formula in the off-year elections of 2010: Block the Vote.

Put as many roadblocks as possible to keep "undesirables" (read: non-white, non-male, non-Englsh speaking, non-retired) from voting and reap the rewards.

Twas a pity that didn't work when ALL of America turns out to vote in a presidential election.

But hey...Don't Stop Believin'........

 

[LadyVer]

That is a slander.

If I disagree with you on a point, it does not lead to being a Republican. That is the black and white thinking of the consensus and I resent and reject it.

Joe Biden is not articulate. Does that make him a Republican? because he shames not one Democrat American the way George Bush shamed them. Is not such a double-standard the stuff of hypocrisy?

For the record, in plain English, and please try to remember this, I am a half-breed atheist Libertarian of the Rothbard wing. I was raised a Democrat by dirt farmers and union people. I protested the Vietnam War. I became a Libertarian because their belief system was closest to mine at a time when the two major parties were becoming more and more Social Democrat and focusing on keeping us divided and speaking different languages, be it the intellectual, the political, the economic, the red-state-blue-state or Eubonics.

What slander? How would I know you're a Libertarian?.That's the first time I've seen you mention it. All 'I've seen you saying about parties is Democrat equals evil..Republicans equals good.

My point about articulation is that no president can be judged by what party they belong to on articulation alone. Geeze, look at GW and Carter. I don't get where you're getting the shame and double standard stuff from unless you're feeling insecure about something.

I have no idea what your being a halfbreed atheist has to do with what we've been discussing. As far as the rest of your background goes, who doesn't have experiences that have led to their political beliefs? You really need to chill and get off your high horse. Your academicese was much less on your comment here, which is a plus.

 

[Adre]

Slander? On the Interwebs? Oh no!

(Go find those big boy pants, Sparky)

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yeah, you know what you have to do to get sent to jail in France?

No...but I bet you milk doesn't land you a stay at the pen.

How do you know for sure how many people are imprisoned in North Korea, China or Iran?

Not beyond what google has to say on it...and they could be lying and actually running a gigantic network of prison/slave labor/death camps but that would just be conjecture, not something a scientist such as yourself partakes in seeing as it's so very frowned upon in the scientific community I'm sure.

But if you have some official/verified stat's showing they prosecute more people than we do be my guest. But everything I have seen on it...USA #1 by a very wide margin.

http://southernnationalist.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/USA-number-1-249x300.jpg
http://s4.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20120711&t=2&i=629033212&w=&fh=&fw=&ll=600&pl=390&r=2012-07-11T145018Z_01_GM1E87B0ZPY01_RTRRPP_0_USA-CALIFORNIA-PRISONS
http://blogs.westword.com/showandtell/08%20america%20fuck%20yeah.jpg

If we could get the Democrats and Republicans off their failed war on drugs we would improve not just that rate but reduce South American violence and give them the chance to develop more stability in their political and economic forms.

Oh I totally agree....but the other aspects of "welfare for billionaires through legislation for sale to boost/monopolize things for the cool kid's club while backhanding if not blatantly persecuting the competition" system we have has to come to a stop before there is any hope of that.

 

[hogjack]

Fuck Bush.

No not that one.

The Saudi-financed one.

 

[miles]

We need another Bush in the WH about as much as we need another Clinton.

 

[Wok]

False premise.

They did in 2010 and won hardily and the the Rove-Bush wing joined with the Democrats to destroy them.

Why did they not win in 2012?

 

[a1eyeblind1]

They really are unelectable. If we take the 40/40 split as read, both parties are fighting for that 20% in the middle. And to that 20%, the GOP look like insane people.

That is why I think Christi will be the front runner. They tried to use the fat thing against him in his first run....He knows he's fat, not apologetic about it...Next issue. and he is garnering an independent base by pissing off the gop...They all hated Mitt until he was the last man standing then fell in line behind him.

Hillary I doubt she has the heart for it any more, The mind is willing but the flesh is weak.

