Why not Jeb Bush for '12

[Mr. Shaman]

Jeb Bush would certainly be a qualified candidate for President. He successfully completed 2 terms as a popular governor of Florida. (Sarah couldn’t finish 1, Romney only had 1 term as Gov.) Florida is one of the most diverse states in the country and one of the largest (4th) in population. Alaska is 47th , Massachusetts is 15th in population rankings. He is popular with Hispanics (A crucial voting bloc) and has a Hispanic wife. He won 44% of the Jewish vote in 2002 and appeals to a diverse population that is essential in a national election. Although the name “Bush” might be a liability, I think that people who do vote would not hold that against him except some liberal Democrats who would never vote for a Republican even they were running against Hitler.

With his popularity in Florida and with the name of Bush in Texas (Also graduated from Texas) this would give him a good electoral starting base. Of course some conservative members of his party may have some issues with him but he can draw in the independent voter who ultimately decides the winner. I think Jeb Bush is a better candidate than Romney, Palin, or others who have been mentioned so far.

With memories of his brother's leadership fading, it's certainly a possibility. I've heard Jeb already has strategists sniffing around in the right places to see what his chances are. He certainly wouldn't be the worst choice, for sure. But far-right conservatives should remember that Jeb Bush is old-school GOP conservative, like his father.

....And, his background in health-care should be a big-plus, as well.

​

 

[MaggieMae]

For one, he was the stupidest Bush there was. And you have to be pretty stupid to beat Dubya at stupidity. Why is it people want to be ruled by stupid elites?

And why is anyone supposed to believe that? Because you say so? How about some credible justification for your opinion?

 

[MaggieMae]

Why is it people want to be ruled by stupid elites?

No idea. But Democrats get elected to high office all the time.

So do Republican elites.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Bush wasn't a good idea the first time, it was a worse idea the second time and any thought that the third time is a charm is optimism for optimism's sake.

Frankly, we're "Bushed"!!

No more members of New England aristocracy in the White House.

.....ESPECIALLY, the ones that're AFRAID OF HORSES!!!

*​

"Dubya has managed to cultivate the look and feel of a down-home good ol' boy. He acts like your wisecracking neighbor or maybe brother-in-law. This is no small accomplishment for someone who grew up with every possible advantagehttp://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/george-w-bush/: born into a family of immense wealth and political influence, attended a prestigious prep school, then Harvard and Yale. George became a millionaire in his own right at a very early age; while he was playing in Little League, the boy personally owned a million shares of his father's oil company. And yet, implausible as it may sound for someone born into such tremendous wealth and privilege, Bush somehow manages to pass for middle class."

 

[lizzie]

Oh God, please no, not another Bush. The Bush family is basically nothing but liberals in conservative clothing.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I would like to see only people with single syllable names run for President in 2012.

So far, we could have Jeb and Mitt. And others?

Ron ​

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPshmjwhkPA]YouTube - The B-52's (Rock Lobster Live)[/ame]

 

[Mr. Shaman]

But, as we see with the left wing loons in here, the obsession with the Boooooooooosssshhhhhhh name is not going to make him electable in the least

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I would like to see only people with single syllable names run for President in 2012.

So far, we could have Jeb and Mitt. And others?

Newt​

'Cause he FLIP/FLOPS better than anyone-else????? ​

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgVl8LbBuPE]YouTube - Keith O: Why is Disgraced, Deposed, UNELECTED Hypocrite Newt Gingrich All Over The TV Anyway?[/ame]​

 

[Ozmar]

We need someone by the last name of Shrub to run.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I like Jeb.

He was a good Gov in Florida.

....And, an ideal "conservative"-parent.....

.....but, Meg Whitman will (actually) be setting the precedenthttp://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/accusation-whitmans-son-hushed-up/.
​

 

[Rozman]

I say third time's the charm.....the " Trifecta", now you people are talking....That would be wicked cool.

 

[Toro]

Because America is not an aristocracy where power is handed back and forth between family members.

FFS, this is America, the greatest country the planet has ever seen. Are you telling me that the only people qualified to run it are named "Bush?" Or "Clinton" for that matter?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Because America is not an aristocracy where power is handed back and forth between family members.

