HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » as Nikki Finke would say ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:00 PM

 

as Nikki Finke would say "TOLD YA SO"... Jeb Bush mulling presidential bid

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/23/us/politics/jeb-bush-in-2016-its-not-too-early-for-chatter.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp&

. Bush is said by friends to be weighing financial and family considerations -- between so many years in office and the recession his wealth took a dip, they said, and he has been working hard to restore it -- as well as the complicated place within the Republican Party of the Bush brand."

"After Mitt Romney's defeat by a Democratic coalition built around overwhelming support from Hispanics and other fast-growing demographic groups, many Republicans are looking for a candidate who can help make the party more inclusive without ceding conservative principles -- and no one is the subject of more speculation at this point than Mr. Bush."

"To his supporters, Mr. Bush is the man for the moment. His wife, Columba, was born and raised in Mexico. He speaks Spanish and favors overhauling the immigration system in a way that would provide a route to citizenship for people already in the country illegally but otherwise law-abiding."

73 replies, 5467 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 73 replies Author Time Post
Reply as Nikki Finke would say "TOLD YA SO"... Jeb Bush mulling presidential bid (Original post)
graham4anything Nov 2012 OP
graham4anything Nov 2012 #1
PennsylvaniaMatt Nov 2012 #3
marmar Nov 2012 #13
graham4anything Nov 2012 #15
marmar Nov 2012 #16
graham4anything Nov 2012 #18
DonCoquixote Nov 2012 #52
Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #42
Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #43
graham4anything Nov 2012 #45
Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #62
graham4anything Nov 2012 #63
Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #65
MurrayDelph Nov 2012 #50
TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #73
CC Nov 2012 #2
Michigan Alum Nov 2012 #33
liberalhistorian Nov 2012 #54
Michigan Alum Nov 2012 #70
Submariner Nov 2012 #4
Zen Democrat Nov 2012 #5
graham4anything Nov 2012 #8
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #14
graham4anything Nov 2012 #17
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #22
graham4anything Nov 2012 #24
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #29
graham4anything Nov 2012 #31
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #56
graham4anything Nov 2012 #59
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #66
graham4anything Nov 2012 #69
Michigan Alum Nov 2012 #34
graham4anything Nov 2012 #36
Michigan Alum Nov 2012 #41
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #55
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #23
graham4anything Nov 2012 #30
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #57
graham4anything Nov 2012 #58
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #27
graham4anything Nov 2012 #32
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #37
graham4anything Nov 2012 #38
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #39
graham4anything Nov 2012 #40
Drahthaardogs Nov 2012 #6
Bluenorthwest Nov 2012 #7
randome Nov 2012 #9
graham4anything Nov 2012 #11
tularetom Nov 2012 #10
graham4anything Nov 2012 #12
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #28
Samantha Nov 2012 #20
graham4anything Nov 2012 #21
Samantha Nov 2012 #47
spaulettea Nov 2012 #19
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #26
Michigan Alum Nov 2012 #35
spaulettea Nov 2012 #53
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #25
Aerows Nov 2012 #44
JCMach1 Nov 2012 #46
graham4anything Nov 2012 #49
JCMach1 Nov 2012 #68
aquart Nov 2012 #48
spanone Nov 2012 #51
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Nov 2012 #60
graham4anything Nov 2012 #61
SammyWinstonJack Nov 2012 #64
apnu Nov 2012 #67
graham4anything Dec 2012 #71
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #72

Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:02 PM

1. It takes a Clinton to defeat a Bush. Like 1992.

 

You guys should really listen to me. and listen carefully

It takes a Clinton to defeat a Bush.
Jeb will be formidable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:07 PM

3. You're right...

Us Democrats would be remiss if we think Jeb Bush as the GOP nominee would mean a landslide for Democrats in 2016.

Also, everyone in the Bush family (especially George H.W.) will want to see Jeb run to repair the legacy of the Bush family

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:33 PM

13. No more Bushes, No more Clintons.....It's time to part with both those eras.

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:40 PM

15. it would be nice if she could just be considered just Hillary Rodham

 

In actuality, I do not believe that Hillary has had her era.

and like President Obama solidifies Lincoln-FDR-JFK-LBJ-Jimmy Carter's good work

Hillary will soldify Bill's and add to the above 5.

Everyone else who might be considered is running for VP or should remain at their current position.

It is amazing anyone would want to even ascertain ceding anything back to the republicans at all.

What would give Rush Limbaugh and the Tea Party and Newt and Santorum and the religious right a bigger coniption than the word Hillary.

(remember, when Rush had his Operation Kaos, last thing he wanted then was for Hillary to ever be President. It will be the biggest spitting in the repub/tea/libertarians eye

But it is condescending to Hillary to just be considered a part of Bill, when she is her own person and much more to the left of him anyhow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:43 PM

16. "she is her own person and much more to the left of him anyhow."


Is she? She seems like much more of a war hawk than Bill is.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Reply #16)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:49 PM

18. look for a brand new post I am going to make separate about this very subject

 

if I can find an online link to it today, it might not be til tomorrow as it is something I read in today's paper and sometimes you can't find it the same day

(will post the link here when I do if I can remember which post this was on,which is why I just titled this so I can remember just that (LOL). to be continued...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #15)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:18 PM

52. It is amazing anyone would want to even ascertain ceding anything back to the republicans at all.

The problem is, is that is exactly what the Clintons did, especially with Nafta, Glass-Steagall and the Telecommunications act. They also cede a lot when they make it clear they are ready to to go war on behalf of Israel. They also favor the damned Pipeline some Canadians want (though to their credit, many do NOT).

As I said elsewhere, she is not the worst we could do for 2016, and certainly I would love to see her smash Jeb, however, do think about why the MSM wanted to paint her as invincible in 2008, because they have been planning to slam her in the presidential elections for YEARS. When she goes in, they know what buttons to push, especially because they know Bill will NOT shut up and let Hillary take control, but, just like he did in 2008, he will run right for the Cameras.

Add to this that there are many who want the party to go left, who actually feel that Obama is too far to the right as is. These are the people who have already been holding their nose for years; their patience is not inexhaustible, especially when third parties are ready to play spoiler.

