It's official. It's Jeb Bush.

So I noticed that JB’s name is first in Top Stories category on Google news and clicked. You get a bunch of stories speculating on his intentions for 2016. JB jr. wants him to run. Former President Clinton has weighed in on it. I think he runs. There won’t be any waffling like there was over Mitt. Only SOS Clinton can match his star power on the Dem side. And 8 years is enough to forget about W., amirite?!

God save us. Bush v Clinton in 2016.

I take back everything I ever said about anyone comparing us to a 3rd World Country. Only there would you see such dynastic goings on!

I found the first president Bush to be not only far less objectionable than his son, but a whole hell of a lot smarter and more competent, particularly with regards to handling warfare and needing to raise taxes even if it violated a campaign pledge.

In general, I find Bush I to be the last Republican I could have voted for.

I always found Jeb Bush to be less objectionable than his brother, and less objectionable than, say, the current governor of florida.

I’d prefer a dynasty of smart Bushes over another Rick Scott term, for example. And I’m quite liberal.

Can we talk about his actual merits as a leader? Let’s say it was Jeb Bush versus I dunno, Lieberman. (It would never happen, but just as an example)

There are Democrats I won’t vote for, and Republicans I would. Can the GOP field anyone, anywhere, that I might vote for?

I’m not talking about ideological traitors, I’m talking about smart, competent administrators with a track record of not sucking. That’s the bare minimum. I admit that it is possible to have Republicans in charge that don’t completely bite the penis. Why not nominate one of those?

Surely the loser-fest that was the 2012 nomination process need not be repeated. Are there any Republicans left that aren’t total shitbags?

John Huntsman was named. He’s about as interesting as a wet sock, but then again, so was Romney.
Edit: I had been excited about McCain at one point, before he picked Palin and started sucking the Christian Right’s ball sac.

Jeb Bush or Chris Christy would have wiped the floor with pretty much any of the clowns in the 2012 nomination process. The only way I would even consider for a second voting for Jeb would be if he 100% repudiated his support for the Iraq war. But I don’t see that happening. (I guess you could say that about almost all GOP candidate.)

Newt is also weighing his options for 2016. How many billionaires does this guy know?

His ego knows no bounds, so I would not be at all surprised to see his mug again in 2016.

It seemed like Christie was the one that the GOP really would have wanted this year, so shouldn’t he be a strong contender (as well as a non-crazy one).

On the crazy side we have Rick Santorum, which should be the pick if history is to be trusted.

In fairness, the weak Democrats also supported the Iraq War. So it’s not a deal breaker for me.

But yeah, it would be nice if they could admit what a colossal mistake that was.

That depends on whether or not the party will have forgiven him for acting like an actual governor instead of a Fox News pundit during Sandy…

As I observed a few weeks back, someone on Tv said that Every Rebuplican ticket elected since Herbert Hoover has had a Nixon or Bush on it (as President or Veep). Obviously someone read that and is hoping to hit one out of the park. If they can get Cynthia Nixon to run alongside him they ought to have a lock on it. If nothing else, we’d be treated to stickers saying

Bush/Nixon 2016

You mean…every year except the past 8?

(and 1996)

double edit: (and 1977, and 1964, and all the ones pre-1952)

In fairness, HRC voted for the Iraq AUMF, but Jeb was an active supporter. Hillary got dragged into it, but I don’t think she would have started it if it had been up to her. And, IIRC, Jeb was a charter member of PNAC, which means he was into the whole war thing even before W because president.

Read it again…every winning Republican ticket.

ETA: That was in response to Oedipus.


Yes, but being an active supporter or a reluctantly active supporter is close enough to the same bad thing in my view.

I don’t care, a lot of people made a bad call on the Iraq war. When a lot of people gamble on the same bad idea and lose, it means they’re human. I like Obama because he was against the war right from the start. That’s actual leadership. It means he was smarter than everyone else in the room. He’s also the guy who said to kill Bin Laden even when Biden wasn’t on board with the mission. It means he stands out in a crowd of bad Democrats as being a good Democrat.

Show me a Republican that stands out from the other Republicans. A good Republican. I want to see a good Republican for once.

Every time a Republican does the right thing, the party shits on them. Bush I raised taxes, party shat on him. Christie worked with Obama and didn’t act like a party hack for two minutes out of his day, and people came out of the woodwork criticizing him for not criticizing Obama. And what’s funny is Christie is a pretty gung-ho partisan kind of guy.

Ugh. The Republican party will not stop eating itself. It’s like Charlie Crist, over and over.

It could happen…Nixon’s grandson is a Lawyer and is running for office as a Republican:

You answered you’re own question. Also, Jon Huntsman is a pretty cool dude if he can get a personality. Buddy Roemer had some awesome ideas for campaign finance reform. I’ve always liked Joe Scarborough, even though he’s not in the game anymore. Haven’t heard much bad about Marco Rubio, although I haven’t looked very hard. Scott Brown isn’t THAT bad either, especially when compared to Santorum or Bachman. However, I’m glad Elizabeth Warren beat him for his seat. I love that woman.

I wonder what ex-presidents Lieberman and Giuliani have to say about this.

I really wish the GOP would just admit they want the US ruled by a monarchy again.

Sent from my iPhone inside my Prius with a Clinton 2012 sticker on the back