FFS, this is America, the greatest country the planet has ever seen. Are you telling me that the only people qualified to run it are named "Bush?" Or "Clinton" for that matter?

Yeah....let's roll-the-dice, in 2010, even though we KNOW what does** (and, doesn't**) work. ​

** "Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."

** "Not only was the entire national deficit eliminated after raising taxes on the wealthy in 1993, but the economy grew so fast for the remainder of the decade that many conservative economists thought that the Fed should raise the prime interest rate in order to slow it down."

The CHOICE is obvious......

.....which brings us back to Republicans throwing money at all their challenges.... ​

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, Jeb was born in America and knows there are only 50 States in the USA, not 57 so he is at least as qualified as the monkey in the WH today, but I think Republicans have had enough Bush to last a lifetime.

 

[uscitizen]

Not Jeb for president, but John Ellis Bush.

 

[MaggieMae]

Well, Jeb was born in America and knows there are only 50 States in the USA, not 57 so he is at least as qualified as the monkey in the WH today, but I think Republicans have had enough Bush to last a lifetime.

Did anyone ever ask George how many states there were? (Ironically, many people answer 52!!) But George did think Africa was a country and that Mexicans spoke Mexican. But that wasn't what influenced my opinion of him. So there ya go.

Your pettiness is rather childish. I keep looking for a reason to return a pos rep for you, but so far I can't find anything.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Not Jeb for president, but John Ellis Bush.

Yeah....THAT'S what we need....another outta-control, drunken Bush (with a sense of entitlement) in the Oval Office.

​

"According to the arrest warrant, filed with the Travis County Municipal Court, an intoxicated Bush, 'continually pushed against this officer and struggled as I attempted to handcuff him.'

Whew!!!

Damned good thing he was White....and, in Texas!!​

 

[uscitizen]

Keep the Bush dynasty going and start up the Paul dynasty.

 

[eots]

Jeb Bush would certainly be a qualified candidate for President. He successfully completed 2 terms as a popular governor of Florida. (Sarah couldn’t finish 1, Romney only had 1 term as Gov.) Florida is one of the most diverse states in the country and one of the largest (4th) in population. Alaska is 47th , Massachusetts is 15th in population rankings. He is popular with Hispanics (A crucial voting bloc) and has a Hispanic wife. He won 44% of the Jewish vote in 2002 and appeals to a diverse population that is essential in a national election. Although the name “Bush” might be a liability, I think that people who do vote would not hold that against him except some liberal Democrats who would never vote for a Republican even they were running against Hitler.

With his popularity in Florida and with the name of Bush in Texas (Also graduated from Texas) this would give him a good electoral starting base. Of course some conservative members of his party may have some issues with him but he can draw in the independent voter who ultimately decides the winner. I think Jeb Bush is a better candidate than Romney, Palin, or others who have been mentioned so far.

in a nation where anyone supposedly can grow uo to be president the best you can think of is a another Bush..why not just return to a monarchy rule

 

[Wry Catcher]

Jeb Bush would certainly be a qualified candidate for President. He successfully completed 2 terms as a popular governor of Florida. (Sarah couldn’t finish 1, Romney only had 1 term as Gov.) Florida is one of the most diverse states in the country and one of the largest (4th) in population. Alaska is 47th , Massachusetts is 15th in population rankings. He is popular with Hispanics (A crucial voting bloc) and has a Hispanic wife. He won 44% of the Jewish vote in 2002 and appeals to a diverse population that is essential in a national election. Although the name “Bush” might be a liability, I think that people who do vote would not hold that against him except some liberal Democrats who would never vote for a Republican even they were running against Hitler.

With his popularity in Florida and with the name of Bush in Texas (Also graduated from Texas) this would give him a good electoral starting base. Of course some conservative members of his party may have some issues with him but he can draw in the independent voter who ultimately decides the winner. I think Jeb Bush is a better candidate than Romney, Palin, or others who have been mentioned so far.

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.


Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

HAVEN'T WERE LEARNED WHERE EXTREMIST ELEMENTS IN POWER LEAD US?