As great as the 2012 victory was (and it was) we cannot forget that there is an enthusiasm gap. If Mitt was not caught on tape as the arrogant jackass he was, he might have made the sale. We cannot assume that even the GOP will not be older and wiser next time, especially as they have lost a LOT of Face.

I am not saying Hill cannot make it, but if she does, she cannot run to the right, especially as that is not where we need to be

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:31 AM

42. If not Hillary, who? Who do you like out there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #42)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:34 AM

43. here's some ideas

While waiting for Election Day results, here’s a reminder that 2016 is only four years away. A list of 10 Democrats who could be top presidential contenders next cycle.

1. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
The popular secretary of State has said repeatedly that she has no plans to run for president again, and has hinted that she’d like to turn to advocacy work after she leaves her post next year. But Democrats—and even some Republicans—keep calling on Clinton to run, and after four successful years as the face of American diplomacy her fan base is deeper than ever. If Clinton were to throw her hat in the ring, she’d be considered the front-runner, just as she was when she launched her 2008 bid.

2. Vice President Joe Biden
Biden ran for president in 1988, plagiarized a speech, and had to withdraw. He ran again in 2008, landed a few noteworthy gaffes, and dropped out early in the primary process after struggling to make a mark. But he is a more instinctively populist politician than many of 2016’s potential contenders, and many Democrats love him despite his flaws.

3. Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley
Speech at the Democratic convention: check. Outspoken defender of Obama: check. A Political Action Committee that will back nationwide candidates: check. The ambitious chairman of the Democratic Governors Association has left little doubt that he’s mulling a 2016 bid. O’Malley has a strong record in improving education, and he’s been a stalwart supporter of liberal causes such as same-sex marriage and immigration reform, including a Maryland version of the Dream Act.

4. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo
The governor of New York isn’t kissing anyone’s shoes. Cuomo’s appearance at the Democratic convention was so fast and so low-profile that few even knew he was in town. In Albany, he hasn’t been afraid to anger the liberal base, particularly by clashing with unions, but he’s won widespread praise for his ability to wrangle legislators. Cuomo’s ability to cut a deal paid off with a big win for Democrats: legalization of gay marriage in New York.

5. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia
Virginia’s junior senator isn’t a household name, but he’s been a key player in Washington’s deficit-reduction talks. As a member of the “Gang of Six” and the “Gang of Eight,” Warner has participated in secret negotiations aiemd at budgetary compromise. So far, the behind-the-scenes talks haven’t borne fruit, but if the gang’s discussions manage to push Congress toward a deal, it would be a gold star on Warner’s resume. He also has a strong business background and can point to his ability to win a Senate seat in a battleground state.

6. Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer
The governor of Montana made a big splash at the 2008 Democratic convention, and he was back for a second time in 2012. Schweitzer is a big player in the Democratic Governors Association, a popular populist and the liberal governor of a conservative state. He is known for his showmanship—and his a sometimes outlandish sense of humor. Schweitzer has signaled that he’d be open to a presidential bid: At the recent party convention, he met with New Hampshire and Iowa delegates.

7. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick
Patrick’s plum speaking role at the 2012 Democratic convention raised his profile and sparked speculation that he could be a contender in 2016. As an African-American with a rags-to-riches story, he inevitably draws comparisons to Obama, and he’s been a prominent surrogate for the president. Patrick has built a solidly liberal record as governor, focusing on issues such as health care, the environment, and education. When his term ends in 2014, Patrick has said he plans to return to the private sector.

8. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York
Gillibrand is somewhat overshadowed by other New York state politicians—notably Gov. Cuomo and her forerunner in the Senate, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Yet Gillibrand has star power, and she has proved to be a prolific fundraiser for both herself and other Democrats seeking office. Absent Clinton, there could be an opening for a female senator to jump into the fray. For now, however, Gillibrand seems focused on encouraging Clinton to consider another shot at the presidency.

9. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
Vaulting from mayor to the presidency is a long shot for any politician—even the mayor of the second largest city in the United States. Villaraigosa is one of the highest-profile Latino leaders in the Democratic Party, and he got more attention as chair of the Democratic convention this year. He has said that his eyes are on the governorship of California, not the presidency, after his mayoral term ends in 2013, but Villaraigosa has never been shy of the media spotlight, and you can expect to hear from him in 2016—even if he’s just endorsing someone else.

10. Newark Mayor Cory Booker
The crusading mayor of a run-down city has won accolades for his efforts to reform the public school system. Booker is known for heroics: He recently ran into a burning building to rescue an elderly neighbor. The African-American former Rhodes Scholar got himself into hot water with Democrats earlier this year, when he publicly criticized the Obama campaign’s attacks on GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s private-equity career. Booker quickly walked back the critique in a YouTube video for the Obama campaign. The mayor's political future looks bright, but he’s more of a 2020 contender than 2016: Challenging Gov. Chris Christie for New Jersey governor in 2013 could be a better next step.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #43)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:59 AM

45. #7, 9, 10 for VP along with Julian Castro

 

Gillibrand is only the 4th NY choice and there is no opening for her (after Hillary,Bloomberg(who isn't running for President), Cuomo) and her friendship with Damato is annoying.

Also the Kennedy's are not happy she got the job they wanted Caroline to have, and Cuomo, well, on other threads I stated the #1 reason I would not want him (though I would vote for any of the above if they were the democratic candidate
Then there are the still unknown real reason Mario did not run for President, and refused the two separate offers from Bill to be SCOTUS. There were many rumors to those reasons all dealing with getting vetted, but we don't know.
If stuff is out there, it will affect Andrew.

also
(Yes, Andrew for political advantage reasons gave NY gay marriage, however, the gay smear he won't admit that he did years ago is 2x more potent, and would be used against him.Everyone who was in NY heard it, and knew where it came from)
(meaning he could compare himself to W when W helped run 41's runs.)

And for demographic reasons, nothing sinister but the dems won't go near nominating a white male for president for many cycles to come

No way they are going to cede a woman or other minority to the repubs and give them an opening to get new voters. NO WAY.

O'Malley must have a great press person, but VP is possible (though MD is already a dem strongpoint, and I would rather it be say Patrick

If Kerry should (though unlikely) get a cabinet post, then Patrick should run for Senate.

