Or rather, “there are certain kinds of guns that they hope to keep you from being able to purchase after some future date” doesn’t have quite the same impact, outweighing its benefit of actually being true.
Romney! White, tired, and ill-prepared! Now, more than ever!
If you mean *Rebecca *Romney, the antique book expert on “Pawn Stars”, then I’m right with you, bro. 
I don’t think Jeb Bush has a chance at becoming President - even getting the nomination would be difficult. People have two negative politicians to associate him with: his brother, because of the family connection, and Romney, because of the whole “well, he’s not exciting, but he’s not certifiably insane and is the best we could come up with” vibe.
Unlike some other posters, I don’t really have a problem with the “dynasty” worry. What it is at its base is a concern that some people have an advantage in gaining political office - that the playing field isn’t level. This is true no matter what family you’re from: every President had a few friends or family in the right places or some form of connections not directly attributable to hard work. It’s just more blatant when your last name is “Clinton” or “Bush.” And if even Hillary, with Bill being a relatively well-regarded President, will have some baggage because of her name (I can see the Lewinsky themed political ads now . . .), I can hardly imagine the kind of uphill battle Jeb will face.
Unfortunately, some very deep and radical and arguably unconstitutional (not well-arguably, but arguably) campaign-finance reform is the only conceivable solution to that short of revolution.
Political dynasties feel queasy, but I don’t see the problem with them. Both Hilary and Jeb are smart and experienced. I’m not going to ignore that because close relatives of them were once President.
OTOH, expecting Hilary to be Bill II and Jeb to be GWB II is more than dubious, except to the extent that any President is affected by his or her advisers and appointees.
Wait, let me think, give me time here. A repeat of Bill or a repeat of GeeDub? Hmmm. Really a toughy… Gotta say, leaning towards Bill Vers. 2.0. Now, being an open-minded and non-partisan sort of guy, I’m still open to persuasion, change my mind maybe. Like if Hillary publicly sacrificed Chelsea’s first born to her Dark Lord, I’d have to think long and hard. Kinda depends if it were tastefully done, and not like pay-per-view.
The best and biggest reason is male against female not to mention who has the least dirty laundry.
What’s Hillary’s dirty laundry? Having her husband stick his dick in Monica’s mouth? Or that the Four Most Important People In The History Of The Universe Died In Benghazi?
“What difference does it make now” will be the same excuse for Monica or Benghazi.
VP Biden will fight for his desire to be the next president of the USA and will have a few things to say about who got that phone call in the middle of the night and didn’t do anything about it …
This will be a dirty fight even before Jeb and Hillary have their first debate.
In other words, you failed to grasp the context of the “what difference does it make” quote? Or is it that you have some magical military solution that the administration didn’t realize?
No, NO!
It’s not Benghazi, it’s Benghazi!
Nobody understands what the wingnut armwaving about Benghazi! is about, after a year and a half of wingnut efforts to persuade the world that this was a Big Deal, like when those 241 U.S. soldiers got blown up in Lebanon under Reagan’s watch. (And boy howdy, we all remember how outraged the wingnuts were about that one!)
No, by the beginning of the pre-primary season early next year, people (wingnuts excepted, of course) will give even less of a shit about Benghazi! than they do now.
And we all remember how devastating the whole Monica business was to the Dems in 1998. Seriously, if it wasn’t a winning issue for the GOP in 1998, then how on God’s green earth do you think it’s gonna be a winning issue for the GOP in 2016?
Dream on.
Given the GOP use of “You didn’t build that” as the centerpiece of their fucking convention, you do have to acknowledge how little context actually matters, don’t you?
The fact that you can write that, truthfully, about an odd-numbered year is depressing. 
Begin the thawing of Dan Quayle!
Is he even going to run?
If the Dems nominate a woman in 2016, mightn’t the Pubs feel obligated to do likewise?
Or even call and raise with a black woman? Where’s that mayor in Utah, whatserface …
The Pubs? What is this txt from blackberry?
No the Republicans learned their lesson with Sarah Palin … I think not.
The running mate is not announced till after the decision on who is running against who, right?
That could make all the difference in the world for drawing voters over to the Republicans side.
Pubs? :mad:
Yeah, but it isn’t exactly new. As far back as 1999, it was pretty much ‘game on!’ from early in the year preceding the election.
This is the second cycle where I’ve argued that we might as well move a few early primaries and caucuses into that year - have Iowa in June 2015, New Hampshire in September, and Nevada and South Carolina in October and November 2015. It would clear the field of some of the bogus candidates early in the game, and debate organizers would have a basis for not inviting ten candidates to every last debate throughout that year, even though six of them didn’t stand a chance. And it would get the Broderists of the world to shut up about their favorite Tim Pawlenty du cycle that much earlier.
What we’ve got now is the equivalent of a year of spring training before a six-month baseball season. It’s crazy, it’s stupid, but it’s not going away, so we might as well put it to work.