Wasserman Shultz as unlikely as Gindal. Rand will be a pain in the ass like his old man, good for a sound bite that's about it.

Rubio just another token minority, after "he is Latino" what else has he got? He isn't Palin stupid but not real quick on the uptake.

Joe is too old...

I think a Christi / Bush ticket to prove bush isn't as dumb as his namesake.

Unless the right stays the course with the snake charmers and crusaders it may be their best bet.

The left needs to bring someone out because if they have anyone they are hiding them pretty good.

 

[cleaver]

And then all those conservative winners ran two years later in 2012 and lost a dozen House seats and a few Senate seats even though the map was heavily tilted in their favor.

this is ridiculous:
it totally ignores the coattail effect of the top of the ticket in presidential elections...
the map - indeed, the trend - in most incumbent presidential re-elections - is for the president's party to regain seats lost in the traditionally 'bad' mid-terms previous...
the map that counts in presidential elections is the electoral map (and the general popular vote) - which the incumbent clearly dominated... and through which, his party also did quite well...

regardless:

the problems that the republican party has have more to do with identity and message than botching any perceived "favorable" maps...

 

[richard_daily]

Vette, I do not know and I do not care.

All I know is that the Republicans must be destroyed for the Press and the intellectuals to enjoy one party rule, so he will be destroyed by any manner possible as will all the others.

"Shotgun" Joe Biden could win the next election.

The things you don't know...

 

[Adre]

The problems of the Republican Party are:

Young
Black
Female
Asian
Hispanic
Independent
Immigrant
Collegiate

But it is still doing okay with pissed off older white men.

 

[cleaver]

The problems of the Republican Party are:

Young
Black
Female
Asian
Hispanic
Independent
Immigrant
Collegiate

But it is still doing okay with pissed off older white men.

well, if you'd like to apply just a bit of perspective that is actually germain to the subject at hand:

bush 41 was chosen as reagan's running mate precisely because he resonated with many on that list...( a list that dutch couldn't (yet) reach...)
ghwb's surprising run during the 1980 primary season was fueled by young people of various stripe who had not been part of any previous republican party...
these are the same disenfranchised moderate republicans who find the party that was promised has become something unrecognizable (cue: olympia snowe)
whereas howard dean - a generation later - invigorated a new base for the dems, 41 did the same for the repubs...

is there something in this for jeb to glean?

outsiders... Jindal most notably... are already taking the party to task - invoking the very list above as a natural constituency that the current party has ignored... and that the party itself must be bigger than the "conservative" party...

C-PAC is this week, right? Its line-up is the most myopic one yet...
among some notable omissions (christie and bob mcdonnell).
this year's incest also won't include long time co-sponsor, go-proud (a conservative gay group)...

these fucking idiots have got to relearn that exclusion is about clubs, not partys...

C PAC is truly shaping up as a last waltz by the titanic string quartet...

and, if jeb appears - as he is scheduled to do - he'd do himself a world of good to delineate his differences from the current "party" line and some pragmatic political vision ... ala a reality douche.

 

[bronzeage]

The problems of the Republican Party are:

Young
Black
Female
Asian
Hispanic
Independent
Immigrant
Collegiate

But it is still doing okay with pissed off older white men.

I'm a pissed off older white man and I'm not voting for a Republican unless Dwight Eisenhower comes back from the dead.

 

[mercury14]

this is ridiculous:
it totally ignores the coattail effect of the top of the ticket in presidential elections...
the map - indeed, the trend - in most incumbent presidential re-elections - is for the president's party to regain seats lost in the traditionally 'bad' mid-terms previous...
the map that counts in presidential elections is the electoral map (and the general popular vote) - which the incumbent clearly dominated... and through which, his party also did quite well...

The Democrats had to defend 21 seats while the Republicans only had to defend 10. That tells anyone with a preschool education that the Republican party started off with a massive advantage on the map.