I really am against a sitting senator/governor running in 2016, we need to hold all current postions.

As for booker, he is going to have to decide soon if he runs against Christie, who also might not run for reelection then immediately go for VP or President.

Cat and mouse game it will be for all but Hillary.
One thing about Hillary-all the dirt is long out there
and she fights to win, so any dirt on anybody would be released on the others

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #45)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 08:17 AM

62. Yes, the Mario Cuomo skeletons. But, AH, just think if he could write his son's speeches !

I think it will be interesting, as time goes on, to see what the mood of the country is and what issues will be the most important, say, in late 2014.

If, or I suppose I should say when, the economy turns around, and we are not involved in any major wars, I wonder what will be important then.

If all is "well" then, what kind of person is the most successful? Perhaps, if all is well, people won't care as much, and we should look for someone who's main attributes are competence and likeability?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #62)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 08:27 AM

63. Just think if he could write HIllary's or for that matter any Democrat's speeches.

 

worldwide economy, social issues and infrastructure and climate control and continuing to make history

I do think there was a case where the father far outpasses the son.

He would have made a great chief justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #63)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 10:57 AM

65. Although Obama did get elected, there are so many people that could have

helped tremendously - like Mario writing some speeches. I still think it would have helped to pre-debate to have (don't laugh) Tweety spend the weekend with him at Camp David. (BTW, what's up with Camp David? Does Obama ever go there?)

Anyway, a handful of people who always seem to be able to pick apart the republican strategies and have good ideas on how to counteract. Namely, MSNBC nightly people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #43)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:24 PM

50. God, please no Tony the V

he is part of why I, a native born Angeleno, now live in Oregon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 08:07 AM

73. A Perot was more critical than a Clinton last time.

With a Perot, maybe even a Dukakis can beat a Bush.

Either way the Clinton name is not some mysterious counter nor is Jeb Bush some otherworldly opposition that only Excalib...er a Clinton can best.

You may as well be selling magic beans or political arcane power. Hell, if it was you may have dangerously selected the wrong Clinton since Hillary comes to name via marriage rather than blood birthright, maybe a born Rodham would have no more mystical touch than a mundane Kerry or only a half-elven like Gore that wins but does not win.

Maybe it would be safer to go with some Chelsea magic, or put the Clinton first and get Clint Black, or perhaps some George Clinton, after all the power funk compels you and he is a minority for extra position power since the party is banned by you and your all seeing wisdom forbidden from running white guys for President for mysterious reasons.

Do you also have a tooth fairy powered deficit reduction plan?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:03 PM

2. Time to start talking about

how the Presidency is not a family job to be handed down and around between family members. Three is just too many from a single family and starts making it look like they are treating it as a monarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CC (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:54 AM

33. And who made up that rule? And what about the Kennedy's? With the Clinton's we get a team.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Michigan Alum (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:36 PM

54. Name one other Kennedy president

besides JFK. And then name the last time a Kennedy ran in the presidential primaries. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #54)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:14 AM

70. Both Teddy and RFK ran. Yes it was a long time ago. If they were still around and healthy would you

say the same thing? What if one of the other Kennedy's wanted to run?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:07 PM

4. Get his crooked past up front now

The Bush name should remain the mud that it is.

Jeb Bush: Influence Peddling for a “Bust-Out” Scam

But, Neil Bush was not the only Bush brother involved in the Savings and Loan collapses. Jeb Bush’s, the current Governor of Florida, curious relationship with Miguel Recarey is another illustration. Recarey was a long-time business associate of Tampa organized crime figure Santos Trafficante. Recarey also fled the U.S. facing three separate indictments for labor racketeering, illegal wiretapping and Medicare fraud (Freedburg, 1988: A1). Recarey’s business, International Medical Centers, was the largest health maintenance organization for the elderly in the U.S. and had been supported from $1 billion in payments from the Medicare program. International Medical Centers went bankrupt in 1988 (Freedburg, 1988: A1; Royce and Shaw, 1988: 4). When International Medical Centers went under it left $222 million in unpaid bills and was under investigation for $100 million in Medicare fraud (Freedbrug, 1988: A1; Frisby, 1992: G1). The U.S. Office of Labor Racketeering in Miami referred to Recarey and his company as “the classic case of embezzlement of government funds ... “a bust-out operation” (Freedburg, 1988: A1)

Jeb Bush’s role in this saga being in 1985 when Recarey’s attempt to create his “bust-out scam” corporation ran into a federal regulation that said no HMO could get more that 50% of its revenue from Medicare (Freedburg, 1988: A1; Royce and Shaw, 1988: 4). Jeb Bush intervened on Recarey’s behalf with Helath Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler and one of her top aides. Convincing them to waive the regulation in the case of Recarey’s company (Freedburg, 1988: A1; Royce and Shaw, 1988: 4). In addition to Jeb Bush’s intervention, Recarey had paid $1 million to senior Republican lobbyists in Washington, who were also working the staff of Health and Human Services in pursuance of a waiver (Freedburg, 1988: A1; Royce and Shaw, 1988: 4). In addition, Jeb Bush had contacted Secretary Heckler earlier about complaints from doctors over the quality of International Medical Centers’ care and allegations that Recarey had embezzled funds form another hospital (Royce and Shaw, 1988: 4). Jeb Bush told an aide to Secretary Heckler that “contrary to any rumors that were floating around concerning Mr. Recarey, that he was a solid citizen from Mr. Bush’s perspective down there , that he was a good community citizen and a good supporter of the Republican Party” (Royce and Shaw, 1988: 4).

Not surprisingly, in 1988 Recarey’s company gave Jeb Bush’s real estate company $75,000 to help it find a site for a new corporate headquarters (Freedburg, 1988: A1; Royce and Shaw, 1988: 4). It was a bad investment because International Medical Centers had already selected a corporate headquarters location when it hired Jeb Bush (Royce and Shaw, 1988: 4).

