Gyroscopic Investing

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/george ... /id/501327

Is he a viable candidate? Can a Bush win?

I think a lot of Republicans have difficulty wrapping their mind around just how tainted the Bush brand has become. He'd face some stiff headwinds, that's for sure. One would hope that Republicans have learned from their candidate selection blunders in 2008 and 2012 and nominate someone with a prayer of a chance of winning in today's America.

Have you noticed that no one ever talks about George Bush anymore? It's like America got black out drunk and is trying to forget what little bits and pieces it remembers about the one night bender.

Jeb Bush is not a candidate who could win, though he seems like a perfectly nice and decent fellow.

melveyr wrote: Have you noticed that no one ever talks about George Bush anymore? It's like America got black out drunk and is trying to forget what little bits and pieces it remembers about the one night bender.

It took 4.5 years of Obama for people to start remembering Bush more fondly.  Their approval ratings are now tied.

clacy wrote:

melveyr wrote: Have you noticed that no one ever talks about George Bush anymore? It's like America got black out drunk and is trying to forget what little bits and pieces it remembers about the one night bender.

It took 4.5 years of Obama for people to start remembering Bush more fondly.  Their approval ratings are now tied.

I'd be interested to see Clinton's.  My guess is north of 70%.

Of the various members of the Bush dynasty he is, after Bush 41 who I always rather liked, the most sane. But I have to agree with the consensus in the preceding posts. The country probably is not ready for another one as President. I only see one strong candidate in the GOP with broad national appeal right now. And that is New Jersey's Governor Chris Christie. I don't always agree with him, but he is a breath of fresh air in his frank pull no punches method of addressing issues. This is reflected by poll numbers that show he is extraordinarily popular even among people who are politically opposed to his views, like most lefties.

Unfortunately the exception to that is the hard right which cordially detests him. They see him as a RINO for failing to hue to strict right wing orthodoxy. And sadly ideological purity may well be the main determinant in nominating the next Republican presidential candidate. Romney was a moderate, but he only got it because the Tea Party was divided and could not rally around a single candidate. Maybe Christie will get lucky in the same way.

FWIW I think he is the only Republican out there who has a good shot at beating HRC if she runs.

But he's fat. I don't think America will vote for a fat guy in this day and age. I'm so sorry that I'm not joking… 

And it didn't matter that Romney was a moderate, he was a slick Wall Street financier. REJECTED!

Things like these are far, far more important than a politician's issue positions. Most voters turn out to not know where their candidate stands on most issues.

I definitely agree that Christie's weight will hurt him. And as refreshingly candid as he is, that will eventually come back to hurt him when his words are twisted by the liberal press. Jeb is better looking, more personable, has a built-in team of winners around him, takes Florida automatically, and is much less likely to be tripped up by the biased liberal press.

But he is a Bush.

Who is that? Do you mean Rand Paul? He can only get my support if he proves to me that he is not an isolationist. That is my litmus test.

Reub wrote: Who is that? Do you mean Rand Paul? He can only get my support if he proves to me that he is not an isolationist. That is my litmus test.

How interesting that you knew who I was referring to...
And I'm pretty sure he isn't an isolationist, which is someone who believes in autarky.

TennPaGa,

I respectfully disagree... I think if the Tea Party could have found someone half decent that could gain momentum without saying something incredibly stupid (Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan (where's that facepalm emoticon when you need it)), or finally having all their previous stupid statements come out they would have one.  I was convinced Romney would lose to someone when the far right picked their favoritte wacko.  I had no idea they'd be so inept at stringing together a coherent sentence.  The only people that come out to vote in these primaries are arden't republicans (or democrats) for the most part.  Not "balanced-minded indpendents."

Reub wrote: Who is that? Do you mean Rand Paul? He can only get my support if he proves to me that he is not an isolationist. That is my litmus test.

LOL We have the same litmus test. Though I think we are looking for different results. I suspect we won't be voting for the same person in 2016. I'm done voting for neo-imperialists.

You won't vote for a neo-con. And I won't vote for a neo-phyte!

Ad Orientem wrote:

Reub wrote: Who is that? Do you mean Rand Paul? He can only get my support if he proves to me that he is not an isolationist. That is my litmus test.

LOL We have the same litmus test. Though I think we are looking for different results. I suspect we won't be voting for the same person in 2016. I'm done voting for neo-imperialists.

