Harry Reid: Bush Easier to Defeat

[Cory]

What I meant is they should have rejected the May 2007 bill to fund the war. They should have told Bush to set a timetable for withdrawal or else they vote against funding. When he likely says no, they could have killed the war funding measure in the House, and George would have to bring troops home whether he liked it or not.

This would almost certainly backfire massively and cost the Democrats the 2008 election. What a terrible idea.

[Sumner 1868]

What I meant is they should have rejected the May 2007 bill to fund the war. They should have told Bush to set a timetable for withdrawal or else they vote against funding. When he likely says no, they could have killed the war funding measure in the House, and George would have to bring troops home whether he liked it or not.

This would almost certainly backfire massively and cost the Democrats the 2008 election. What a terrible idea.

It didn't kill Jimmy Carter when the Vietnam cutoff happened a year prior.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

What I meant is they should have rejected the May 2007 bill to fund the war. They should have told Bush to set a timetable for withdrawal or else they vote against funding. When he likely says no, they could have killed the war funding measure in the House, and George would have to bring troops home whether he liked it or not.

This would almost certainly backfire massively and cost the Democrats the 2008 election. What a terrible idea.

It would have initially, but the economic crisis would have saved Obama in the end. Maybe his margin would have been smaller, but he still would have won. But the democrats had no way of knowing that the Iraq/Afghanistan war would be a fairly minor issue in terms of what people were voting on election day back in May 2007, so they made the safest choice. Keep criticizing GWB and push for a timetable, but don't force it by cutting off funding.

[heatmaster]

You gotta be kidding me! The war is Obama's fault, Bush was the then, Obama is the now! Problem with Obama and his acolytes, it's aways "somebody else's fault, we are here to fix it" mantra. Well Obama hasn't done much fixing has he? Far as I can see, is that he's just made things worse; it all comes down to his feckless and failed foreign policy. Going around like b@#%& in heat, blaming America & chasing after Iran for any kind of nuclear deal. That's not anybody or Bush's fault, just Obama's,  but he won't ever man up & do a "mea culpa"

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

He manned up a bit, stood up to the plate, got a stimulus bill passed that helped our country.  If anyone needs to man up, its the GOP, for ignoring the true scale of the damage they have done to the country.

[bobloblaw]

He manned up a bit, stood up to the plate, got a stimulus bill passed that helped our country.  If anyone needs to man up, its the GOP, for ignoring the true scale of the damage they have done to the country.

The stimulus bill did squat. The recession ended in July 2009, well before the first $ of stimulus money was spent. When all the spending ended in 2011, no one noticed.

It was another grand Keynesian failure.

[heatmaster]

Just don't buy any of the Democrats presumptions. So how out of curiosity will Bush be easier to handle? Oh if the presumption that you Democrats can convince folks to buy that "because he's my brother, then I should be his keeper" crap is going to sell, then obviously by the same token, the idea that Hillary is as responsible for all the bad crap of the Clinton presidency, you know the Whitewater deal, Monica Lewinsky, Chu and the fund-raising scandals?, wait a minute she was intimately involved in those things and plenty more, you know that mantra, "you two for the price of one", as opposed to Jeb Bush being anywhere near the decision to go to war with Iraq,  or the fiasco over Hurricane Katrina or the Wall Street crash of 2008, yep I can buy the idea that as Governor of Florida, he was effectively co - president of the United States, guess I don't know anything about the U.S. political system,  how could I been so stupid. I'm so relieved I have you to set me straight😉

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

He manned up a bit, stood up to the plate, got a stimulus bill passed that helped our country.  If anyone needs to man up, its the GOP, for ignoring the true scale of the damage they have done to the country.

The stimulus bill did squat. The recession ended in July 2009, well before the first $ of stimulus money was spent. When all the spending ended in 2011, no one noticed.

It was another grand Keynesian failure.

The CBO scored it and said it helped the economy.  Your statement here shows that the level of ignorance you have as regards to the extent it helped is on the level of Fox News.

[porky88]

I don't know if he's the easiest to beat, but the establishment is making a huge mistake getting behind him. I think that speaks to the bubble Republicans live in. The establishment likes to scream that the grassroots lives in a conservative news bubble. While I agree with that, a lot of that is the pot calling the kettle black. The establishment still hasn’t come to terms that Americans perceive G.W. Bush's presidency as a total disaster. They also live in a bubble.

Bush takes away many of the arguments that Republicans could hit Hillary Clinton with. The Bush name is toxic, while the Clinton name has a bit of nostalgia to it. You can't define Hillary Clinton as old and out of touch and point toward a Bush as having a path toward the future. Make no mistake about it; both the liberal and conservative media will define a Bush/Clinton matchup as a referendum on the last names rather than what’s ailing the country.

I know the Bush's are popular with big donors, but what is so bad about John Kasich? He's a pragmatic governor from a state that Republicans must win if they're to win the White House.

What about Brian Sandoval? How is he not generating any serious 2016 buzz? The establishment should support those two guys. They'd give Hillary a ton of problems in the general election.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

As far as why Sandoval isn't being courted:

1) Republicans are still trying to convince him to run for Senate
2) He's shown absolutely no interest in running for President
3) He's pro-choice (a treasonous position to the GOP Base)

Not really sure about why Bush > Kasich, aside from Bush's naturally high name recognition because of his last name and prominent role in the 2000 Election.