Jeb Bush had a role in yet another Savings and Loan fiasco when he defaulted on a loan from Broward Federal Savings and Loan (LaFraniere , 1990: A24). Broward Federal loaned $4,565.000 to J Edward Houston, a real developer in February, 1985. The loan was secured only by Houston’s personal guarantee. On the same day, one of Houston’s company lent the same amount to a partnership made up of Jeb Bush and Armondo Codina for the purpose of purchasing a building in Miami. The Bush-Condina partnership was required to repay the loan only if revenues from the building were sufficient to cover the repayment. Bush and Condina made no payments on the loan at all and in 1987 Houston defaulted on the Broward Federal loan and the Bank sued both Houston and the Bush-Condina real estate partnership. In a sweetheart settlement with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Bush and Codina only had to repay $500,000 of the $4.5 million loan and got to retain ownership of the building which had been the collateral on the loan. In 1991, the FDIC sued the officers and directors of Broward Federal charging that the loan ultimately used by Bush and Codina was an example of the bank’s negleient lending practices (Frisby, 1992: G1). The Bush-Codina loan played a key part in the failure of Broward Federal which cost taxpayers $285 million (LaFraniere , 1990: A24).

http://critcrim.org/critpapers/potter.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:10 PM

5. Political parties are looking more and more like evangelican churches - handing down the ownership.

Billy Graham's mininstry to Franklin
John Osteen's ministry to Joel
Jerry Falwell's ministry to his sons
The Oral Roberts Family History
and scores of others.

The Kennedys
The Bushes
The Clintons

I prefer new blood in the parties lest they become too "religious."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zen Democrat (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:21 PM

8. I prefer to WIN WIN WIN WIN WIN. It takes a WINNER to get anything to move FORWARD!!!

 

Hillary45 after Obama44 will be better than if it were the other way around.

The foundation to getting EVERYTHING we want has been laid in 2008, is going to have the first half of the building built by 2016, and the roof will need to be completed by 2025.

WIN WIN WIN

and we don't need someone who cannot win to run just because they might be perceived as new or more liberal (which I predict anyhow that Hillary will end her 8 years in 2025 considered as one of the great liberals of all time).

(and to nip the coming post by someone in the bud- Elizabeth Warren is needed in the Senate to LEAD from the left, and she is just as old as Hillary is, so don't bother posting that Hillary is too old. (and we can NOT nominate a white male, that is what the other side does.)
We must nominate a woman, and in 2016.


BTW, Jeb also looks older than he used to be.

Memo to the board- so do I and so does everyone else. We are older.
But we also are more learned than our younger self.

Wisdom grows with age.

and we must go with our single best weapon.

It is not a monarchy it is a continuation in the quest to move forward

And remember things like Saul Alinsky.
(remember how Hillary was derided with that association, much like Obama was derided with the term community organizer?)

Remember how the community organizer had a community organization that just won a landslide victory THANKS to that community organization and to the GOTV they so magnificently did?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #8)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:37 PM

14. Hillary and Jeb -- both the beginnings of a monarchy.

Only one member of one immediate family should be elected to the presidency.

The presidency is not to be handed down from one brother to the next, one husband to the wife, or from father to son or daughter.

That is a very dangerous path.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #14)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:43 PM

17. What if that were the case years ago??? FDR , JFK, Bobby and Teddy never could have run.

 

as Teddy Roosevelt was President, Joseph Kennedy Sr. ran for top office
and after JFK became president, his brothers ran for office.

remember the good while thinking of the bad.

It would have been a bad thing if FDR could not have been President.
Or the Kennedy brothers could not have been candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:07 AM

22. Franklin Roosevelt was Teddy Roosevelt's FIFTH cousin.

THEODORE ROOSEVELT (1901-1909) and FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT (1933-1945) share a famous name but were only distantly related: they were fifth cousins. Teddy Roosevelt was more closely related to Franklin's wife Eleanor, who was his niece. (She was the daughter of Teddy's brother Elliot.) Bonus relatives: Martin Van Buren was a third cousin twice removed to Theodore Roosevelt, and Zachary Taylor (1849-1850) was a fourth cousin thrice removed to FDR. The Roosevelts were the only two presidents in this loop (to date) to serve more than one term.

http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question41379.html

We are a big country. We should find some new families, some new faces, to run for president.

One of Mitt Romney's big problems was his issue with his dad. Same for W.

If you read the history of Europe, you realize that families sometimes feel they have sort of a "right" to hold public office. Heredity insures a well known name, but not the capacity to govern well.

We should avoid any trend that could establish a monarchy. It is really poisonous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #22)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:40 AM

24. So you didn't like that JFK and RFK and Teddy were allowed to be in office?

 

and are you penalizing a woman for being married?
It is a stretch to say Hillary or Michelle Obama couldn't have their own careers.
(sexist in fact).
and then-
Why then allow a VP (who is directly involved in the president's aims) to run separate?

Why allow anyone connected with anyone to run for the house or senate.

It seems to be against what America is to stereotype someone just because of family name and not allow an unique individual the chance to attain their own greatness

Should Henry Hank Aaron not have been allowed to play baseball because his less talented brother Tommy was playing?
Should George Clooney not have been allowed in the entertainment biz because his Aunt Rosmeary already was?

It seems that things equal out because there are good and bad at having a famous sibbling.

Ask Mamie Gummer.

Would we not want Amy Carter to achieve fully? Or James Carter iv th?

remember in thinking of Jeb or hating Hillary and selfservingly trying to parse a way for Hillary not to run is again, self-serving.

and the direct avoidance of answering the Kennedy question says much.

Would you have said in 1968 Bobby couldn't run because of Jack?
In 1960, JFK couldn't run because of their dad?

remember- Adolf Hitler was NOT related to anyone who had prior office

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #24)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:46 AM

29. A seat in the Senate, one of many, is fine.

But I do not think that siblings, brothers, sisters, wives, parents of past or sitting presidents should ever serve as president.

The president has too much power. We do not need to move toward a hereditary presidency. That is a horrible danger for our country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #29)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:50 AM

31. ooh, parsing to suit your personal dislike of Hillary here and adapt it to whom you do perhaps?

 

we are all in the family of mankind citizens of earth.

It all started with one.

I for one look forward to Chelsea and Malia and Sasha and Caroline and Amy Carter and James Carter IV etc.

