Those dummies are going to bring back karl rove to run Jeb Bush

[Zarius]

I kid you not

Between the Lines: Karl Rove far from finished, even with big losses in 2012 campaign | Wayne Slater Columns - News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News

If it were a choice between Jeb and Hillary, I'd give Jeb a serious look.

Jeb's only real liability is that his name is Bush.

His assets are that he's a moderate to conservative, very successful governor of an important swing state, who is married to a Hispanic woman, who has the street cred to stand up to the Teabaggers and other crazies and reach out to moderates.

And who knows, by 2016, people might be more fond of his brother. If you told me in 1993 that another Bush could get elected, I'd have looked at you funny.

Jeb Bush is too hispanic friendly to get much support from republicans. If he won, democrats would have to vote for him.

It would take four years of real misery for that to happen. Aint gonna happen.

 

[Zarius]

Also we would bring attention back to guys like this

Tom Delay Still Waiting To Learn Legal Fate

 

[LordBrownTrout]

But yall were just saying that him and christie would be an excellent choice.

 

[U2Edge]

I have to shake my head in wonder at u2edge writing, "Thats actually not true and although W has taking a beating in recent years, he will be seen in a much better light in the future," when considering Jeb's opportunity in 2016. (1) W will never been seen in even a bit better much less a whole better light in the future. He really has the inside edge in falling lower than Carter, Grant, Harding, and Buchanan. (2) Neo-con imperialism is indelibly identified with the bushies; every sane person alive then will never forgive them for what they did to the country from 2003 to 2008.

Neo-conservatives as well as soc cons who force their values on others through big government statism from the progressive right wing are as smelly and stinky as are left wing statist progressives with limiting soft drink sizes or magazine limits or other big government weenies wanting to tell the rest of us what to do.

Let's slow down, folks, and start thinking.

Well, name calling and labeling is certainly not thinking. Nor is absolutism. There is an objective way to examine the economic record as well as the foreign policy record in light of long standing historical US interest and needs. On Foreign Policy, there is actually more more continuity and similarities between Clinton, Bush, and Obama than many would think.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I kid you not

Between the Lines: Karl Rove far from finished, even with big losses in 2012 campaign | Wayne Slater Columns - News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News

If the Republicans insist on clinging to their old out-dated ideals we may witness the disintegration of a major American political party for the first time in well over a century.

 

[U2Edge]

I kid you not

Between the Lines: Karl Rove far from finished, even with big losses in 2012 campaign | Wayne Slater Columns - News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News

If it were a choice between Jeb and Hillary, I'd give Jeb a serious look.

Jeb's only real liability is that his name is Bush.

His assets are that he's a moderate to conservative, very successful governor of an important swing state, who is married to a Hispanic woman, who has the street cred to stand up to the Teabaggers and other crazies and reach out to moderates.

And who knows, by 2016, people might be more fond of his brother. If you told me in 1993 that another Bush could get elected, I'd have looked at you funny.

He will be tied to cheney,rumsfield. If things go well the next four and you guys run the next bush(no fault of his) he will lose.

But the last time A BUSH was on the ticket, the Democrats losts! LOL

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, stop the whine. We no more need right-wing progressive statist neo-conservatism than we need far right wing isolationism or left-wing ultra-internationalism.

Now, if you are saying "no more pre-emptive warfares" as an ante, I will listen to you.

I have to shake my head in wonder at u2edge writing, "Thats actually not true and although W has taking a beating in recent years, he will be seen in a much better light in the future," when considering Jeb's opportunity in 2016. (1) W will never been seen in even a bit better much less a whole better light in the future. He really has the inside edge in falling lower than Carter, Grant, Harding, and Buchanan. (2) Neo-con imperialism is indelibly identified with the bushies; every sane person alive then will never forgive them for what they did to the country from 2003 to 2008.

Neo-conservatives as well as soc cons who force their values on others through big government statism from the progressive right wing are as smelly and stinky as are left wing statist progressives with limiting soft drink sizes or magazine limits or other big government weenies wanting to tell the rest of us what to do.

Let's slow down, folks, and start thinking.

Well, name calling and labeling is certainly not thinking. Nor is absolutism. There is an objective way to examine the economic record as well as the foreign policy record in light of long standing historical US interest and needs. On Foreign Policy, there is actually more more continuity and similarities between Clinton, Bush, and Obama than many would think.

 

[U2Edge]

If it were a choice between Jeb and Hillary, I'd give Jeb a serious look.

Jeb's only real liability is that his name is Bush.

His assets are that he's a moderate to conservative, very successful governor of an important swing state, who is married to a Hispanic woman, who has the street cred to stand up to the Teabaggers and other crazies and reach out to moderates.

And who knows, by 2016, people might be more fond of his brother. If you told me in 1993 that another Bush could get elected, I'd have looked at you funny.

Jeb Bush is too hispanic friendly to get much support from republicans. If he won, democrats would have to vote for him.

It would take four years of real misery for that to happen. Aint gonna happen.

