George Prescott is 39, he’ll probably be a Congressman by 2020. But he’s brown, so not sure how the Tea Partyistas will like that.
Does GWB still have his ranch? I know that when he received the Presidential Daily Briefing in early 2001 warning that bin Laden was “determined to strike in the US”, his immediate response was to go down to his ranch and clear some brush, accumulating in the process his record – still unbroken – of most vacation days taken of any president.
So I assume that he can still keep us safe if only the new president keeps him informed. At the first sign of trouble, old George can high-tail it down to the ranch and start clearing brush like there’s no tomorrow. Unless the trouble is in the form of an impending natural disaster like a Cat 5 hurricane and massive flooding. Then he can enlist the aid of Michael “heckuvajob” Brown who I assume is still around. Cheney could be brought in for consultations on international relations, and Rumsfeld in case there were any known unknowns related to exactly where WMDs are.
Weren’t those grand ole days? No need to thank me, the suggestions are my pleasure to provide, as a public service.
As soon as I found that George W. Bush :smack: was campaigning for Jeb in South Carolina I did not wonder anymore about how desperate Jeb was and that the end was near.
Poppy Bush knew what he was doing. His sons I’m less sure about.
You mean people who know how to navigate the politics of an issue and know exactly who they can sell out to win the next election. The Clintons were MASTERS at that. The people they sold out even still love them! Now that’s some skillful politics.
You mean people who know which donors they have to please and which they can afford to screw.
You mean people who know how to keep their personal ethical issues from destroying their political careers. A true politician can break all kinds of laws, get caught in all kinds of lies, cozy up to all kinds of scummy individuals, and continue to win. An outsider gets some details wrong about his childhood, maybe even made it up a little, and he’s considered unfit. Because it’s all about the performance. You have to be able to say, “This is why you shouldn’t care that I’m corrupt.” and be convincing.
You mean people who can take direction from their handlers, the guys who ACTUALLY know poiltics and the issues, and then when in office, take direction from the unelected bureaucrats who actually know how to implement policy. People who can be great figureheads but look like they are in charge. At least until something breaks down, at which point they say, “Wow, I’m as surprised as you! I assure you it’s not my fault! I will fire the nearest political appointee who also doesn’t actually know what’s going on.”
And you wonder why people want change.
All that peace and prosperity in the Nineties was simply enraging, wasn’t it?
Those people would make better presidents than anyone left in the GOP primary.
Or the Democratic one probably. Clinton lacks the political skill to make up for her shortcomings.
But anyway, the desire for change is based on the fact that politicians that seem to know what they are doing don’t, so what do we lose by electing someone who is unable to hide that they don’t know what they are doing? The bureaucracy functions the same way regardless, and those are our real rulers.
The Tea Party candidates came in with many not knowing what they were doing and vowing to fight against compromise. That didn’t work so well, did it?
Sometimes revolution actually happens and things change dramatically, but most of the time, we are just slogging through getting things done. Except when people come in wanting to obstruct things
You’re absolutely right about the Tea Party. But let’s be clear about how the government works and why people are angry and why they seek out more “authentic” voices. We’re tired of being lied to, and worse, tired of people who think that this is just how we get things done. The people must be mollified while those who know better do the real work. Which might have worked if the elites actually had a clue what they were doing.
So* that’s* why you support the Republicans? 
Sounds mostly like he’s angry. So he supports the angriest group he can find. If some other angrier group appeared on the scene he might choose to follow them.
Back in the 1970s there was a bumper sticker which said something close to “If you’re not outraged you’re not paying attention.” At that time it was a left-wing sentiment.
Anger is eternal.
Actually, I support John Kasich, because he’s actually, you know, done stuff and doesn’t have a record of corruption. 30 years in politics with no major scandals and a proven legislative and executive record puts him head and shoulders above anyone in either party. In a sane world, he’d be heavily favored to be the next President.
.
Of course I’d rather have someone who was smart and hadn’t spent their entire career in politics, but unfortunately that candidate doesn’t exist right now. But I definitely can relate to people searching for something better than we’ve been getting.
This is really pitiful , Jeb asking people to clap for him . He never had a chance to win all he had was his last name to bank on and that was not good enough .
I… think I agree with this post, actually. At least in the sense that I am sick of this kind of pol.
As opposed to the peace and prosperity of the Eighties? :dubious:
Don’t pretend the Clintons were responsible for conditions they inherited.
The Clintons were great. Too bad they’ve pretty much disavowed everything they ever did. They want to “own” the results without taking responsibility for how they achieved them.
Just as I predicted here a month or so ago. Few believed me.
Here’s CNN.com’s expanded article, by a reporter who regularly accompanied Jeb!, on why he came up short: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/21/politics/jeb-bushs-doomed-campaign/index.html
As far as I can tell Clinton inherited a soaring national debt-vs-GDP ratio from Reagan in the 80s and Bush I in the early 90s and turned it around.