Step two: The GOP had just come off a sweeping campaign of House redistricting. So thorough was their gerrymandering bullshit that the Republican party kept the House by a fair margin despite losing the popular vote by half a million votes. That's a monumental map advantage, period.

regardless:

the problems that the republican party has have more to do with identity and message than botching any perceived "favorable" maps...

Messaging? Are you fucking serious? The 47% comment was exactly what the conservative message was during the election and we know that because that's also their message post-election. A xenophobic immigration policy was communicated well. Fuck the Dreamers, remember? The Republican hypocritical message of shrinking government spending while piling on another $2 trillion in defense and another $750 billion in Medicare spending was communicated well. Romney's economic plan basically didn't have any numbers in it but that's not a messaging problem, that's just another insult to the American people.

No, the Republican Party communicated their identity very well during the election. America just doesn't like who they are.

 

[RobDownSouth]

C PAC is truly shaping up as a last waltz by the titanic string quartet...

and, if jeb appears - as he is scheduled to do - he'd do himself a world of good to delineate his differences from the current "party" line and some pragmatic political vision ... ala a reality douche.

Agreed, but it's not going to happen.

CPAC is a gathering of the faithful, the "true believers".

It's the most intense echo chamber in the world, and new ideas are considered heresy.

Even AJ and Vetteman, two of our most rabid fringe wingnuts here would not be welcome at CPAC. (AJ due to his mixed race background, Vetty due to his bisexuality...."no mongrels and no homos").

 

[CHNOPS]

well, if you'd like to apply just a bit of perspective that is actually germain to the subject at hand:

bush 41 was chosen as reagan's running mate precisely because he resonated with many on that list...( a list that dutch couldn't (yet) reach...)
ghwb's surprising run during the 1980 primary season was fueled by young people of various stripe who had not been part of any previous republican party...
these are the same disenfranchised moderate republicans who find the party that was promised has become something unrecognizable (cue: olympia snowe)
whereas howard dean - a generation later - invigorated a new base for the dems, 41 did the same for the repubs...

is there something in this for jeb to glean?

outsiders... Jindal most notably... are already taking the party to task - invoking the very list above as a natural constituency that the current party has ignored... and that the party itself must be bigger than the "conservative" party...

C-PAC is this week, right? Its line-up is the most myopic one yet...
among some notable omissions (christie and bob mcdonnell).
this year's incest also won't include long time co-sponsor, go-proud (a conservative gay group)...

these fucking idiots have got to relearn that exclusion is about clubs, not partys...

C PAC is truly shaping up as a last waltz by the titanic string quartet...

and, if jeb appears - as he is scheduled to do - he'd do himself a world of good to delineate his differences from the current "party" line and some pragmatic political vision ... ala a reality douche.

All of this, plus/but: the R's tend to be a party of strategy, the D's of branding. That means the R's will embrace (ultimately) anyone who they think will deliver an election. Their primaries are competent-offs to show who can Get Stuff Done, in the past and going forward. Conversely, the D's want you to know that they really really care about you; their primaries are populist-offs, to show who most Feels Your Pain.

In general, we tend to reward populist candidates, and punish populist presidents. We essentially want a Democratic primary candidate and a Republican Chief Executive.

The R interest in Jeb is strategic: he seems like someone who can win an election. But it may also be paradoxical: a general electorate will likely be suspicious of a candidate who appears to view his election as a foregone conclusion/birthright, especially one who conjures up memories of the Least Conservative Republican in history, George "If You Spend It, I Will Hide It" Bush. Jeb, even more than George Jr. recalls watch-checking Daddy who didn't know that supermarket scanners existed. I can't see that bloodline representing anything more than Romney 2.0 in a post-Obama election landscape.

Besides, I'm waiting for Christie to run so I can vote him all up.

 

[cleaver]

The Democrats had to defend 21 seats while the Republicans only had to defend 10. That tells anyone with a preschool education that the Republican party started off with a massive advantage on the map.

Step two: The GOP had just come off a sweeping campaign of House redistricting. So thorough was their gerrymandering bullshit that the Republican party kept the House by a fair margin despite losing the popular vote by half a million votes. That's a monumental map advantage, period.