[IceSpear]

As far as why Sandoval isn't being courted:

2) He's shown absolutely no interest in running for President

[porky88]

As far as why Sandoval isn't being courted:

1) Republicans are still trying to convince him to run for Senate
2) He's shown absolutely no interest in running for President
3) He's pro-choice (a treasonous position to the GOP Base)

Not really sure about why Bush > Kasich, aside from Bush's naturally high name recognition because of his last name and prominent role in the 2000 Election.

As IceSpear alluded to, Elizabeth Warren's desire not to run hasn't stopped liberals from trying to get her in the race. If you’re a big money donor, Sandoval is the person to trot out against Hillary Clinton. He's a young, pragmatic governor from a swing state who happens to be Hispanic. If the Supreme Court strikes down the ACA subsidies, Sandoval will look even better for putting his state ahead of partisanship. There’s a lot to like there, yet there’s been no buzz. We've had buzz for Walker, Romney and obviously Bush. Rubio is beginning to pickup steam. None for Sandoval, though. That blows my mind.

[Bull Moose Base]

The flaw in the analogy is Democratic activists are the ones trying to draft Warren. Republican activists aren't interested in Sandoval or Kasich. As for big donors, Kasich probably already is courting them but they prefer Bush whose record is much more conservative, except for his immigration views which they don't mind.

[Maxwell]

As far as why Sandoval isn't being courted:

1) Republicans are still trying to convince him to run for Senate
2) He's shown absolutely no interest in running for President
3) He's pro-choice (a treasonous position to the GOP Base)

Not really sure about why Bush > Kasich, aside from Bush's naturally high name recognition because of his last name and prominent role in the 2000 Election.

As IceSpear alluded to, Elizabeth Warren's desire not to run hasn't stopped liberals from trying to get her in the race. If you’re a big money donor, Sandoval is the person to trot out against Hillary Clinton. He's a young, pragmatic governor from a swing state who happens to be Hispanic. If the Supreme Court strikes down the ACA subsidies, Sandoval will look even better for putting his state ahead of partisanship. There’s a lot to like there, yet there’s been no buzz. We've had buzz for Walker, Romney and obviously Bush. Rubio is beginning to pickup steam. None for Sandoval, though. That blows my mind.

Here's why there's no buzz on Brian Sandoval

I think he has a lot of potential, but until he becomes a better public speaker I don't think he'll get far.

[bobloblaw]

What I meant is they should have rejected the May 2007 bill to fund the war. They should have told Bush to set a timetable for withdrawal or else they vote against funding. When he likely says no, they could have killed the war funding measure in the House, and George would have to bring troops home whether he liked it or not.

This would almost certainly backfire massively and cost the Democrats the 2008 election. What a terrible idea.

It didn't kill Jimmy Carter when the Vietnam cutoff happened a year prior.

well thanks for admitting the Dem party caused the defeat in Vietnam and the genocide that followed.

Fact is in Jan 1973, the US left Vietnam in much the same situation it left Korea, not the same but similar. There was no defeat in 1973, that didnt come until April 1975.

[Sumner 1868]

What I meant is they should have rejected the May 2007 bill to fund the war. They should have told Bush to set a timetable for withdrawal or else they vote against funding. When he likely says no, they could have killed the war funding measure in the House, and George would have to bring troops home whether he liked it or not.

This would almost certainly backfire massively and cost the Democrats the 2008 election. What a terrible idea.

It didn't kill Jimmy Carter when the Vietnam cutoff happened a year prior.

well thanks for admitting the Dem party caused the defeat in Vietnam and the genocide that followed.

Fact is in Jan 1973, the US left Vietnam in much the same situation it left Korea, not the same but similar. There was no defeat in 1973, that didnt come until April 1975.

Your welcome, because I'm proud of the fact aid was cut off. The Vietnam War was a shameful slaughter to defend a rightist dictatorship, and the genocide of Cambodia is the fault of that "realist" Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon bombing the country despite not being a combatant on either side.

[porky88]

As far as why Sandoval isn't being courted:

1) Republicans are still trying to convince him to run for Senate
2) He's shown absolutely no interest in running for President
3) He's pro-choice (a treasonous position to the GOP Base)

Not really sure about why Bush > Kasich, aside from Bush's naturally high name recognition because of his last name and prominent role in the 2000 Election.

As IceSpear alluded to, Elizabeth Warren's desire not to run hasn't stopped liberals from trying to get her in the race. If you’re a big money donor, Sandoval is the person to trot out against Hillary Clinton. He's a young, pragmatic governor from a swing state who happens to be Hispanic. If the Supreme Court strikes down the ACA subsidies, Sandoval will look even better for putting his state ahead of partisanship. There’s a lot to like there, yet there’s been no buzz. We've had buzz for Walker, Romney and obviously Bush. Rubio is beginning to pickup steam. None for Sandoval, though. That blows my mind.

Here's why there's no buzz on Brian Sandoval

I think he has a lot of potential, but until he becomes a better public speaker I don't think he'll get far.

It's not like Romney is a great speaker, though. Walker is also boring. With that said, I didn't realize Sandoval was that dull. I still think the establishment should be going to bat for him, but I guess Bush is their guy. Again.

[Replicator]

Harry Reid has too many dead brain cells from boxing. In my opinion it's a great representation of Democrats.

[Xing]

Reid might just be saying that because he hopes the Republicans don't pick Bush.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Jeb's days of FL gov has long passed and GOP party has moved past amnesty.  I think all the GOP are right where Romney was, a state short. As the country and Hilary has a third constituency now in Latinos

[Ebsy]

Romney was quite a few states short. But then again, so are all the current GOP candidates.