BTW, you do know who Elizabeth Herring was related to don't you when she was born what will be 68 years ago in Jan. 2017?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #31)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:28 AM

56. Hillary loses her temper too easily and lets it show.

She voted for and supported the War in Iraq. She served on the board of directors of Walmart at a time when they were anti-union and discriminating against women.

I don't think she could win the presidency. Her demeanor and manner are too cold. And she doesn't have much sense of humor.

Her voice also is not warm.

The so-called undecided or independent voters cast their ballots for someone with warmth, humor, someone they can feel comfortable about.

Hillary is actually a great person, but she just does not have the personality to win a presidential election. Gore barely did (although he won the popular vote). Kerry, one of my favorites, did not have it either.

Obama has it. He gives the impression that he is confident but not over-confident. He has charisma because he is genuinely loving and compassionate.

Hillary is kind and competent, but she lacks the charisma because she just doesn't love everybody she meets. It isn't a fault of character. It is simply her nature.

Now Bill Clinton -- there is an outgoing person who wins you over right away.

I have been watching elections for a long time. Hillary would probably do a good, maybe even a great, job as president, but she does not have the kind of personality that wins elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #56)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 05:22 AM

59. Warmth sounds like a code word Rush Limbaugh would use

 

and a personal taste you are throwing out there, not based on fact whatsoever

Who wouldn't get mad at Bibi, or the other world leaders? I know I would.

Real people get mad.

The reason President Obama was the one and Jackie Robinson was the one were very simliar reasons. Because both needed to stand there, smile and take the hits (the rope-a-dope) without getting mad.

But never in the past has anyone else needed that, and in fact, for a woman, it would not be a good thing to use that strategy at all.

Because of sexual bias, a woman has to be like Golda Meir(perhaps the most successful world leader who was a woman of all time).

She was suppose to be smiling and happy dealing with the country leaders at hand?

Ahem...NO.

All prior winners also were not as you describe warm.
2 term winners Nixon? Aloof.
Reagan? Yeah, very warm to those who died of Aids
Bush? Yeah, again very warm to any minority out there and the vicitms of Katrina
lincoln? Cold but thinking all the time

I do think John Edwards you might say was warm. Biggest fraud in American history was John.
Warm? He hated people. He used anyone and everything in his sight.

Warm?
It's sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would say.

Maybe Sarah palin would be warm. Real competent.

I personally think a woman to win would need to show not softness, but toughness to get that extra % needed to win.

And anyhow, you obviously don't remember when there were disasters in NYC while Hillary was senator, she one on one was extremely warm to victims.
And she won over the conservative parts of the state too.

Something her detractors said she never would.

Women though are always told one thing after another that they can't.
Yes they can. Hillary 2016 because 2016 is not 2008.

the other points I mentioned on my other answer to you a little while ago(Walmart,etc.)

and anyhow Jeb? Warmth? It will be hillary v. Jeb. Warmth won't be a part of it.

Also, Hillary is beloved by minorities, most who would warmly have backed her in 2008, if there wasn't the one in a billion President Obama. But there was.
That is the sole reason she did not win. Not because of dislike for her, she stood head and shoulders above any of the others and would have creamed McCain in the general.
Except for the once in 50 years one in a billion Barack Obama.
(which is why he is the one). But he is not running again(damn stupid republicans for changing that rule to only have 2 terms...would love to reelect President Obama 3-4-5-6-7-8 more times or more. But we can't.

Wouldn't you love to see President Obama in say 40=50 years be able to be President again to see all the good a single person was able to achieve looking back at what will be the 3rd or 4th greatest president of all time?
What a sight it will be. Hope I am still here to see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #59)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 02:04 PM

66. I have warned.

Hillary admirers may deny what I am saying, but Obama beat Hillary in the 2008 primaries for a reason. Just saying.

And, although he was the worst president ever, GWB did have warmth. That was the problem. People wanted to have a beer or coffee or whatever with him.

I don't think people will feel that way about Hillary because I don't think she feels that way about people. Bill did.

Elizabeth Warren does.

If you have ever met, Xavier Becerra, he also does. There are quite a few people who meet this particular criteria that means winning presidential elections.

Chris Christie absolutely does not.

Hillary and Al Gore are great people, but they don't have this certain something. Neither did Nixon. You are right about that. Reagan had it (unfortunately). FDR had it big time.

Great performers have it. No. They aren't all nice, and they aren't all competent. It is in part, the ability to lose your ego just for that moment when you meet someone, when you shake someone's hand, when you talk to someone. It is the ability to make the other person the center of your world, the crowd you are talking to the center of the world and give yourself completely to them.

Great musicians, great performers have this ability to lose themselves in love for their audiences and their art. It is a rare capacity and is more spiritual than intellectual. Hillary might be able to learn it, but so far I have not seen her practice it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #66)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 10:48 PM

69. I think the tidbit of info revealed as a throwaway in the Eric Cantor story disqualifies Warren

 

wanting to cut back Obama's signature legislation is well, FAIL big time.
We only worked 50 years for it.
To have her side with the (ahem) 1%ers and of all people, Orrin Hatch and the tea party
and Eric Cantor is well, I would say a disqualifier.

That is the trouble with a candidate who is not nationally vetted.

And this came from Slate.
(reminds me how a tossaway line by Al Gore later came back and sunk Mike Dukakis' 1988 campaign for President)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #29)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:59 AM

34. You need to learn a bit of flexibility and stop being so black & white in your thinking.

It's sort of scary how you are spouting off all these "rules." This would only be the second Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Michigan Alum (Reply #34)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:06 AM

36. The repubs put in a law saying only 2 terms after FDR had 4...it came back to bite them

 

when both Eisenhower and Reagan could have won a 3rd term

Of course, we wish now Obama could run 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 terms(at least I do) and Bill Clinton would have won a 3rd term if allowed(and still could win).

I am not the one who doesn't want Hillary, in fact I 100% support her and she will win easily defeating Jeb.

I find most people on this thread are being self-serving in their dislike of Hillary (it reeks of McCain picking Palin to sooth Hillary voters(which didn't happen) by saying all these excuses Hillary shouldn't run, yet of course, it goes with saying or without saying, who they want to win.