Messaging? Are you fucking serious? The 47% comment was exactly what the conservative message was during the election and we know that because that's also their message post-election. A xenophobic immigration policy was communicated well. Fuck the Dreamers, remember? The Republican hypocritical message of shrinking government spending while piling on another $2 trillion in defense and another $750 billion in Medicare spending was communicated well. Romney's economic plan basically didn't have any numbers in it but that's not a messaging problem, that's just another insult to the American people.

No, the Republican Party communicated their identity very well during the election. America just doesn't like who they are.

i cannot quite find the handles on this eely response...
nor can i separate the wheat from the froth...

i get it. you hate bush. you hate republicans. you find villainy to manufacture where pure politics would alone suffice... 435 + 33 + 2 were available, not just 31 seats... and though many were virtually uncontested, the general make-up of the house/senate/and exec stayed within the norms of a coat-tail re-election...

redistricting had to do with the 2010 census and... yes... i know, the red devil stole this too....!

i do agree that the republican party is in a state of disrepair... i mentioned identity and message (and later, inclusiveness, amongst other salients)

you can ease up and take a breath or two...

i get it merc.

use the spittoon on your way out...
and a moist towlette.

*i know better*

and yes i do. i do know better.

All of this, plus/but: the R's tend to be a party of strategy, the D's of branding. That means the R's will embrace (ultimately) anyone who they think will deliver an election. Their primaries are competent-offs to show who can Get Stuff Done, in the past and going forward. Conversely, the D's want you to know that they really really care about you; their primaries are populist-offs, to show who most Feels Your Pain.

In general, we tend to reward populist candidates, and punish populist presidents. We essentially want a Democratic primary candidate and a Republican Chief Executive.

The R interest in Jeb is strategic: he seems like someone who can win an election. But it may also be paradoxical: a general electorate will likely be suspicious of a candidate who appears to view his election as a foregone conclusion/birthright, especially one who conjures up memories of the Least Conservative Republican in history, George "If You Spend It, I Will Hide It" Bush. Jeb, even more than George Jr. recalls watch-checking Daddy who didn't know that supermarket scanners existed. I can't see that bloodline representing anything more than Romney 2.0 in a post-Obama election landscape.

Besides, I'm waiting for Christie to run so I can vote him all up.

as to christie: what an interesting dude.

i think that if... (and i hate to make this sound trite, but...)
i think that if he is packaged 'right',
he would be the nelson rockefeller that nelson rockefeller could never be...
by that, i mean...
he could be the pragmatic centrist republican
who could transform the party...

believe it or not, other than having to defend a last name,
jeb is 'that guy' too.

and... i keep tossing this in... but, jindal - if you can discount the nasal and the "wrong kind of " swarthy, is in that league as well...

the republicans need to reinvent.
to do so, they have to be bold.

and they really don't have to look all that far.

you are so right. it is about getting elected.

perhaps it is in the interest of the party to not try to elect a paper cut out - i.e romney
but rather, to try to elect someone... qualified but..."handicapped"

like an obese guy
or
a paki dude
or
a guy with an unfortunate last name...

something positive to "overcome" and rally for...
to focus/refocus upon
to positively challenge dubious preconceptions...

kind of like...?



politics has always been more intricate than the conservative
white/black simplists have wanted to make it...

in that's the essence of the future of a party.

 

[Wrong Element]

The media focus on Chris Christie is 100% due to his proximity to New York City and the journalists who live there. Out in the parts of the country where actual Republicans live, I don't think there's any enthusiasm for the guy.

Don't be surprised if Rick Perry runs again, nutty as that might sound. Somebody is going to be the "Southern" candidate in the 2016 Republican primaries, and I'm not seeing anyone else dropping hints about being interested. There's also the fact that the only recent Republican presidential nominee who hadn't run and failed at least once before had the advantage of being named after a previous President. And so far as I know, none of the previous losers have shown an interest in trying again.

If Perry doesn't run for re-election next year, watch out, America.