Then you will probably have to vote for Rand Paul or stay home; he is the only non-imperialist likely to be in the running.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote:

Reub wrote: Who is that? Do you mean Rand Paul? He can only get my support if he proves to me that he is not an isolationist. That is my litmus test.

LOL We have the same litmus test. Though I think we are looking for different results. I suspect we won't be voting for the same person in 2016. I'm done voting for neo-imperialists.

Then you will probably have to vote for Rand Paul or stay home; he is the only non-imperialist likely to be in the running.

I may well vote libertarian. My vote is irrelevant anyway as I live in California. This state is as reliably blue as South Carolina is red. Seriously, unless you live in one of maybe 7 competitive states in a normal election year you may as well stay home unless there are some local issues you care about on the ballot.

I agree with most here, Jeb Bush would at best be an extreme long shot for president because of residual malice towards his brother.  Too bad, because having observed and experienced him govern when I lived in Florida,  I'm convinced he would have made a better president.

W's numbers have improved a lot since he left office and it was honestly very refreshing to see him today at the opening of his Presidential library. He always seemed to say what was really on his mind, unlike his successor. After the next 3 years we may be clamoring for another Bush. Who knows?

Pointedstick wrote: I think a lot of Republicans have difficulty wrapping their mind around just how tainted the Bush brand has become. He'd face some stiff headwinds, that's for sure. One would hope that Republicans have learned from their candidate selection blunders in 2008 and 2012 and nominate someone with a prayer of a chance of winning in today's America.

Don't hold your breath.  The party is dying.  I fear Reub will be the last man to leave the sinking ship!

I don't see how the Bush brand is damaged to Republicans.  What am I missing?

And don't forget a third party is due to make an influence in the next election.  It is likely to split the Republican vote as usual and let HRC win unless a true miracle happens and they win themselves!

cnh wrote: I agree with most here, Jeb Bush would at best be an extreme long shot for president because of residual malice towards his brother.  Too bad, because having observed and experienced him govern when I lived in Florida,  I'm convinced he would have made a better president.

W was quite a successful governor here in Texas.  In fact he was the first governor ever re-elected to consecutive terms.

Reub wrote: W's numbers have improved a lot since he left office and it was honestly very refreshing to see him today at the opening of his Presidential library. He always seemed to say what was really on his mind, unlike his successor. After the next 3 years we may be clamoring for another Bush. Who knows?

No, he did not always say what was on his mind, which was further ways to increase his power to invade our privacy and take away our remaining freedoms. He did say that a few times, perhaps accidentally, e.g.,

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004 (Watch video clip) "
(from http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bush ... otes_3.htm)

“If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier... as long as I'm the dictator. Hehehe.”?
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8221-if ... -be-a-heck

In any event, he was clearly the worst president in my lifetime... until the current one.

Ad Orientem wrote:I may well vote libertarian. My vote is irrelevant anyway as I live in California. This state is as reliably blue as South Carolina is red.

Then how do Republican governors like Wilson and Swarzenegger get elected in CA?

rocketdog wrote: Then how do Republican governors like Wilson and Swarzenegger get elected in CA?

Dunno much about Wilson, but Schwarzeneggar had several things going for him:

1. Deeply unpopular sitting governor from the opposite party
2. Hollywood celebrity in a state obsessed with Hollywood celebrities
3. Moderate Republican, almost a Democrat in many ways; actually lined up fairly well with California's political mood at the time
4. He's frikkin Arnold Schwarzenegger! A lot of people voted for him because it just seemed like the opportunity of a lifetime (kind of like Obama's first presidential election, IMHO)

Libertarian666 wrote: No, he did not always say what was on his mind, which was further ways to increase his power to invade our privacy and take away our remaining freedoms.

Luckily we have a democrat in the White House now, who will correct all that. Right?

rocketdog wrote: Then how do Republican governors like Wilson and Swarzenegger get elected in CA?

They are Rockefeller Republicans.  True conservatives are viewed as pipsqueaks in Blue States.  It's just too 1950's for Progressives (you know, before the emancipation of women, blacks, gays & the handicapped along with heaping pats of Great Society Butter).  Even Reagan was a Rockefeller Republican from CA.

Short of Rosa Parks, has anything progressive ever first occured in a Red State?  I'm stumped.