The average monthly unemployment rate of the 46 months he has been in office is 9%! The current rate is 7.9%. Under Bush, the average unemployment rate for is 96 months in office was 5.27%, one of the lowest rates in history. Obama succeeded in blaming Bush for the countries problems this time as well as appealing to heavily to the non-white vote. But that Democrats won't be able to do that in 2016. Even under the best of circumstances, at the end of his 2nd term, the average monthly unemployment rate for all 96 months under Obama will likely still be above 8%. Thats the third highest average rate for a President in US history and no where near Bush's record low of 5.27%!

The Democrats may have been given a second chance with Obama, but they won't get a third with a new candidate in 2016.

 

[U2Edge]

Oh, stop the whine. We no more need right-wing progressive statist neo-conservatism than we need far right wing isolationism or left-wing ultra-internationalism.

Now, if you are saying "no more pre-emptive warfares" as an ante, I will listen to you.

I have to shake my head in wonder at u2edge writing, "Thats actually not true and although W has taking a beating in recent years, he will be seen in a much better light in the future," when considering Jeb's opportunity in 2016. (1) W will never been seen in even a bit better much less a whole better light in the future. He really has the inside edge in falling lower than Carter, Grant, Harding, and Buchanan. (2) Neo-con imperialism is indelibly identified with the bushies; every sane person alive then will never forgive them for what they did to the country from 2003 to 2008.

Neo-conservatives as well as soc cons who force their values on others through big government statism from the progressive right wing are as smelly and stinky as are left wing statist progressives with limiting soft drink sizes or magazine limits or other big government weenies wanting to tell the rest of us what to do.

Let's slow down, folks, and start thinking.

Well, name calling and labeling is certainly not thinking. Nor is absolutism. There is an objective way to examine the economic record as well as the foreign policy record in light of long standing historical US interest and needs. On Foreign Policy, there is actually more more continuity and similarities between Clinton, Bush, and Obama than many would think.

I'm not the one whining or engaging in absolutism. LOL

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good analysis. The dems will argue that the conditions set up by the Gingrich-DeLay-Bush GOP was so bad that it took eight years to bring the numbers down. I think the GOP can successfully argue against that, particularly if we reach way out to Hispanics and to women. If try to engage neo-conservative issues, the women and Hispanics will vote overwhelming against the GOP.

 

[Votto]

Behold, the future of the GOP



Did I say future? LOL.

 

[Votto]

Good analysis. The dems will argue that the conditions set up by the Gingrich-DeLay-Bush GOP was so bad that it took eight years to bring the numbers down. I think the GOP can successfully argue against that, particularly if we reach way out to Hispanics and to women. If try to engage neo-conservative issues, the women and Hispanics will vote overwhelming against the GOP.

How about if the GOP hands out free cell phones at the border?

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you are going to Mexico, sure, we can give you a phone.

 

[JoeB131]

[


He will be tied to cheney,rumsfield. If things go well the next four and you guys run the next bush(no fault of his) he will lose.

I think by 2016, most people will have forgotten about Cheney and Rumsfeld. By continuing the war on terror, Obama has nuetralized it as a potent issue.

Keep in mind, in 1980, Ronald Reagan called Vietnam a noble cause. People thought he was absolutely nuts, but it resonated with people whose sons had fought over there.

If the economy goes well in the next four years, that isn't really transferable to another Democrat. Just ask Al Gore.

The biggest problem is with any party holding the presidency for four years is that the air is sucked out of the room for the up and comers. They all reflect on their president.

Now, I think the GOP has a lot of problems to solve, with women, minorities and working people. Romney will be the last Plutocrat they'll run in a while.

 

[Votto]

[


He will be tied to cheney,rumsfield. If things go well the next four and you guys run the next bush(no fault of his) he will lose.

I think by 2016, most people will have forgotten about Cheney and Rumsfeld. By continuing the war on terror, Obama has nuetralized it as a potent issue.

Keep in mind, in 1980, Ronald Reagan called Vietnam a noble cause. People thought he was absolutely nuts, but it resonated with people whose sons had fought over there.

If the economy goes well in the next four years, that isn't really transferable to another Democrat. Just ask Al Gore.

The biggest problem is with any party holding the presidency for four years is that the air is sucked out of the room for the up and comers. They all reflect on their president.

Now, I think the GOP has a lot of problems to solve, with women, minorities and working people. Romney will be the last Plutocrat they'll run in a while.

How can anyone forget the Bush name?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlcE3HVRlRs]Funny and Dumb Bush Quotes/Moments - YouTube[/ame]

Bush Sr. was the only president not to win 2 terms since 1980. What a family of losers.

Without Reagan Bush Sr. would never have been president and then neither would "W" have been. Reagan made the mistake of reaching out to the "moderates" in the party by picking Bush Sr. as VP. Unfortunately, the Bush family then destroyed the party.

 

[Annie]

I kid you not

Between the Lines: Karl Rove far from finished, even with big losses in 2012 campaign | Wayne Slater Columns - News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News

Why would you care? It's not 'your party.' I'm sure this Obama term will be so good that the opposition won't have a prayer.

Personally I wish each side would mind their own party.

 

[Toro]

Bush Sr. was the only president not to win 2 terms since 1980. What a family of losers.

Yeah, the family only won the White House three times, and another member was a two-time governor of Florida.

How can they even show their faces around Houston?