 

[CHNOPS]

as to christie: what an interesting dude.

i think that if... (and i hate to make this sound trite, but...)
i think that if he is packaged 'right',
he would be the nelson rockefeller that nelson rockefeller could never be...
by that, i mean...
he could be the pragmatic centrist republican
who could transform the party...

believe it or not, other than having to defend a last name,
jeb is 'that guy' too.

and... i keep tossing this in... but, jindal - if you can discount the nasal and the "wrong kind of " swarthy, is in that league as well...

the republicans need to reinvent.
to do so, they have to be bold.

and they really don't have to look all that far.

you are so right. it is about getting elected.

perhaps it is in the interest of the party to not try to elect a paper cut out - i.e romney
but rather, to try to elect someone... qualified but..."handicapped"

like an obese guy
or
a paki dude
or
a guy with an unfortunate last name...

something positive to "overcome" and rally for...
to focus/refocus upon
to positively challenge dubious preconceptions...

kind of like...?



politics has always been more intricate than the conservative
white/black simplists have wanted to make it...

in that's the essence of the future of a party.

Jindahl will never be an R candidate for president, not because of the Paki element, but because of the wimp factor. For all his lanky effeteness, Obama summons baritonal command when he needs it. Jindahl can never stand on a debate stage in the party of Men Among Men (even the women) and emerge favorably. Having said that, he's a lock for a VP slot on some ticket, some day soon.

Agreed about Christie's potential.

Regarding WE's Christie post...I think you're viewing him through the Democratic lens of, "does he represent our best visions for the party and the people?" That's the populist lens, not the strategic one. On the R side, the metric is almost always, "Can he win?" Look how quickly the party coalesced around a centrist governor of an eastern liberal state who implemented a massive socialist policy and prays to a Mormon God, when it became clear he was their best shot at the White House (where they disdained the centrist Congressman who implemented a massive socialist policy and prays to a Muslim God).

More to the point, if New Jersey's proximity to NYC were Christie's only or best feature, we'd also be hearing about John Corzine or Richard Codey as possible candidates.

Give Christie credit where it's due: he's had an outsized (I know, I know) influence on the national dialogue, a Republican governor of a Democratic state who has done his best to appeal to the far-rightest of the fiscal conservatives while giving the middle finger to his party when he had to choose between them and his constituents. He's a goombah version of Bloomberg (who is way too Jewish and sexually ambiguous to be president, but might make a good Commerce Secretary some day). Any fly-over ambivalence toward him would dissolve after the first round of debates.

Agreed that Ricky is not going to be satisfied as a national punchline; they fed his head too many Nuclear Ego ChunksTM for him to leave the buffet just yet.

 

[unregistered]

 

[phrodeau]

Amy Carter could beat Jeb Bush.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Jindahl will never be an R candidate for president, not because of the Paki element, but because of the wimp factor. For all his lanky effeteness, Obama summons baritonal command when he needs it. Jindahl can never stand on a debate stage in the party of Men Among Men (even the women) and emerge favorably. Having said that, he's a lock for a VP slot on some ticket, some day soon.

Agreed. I always thought that John Kerry was the poster child for lack of charisma, but Bobby Jindal is in a class by himself. I'm absolutely dumbfounded that such a God awful public speaker with absolutely zero personal charisma was able to win statewide office.

I defy anyone to listen to Jindal speak more than 4-5 minutes and not A) cringe or B) fall asleep.

 

[unregistered]

 

[LadyVer]

Try and remember there are many unfamiliar with the turmoil in the Republican Party. Those low information voters on the left who failed to identify the Marxist streak in Obama and the threat to our freedom he and his soviet ideas represent, cannot be expected to parse the differences in philosophy between Republicans, especially when those opposing concepts have been systematically expunged from their memory by the dutiful propagandists in charge of the government "education" system and the complicit town criers in the MSM who's job it is to shout down and trample any new re-growth of past notions of liberty .

That is pure bullshit and you know it. Geeze, get a grip.