I want Hillary to not only win, but to defeat Bush hopefully ending the Bush's forever with three strikes they are out (41 losing to clinton, W's failed presendency and Jeb losing would be three strikes and out). Then the sibblings would not have it easy.

I for one wanted Bobby, Jack and Teddy to be President

and i sure do love FDR and his entire 4 terms, wish he had 6 terms and not died in office.
He certainly would have been better than Truman was.(not to mention afterwards).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #36)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:43 AM

41. My post wasn't in response to you but JD Priestly.

Sorry if it appeared that way.... I agree with your posts 100%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #36)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:21 AM

55. Hillary won't win if she runs.

She doesn't have the personality for it.

She has quite a temper. I remember a video of her stalking away from a group of Code Pink ladies. Hillary was in a huff. She looked really angry, and the sad thing was that the Code Pink ladies were telling her about how they had visited Iraq before the Iraq War, how the people were suffering and that they did not think that we should got to war in Iraq.

Remember, Hillary favored and voted for the war in Iraq.

She can be very rigid and arrogant at times. You know how everyone loves Obama. Hillary just does not have that special quality. The reason is that she does not love everyone but is instead very prone to judging others. She lacks a certain sense of humor.

She does a good job as a Secretary of State, but then, in that position she does not have to present herself to the public that much.

There is another reason that Hillary would be a losing candidate: she served on the board of directors of Walmart for some time. With that black mark on her record, how can she expect union support? Or the support of women for that matter? At the time she served on the Walmart board, the company was underpaying workers and discriminating against women. Could she show that she did anything about those problems at Walmart? No.

She could not win a presidential election. She would have the problems that Romney had this time around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:10 AM

23. FDR was Teddy Roosevelt's FIFTH cousin.

Not a close relationship.

THEODORE ROOSEVELT (1901-1909) and FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT (1933-1945) share a famous name but were only distantly related: they were fifth cousins. Teddy Roosevelt was more closely related to Franklin's wife Eleanor, who was his niece. (She was the daughter of Teddy's brother Elliot.) Bonus relatives: Martin Van Buren was a third cousin twice removed to Theodore Roosevelt, and Zachary Taylor (1849-1850) was a fourth cousin thrice removed to FDR. The Roosevelts were the only two presidents in this loop (to date) to serve more than one term.

http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question41379.html

We need to do everything we can to make sure that public offices are not viewed as the privilege or obligation of certain families.

Our Founding Fathers wisely did everything they could to prevent us from establishing a monarchy. We have had far too many Bushes in the White House already.

And Hillary is tired and should retire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #23)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:47 AM

30. Your post is stretching the issue greatly. and is sexist and showing a big dislike of the SOS

 

and as said in the other answer

Adolf Hitler was related to no one famous.

and Hillary is in her final days as SOS, solidifying her as a solid Nobel Peace Prize winner.

btw-was Golda Meir tired when she became perhaps the prior greatest female leader ever?

this Rush Limbo tired meme is like the Rush Limbo puma movement. Fake. and sexist

Did people say Thomas Jefferson looked tired when he was abusing the slaves he owned yet writing obvious stuff he himself didn't believe like ALL are created equal.
(did he come up with that laugher when he was forcing sex on his female slaves and if not mistaken, impregnating at least one?) Some great person to look up to.

sheesh, if a SOS didn't look tired, and looked glamorous and all, why their name would be Condie Rice and they would have zero credibilty to being a candidate.

it is beneath contempt this "tired" meme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #30)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:39 AM

57. Hillary could never win the presidency.

She is a marvelous woman. She is brilliant and competent and dedicated --- and rigid and inclined to displaying a bad temper on occasion (getting in a huff) and impatient. She does not have the personal warmth that a winning presidential candidate needs to have.

Sorry. I like and admire Hillary Clinton, but there are other women out there like Elizabeth Warren who do not seem so tired, who do not get in a huff when they are angry, who just seem more personable and human.

Condoleeza Rice is also a woman who could never be elected president. She too has a cold demeanor.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, on the other hand, have that warmth. They seem to love each individual they meet and talk to. I'm sure that when you are with one of them, talking to one of them, you have the impression that they would rather talk to you than do anything else in the room. That is, at least, the impression that they give crowds, individuals they meet at events and television audiences.

Hillary, wonderful as she is, just does not have that charisma. Sorry, but it is just so. Even her voice sounds cold and judgmental. She has a wonderful character and she stands for the right things.

But then, there is a big problem because she served on the board of directors of Walmart. The unions and women may not like the fact that she did not change Walmart's policies toward unions or women and has not done much about them since leaving that board.

Hillary just would not be a wise choice in 2016. Sorry. I like her too, but I don't think she could win. And she will be too old. She does look very tired. And she has said she won't be serving as Secretary of State this next term because she wants time off. I don't expect her to continue such an active career.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #57)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 05:03 AM

58. As SOS, she is not legally allowed to run for office. Of course she needs off to mount a campaign

 

And you are wrong about Hillary's warmth.(interesting though that a new word is invented to be against hillary).

Crowds love her, she is very good in campaign mode
and people now have seen her speak about important issues whenever they see her.

Of course she should be mad at times at Bibi and the other world leaders. I am mad at them too.

And hey, have you seen Chris Christie and he whalloped a NJ resident last year making a comment about Chris eating an ice cream cone on the boardwalk. Christie almost waddled after him.

And warmth from Jeb?

(interesting though once the age issue is exposed(that Hillary and Warren are age buddies and fellow AARP and soon to be SS members), shifts in words occur.
Warmth?
Was GW Bush warm? Was Lincoln warm? Was Nixon warm? Was LBJ warm?Was Jimmy warm?
IN actuality, President Obama is great with a hug, but he himself is distant(like Lincoln was).

Hell, John the biggest fraud the USA ever knew was warm. Look where warm got you? Almost a heartbeat away from singlehandedly having the biggest scandal a VP would ever have had.

You see, likeable and warm are not synonymous. And warmth and being cold are two separate things too.

and Hillary when NY Senator, did just fine anyhow, when disasters happened, and she travelled to comfort people. I guess you don't remember that.

But no one can compare to Bill Clinton. He and Teddy were two of a kind there.
However, Hillary will have Bill side by side. So like President Obama knew, having Bill front and center was alot better than when Gore ran and shunned him.
(and Gore and Kerry were very warm people btw.)

and oh yeah, Reagan showed his warmth to the victims of AIDS in the early days.
and Bush,W showed his warmth to the victims of Katrina
and GW Bush's wife Barbara showed her warmth to the victims of Katrina

People want competency.
The loser in 2012 was not competent, and people saw through him. Mattered little if he was or was not warm.

BTW-as was shown by other posters on the Walmart thread, Walmart is not a make/break issue, because in many areas outside of say NYC/Los Angeles/Chicago, Walmart is all there is at this point, and millions of democrats need to buy stuff there and don't look at them as if it is bad.
We have the luxury in our area of 4 different supermarkets, countless drugstores, specialty stores to replace any item Walmart sells. But in lots of areas there is nothing for 50 miles.
(and I myself did not realize that til another esteemed poster mentioned it.)

As to Nafta? Well, it was a great idea, the repubs turned inside out and made to appear bad.
But we are one world, and we need better education and have to admit those jobs are not coming back,but others are there to equalize the shift.

It's 3am in the morning and I know who I would want as my President in 2016.
No, I surely did not in 2008 once Obama was running. But I sure hell do now.
The others don't come close

but at least we both agree, it must be a woman (and I would vote for anyone the Dems put up as winning 270 is the only thing I really care about).

Like Dr.Dyer said(c) don't sweat the small stuff, because it all is small stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:45 AM

27. there are only two parties, so it doesn't matter who you put in there, one of

 

them will win.

we're not moving forward, we're moving backward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #27)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:54 AM

32. then why are you on Democratic underground? There are plenty of 3rd party boards out there

 

if you look in the bylaws of this site by the creators of this site

it specificlaly states this site is to ELECT DEMOCRATS

It does not say to elect nutjobs like say Ron Paul or his son, or other fruitcakes like them or Ross Perot or John Anderson, etc.

IN fact it states only in the extreme rare times when a person like Angus King or Charlie Crist would win and caucus with the dems because the dem candidate cannot possibly win, should one ascertain wasting their vote on say Ralph Nader.

but again, many boards available for those nader groupies.

Just say NO to third parties.
Perhaps if you get rid of the republican/tea/libertarians and replace them with a new second party, that would be different.

though that would still not be DEMOCRATS. which is from reading the bylaws here, what this specific site is for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #32)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:09 AM

37. you seem to be reading a lot into my post that's not there. bad habit.

 

i consider both jeb bush & hilary clinton to be 'moving backward'. if they're the candidates, one of them will win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #37)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:12 AM

38. you said there still are only 2 parties and that means we are going backwards...

 

what other explanation is there but implying you want more parties, none of which will be the democratic party, would it?

Ralph Nader showed how getting dems to not vote dem will cost them an election or two

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #38)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:23 AM

39. ralph nader, or any third party candidate, can't win. ergo, one of the two major candidates

 

will win.

if the candidates are jeb & hilary, one will win. i don't like either. "been there, done that, didn't like it the first time."

and i find the relationships between the clintons & bushes post-presidency disturbing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #39)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:26 AM

40. ok. I disagree. One will move forward(Hillary will be left of Bill), one will move back(Jeb)

 

and HIllary will name further better SCOTUS than would a republican whomever they are.

(personally I wish Hillary to name President Obama in 2018 after a year of rest for him).

that would be a fitting replacement for Thurgood Marshall, that Thomas never was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:14 PM

6. Cause what this country REALLY needs is another BUSH!

Fuck, another trip down the rabbit hole it appears...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:17 PM

7. Nikki wouldn't say told ya about this, because it is just conjecture and chatter from

people other than Jeb, it does not in fact report that he's 'pondering a run' any more seriously than anyone in his shoes would from year to year. People discussing that they think he's probably thinking about considering maybe running is not really an announcement of anything. He certainly could run. That's just not a new development. Told yas come when a thing one predicted has actually happened, not when others also predict it might happen. Just saying. No get here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #7)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:22 PM

9. You got that right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #7)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:26 PM

11. this told ya so was for all the posters who have said he wasn't even thinking of running

 

and that he wouldn't have the audacity to attempt to run after W.

another told ya so will be in 2014 when someone actually will announce.
(nobody actually announces now, but they make noise so that others know they might/will and that keeps others out

Like Hillary doing when she said "she would like to see if she can get herself untired"

they are wink wink winks

so perhaps it could be like in her columns, she wrote it first (as I have done with Jeb years ago), and then when its official the official "told ya so".

But I have said this now(in print on boards, though the board I was on is gone now) since W was still President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:25 PM

10. The only way he can be a credible candidate is to totally disavow his brother's entire tenure

and I doubt that his mama would allow that.

W is a turd that cannot be polished.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:31 PM

12. Not so...Jeb is going to run as a SANE republican after the extremists ruined the party

 

Jeb will say forget the baggage, do you want to win or what?

And that the Bush's know how to win

and the repubs anyhow don't find W a failure and will do anything to win.

It's not like the nut job Ron Paul's son Rand will get anywhere near the keys to the nomination.

Which is why both Mitt and Ryan had to totally be repudiated and they are in total disarray

allowing Jeb an opening.

(I have warned about this as said for years. It is so easy to see their strategy.)

And Jeb has a book coming, his two issues are education and immigration
and we have recently heard from his mother Barbara and from Karen Hughes.

It is one piece of the puzzle filling up the puzzle board

The path to nomination is easy.

Thankfully we are in their way.

And remember, 41 is old now, but is still alive. Jeb wants to make his daddy happy.
(The daddy issues W had were not Jeb issues. Jeb was the one Poppy Bush thought would have been in the White House already. He still does.)

BEWARE of them.
(imho of course)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #12)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:46 AM

28. the guy who ruined florida is going to run as a sane republican? please.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:09 AM

20. His participation in "taking" the Oval Office during Election 2000

cannot be disavowed though. 51 million people had their votes negated by that Supreme Court decision (illegal as it was) and Jeb facilitated that. I will be out if and when the starting gate opens campaigning against him.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:51 AM

21. Best to campaign FOR the democrat and win it that way.

 

There would be easier nominees to beat than Jeb, but a thorough election beating by Hillary or whomever, would do more long term to end the reign of the Bush's (as Jeb's son and others in the future are there to continue it.)

Very rarely is there a match of "titans" so to say.

We never got Teddy vs. Reagan, never got LBJ vs. Nixon head to head.

Battle of ideology between two candidates who could do whatever it takes to prevail, with our side winning the matchup of substance

as for election night 2000- I still do not understand, why on national television that night,
that hotel room with the Bush's and Jeb in Florida guaranteeing victory was shown.
I had not before or after ever remembered before an election was called seeing a candidate and hearing such like that.
It went far beyond, as if they allowed national tv time on purpose.

Does anyone recall Gore and his family in a room being shown watching and strategizing?

Forget the theft aspect, just this alone showed the media at its worst.

(like a secret coded message was being relayed nationwide).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #21)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 12:56 PM

47. Generally speaking, I agree with you

I make an exception though for Jeb Bush. Many things he and the Florida legislature advocated were Unconstitutional but people simply did not realize that and believed they would carry through their threats. One in particular was if Gore won the recount, the Legislature would just pick the slate of electors (Republican) and send those votes to the Electoral College to be counted. If they had done that, the Electoral College could have just thrown on that slate because the State's constitution specifically required that the winner of the popular vote would determine the slate of electors. If the Florida legislature had carried through with that threat, it would have been violating its own constitution and the slate could not have been considered legitimate. Additionally, it could not have passed any law changing its state constitution after the election but before the Electoral College votes for Florida were chosen.

That is just one example. Jeb has a lot on his resume that makes him not fit to occupy the Oval Office.

I thought they simply showed the Bush family in the hotel room watching the returns to try and stoke some sentimental reaction at the sight of Barbara and George H.W. Bush from the public which they hoped would result in more Floridians hoping that George W. Bush* would win the state that evening. Kind of shabby ....

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:55 AM

19. We don't need anymore Bushes or Clintons

No monarchies or status quos. We need someone new - such as Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spaulettea (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:42 AM

26. +1. no more family dynasties.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spaulettea (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:03 AM

35. Much as I adore both of them (Sanders & Warren) it's not feasible for them to win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Michigan Alum (Reply #35)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:04 PM

53. Well, realistically

I'm sure it won't happen, but I would like to see someone in there like Warren, Sanders, Gore or Kucinich, but the status quo always wins, it seems. For one thing, I'd like to see someone in there that had no ties with Monsanto. I'd also like to see someone who didn't kowtow to corporations and who would address climate change adequately, but I'm doubtful that will happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:42 AM

25. please god no.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:35 AM

44. I can't believe

That people would be willing to entertain letting another Bush run our nation. I'll do anything I can to prevent that from happening. For now, though, we need to concentrate on 2014 and getting the House back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:25 AM

46. JEBtm is the one candidate that can unite all

the groups in his party. The nomination is his if he wants it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCMach1 (Reply #46)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:54 PM

49. the funny part is, he is the one candidate who also can unite our party who hates the Bush's

 

remember, the idiot this time ran hoping dems would like his fake hair and smile

Jeb is liked by the right, but the Bush's are hated by the democrats (and this is another right/left divide. The Bush's are not hated by the right even though some on the left think so.

So it would truly be a battle of titans with Hillary against Jeb.

And we must remember what the Bush's did to Dukakis. They would do the same to another person from Mass.

It takes a Clinton to beat a Bush.

and those that think a way left person would beat a Bush, must not have been around when Dukakis ran. They made mincemeat out of a really outstanding person, one with convictions, with feeling, and from the left. Also an outsider to the system. Who had some really great ideas too. Now he is basically forgotten and/or ignored.
What is a shame is, his voice would have been nice to have in Mass after that to this day.
(and no, he was not the candidate in that primary I wanted, but I fully supported him once he received the nomination. (I wanted Rev. Jackson and Bruce Babbitt, another great man the repubs ruined). If one remembers, that year, Gore was running from the right of the party, and in a major irony, Gore was the one that in the primaries, gave the situation of Willie Horton to the public, though not mentioning his name.
And 1988 was really the prime year of Lee Atwater, who begot Karl Rove.

It would have been interesting (esp. as Dukakis got creamed), if he had picked Jesse Jackson as his VP, as Jesse did finish 2nd. It would have been nice to see how many more votes they could have gotten.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #49)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:15 PM

68. Hillary and Deval Patrick would cream

JEBtm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:14 PM

48. Huh. My advice to whoever he's fooling around with: change your name and leave town.

The Bushes like to run tidy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:25 PM

51. 12 years of bushit is quite enough

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 05:26 AM

60. The BFEE again?

They're dreaming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Reply #60)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 07:20 AM

61. what pray tell is a beff again?

 

six of the definitions of that on one of the urban def sites say it is a slur against gays

or that its best ever forever friend

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #61)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 08:35 AM

64. BFEE bush family evil empire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 02:08 PM

67. Of course he is, that was the plan all along.

W crashed the economy and is politically toxic to this day. Jeb, couldn't run in 2008 because of that. Also, they needed a Democrat to clean up the mess they left the country in. This takes time, just like Clinton was needed to clean things up after 12 years of Reagan and Bush.

Now, here in 2012, Jeb couldn't run because Obama (like Clinton) is very popular and the stench of the Republican's crash of the economy still lingers. In the next four years the economy will be fixed and the stench will be gone by then. Jeb will be in the perfect position to run and win just like W did. Jeb stands a very good chance of winning because of the electorate's short attention span and short memory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apnu (Reply #67)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:17 AM

71. 100% correct. Glad you see it.

 

and only Hillary can stop it.

Anyone else who runs IMHO will be wiped out by Jeb.
The other candidate will assume Jeb can't win and run a "no way he can" campaign and miss what he will do.

It takes a Clinton to beat a Bush.(as there will be no Obama in this race).
And it will take Chicago community organizers (a great word not bad one) to prevent Jeb.

It will not be easy.
It will be messy and ugly.
and they will try to divide us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:07 AM

72. I've been saying and posting this forever. And with his Latina wife? A no-brainer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread