George W. endorsing brother Jeb: would it help Jeb or hurt him?

[Bojack Horseman]

I think it's more irrelevant now than it was 8 years ago. Bush has been out of the political scene for so long that his approval rating has increased, as most former presidents' approval ratings tend to. It might carry more weight in the primary, but I highly doubt that anybody voted for Mitt Romney three years ago just because George W. Bush endorsed him.

[heatmaster]

Here's an idea pbrower2a,  Republicans will remind how lousy a President Barack Obama is, particularly at the Republican convention,  and pound on this theme right through election day. Trust me! There is a lot of fodder on which to work on. Every statement, every policy, every statement and every promise Obama has made will be scrutinized and examined. All our party has to say, is "Had enough? ...then help is on the way", Hillary is now in a place where Republicans are very comfortable,  no bragging rights as far as Secretary of State goes. Yep plenty of negatives about Obama-Hillary, so go on pound on George W. Bush, but in case you forgot, what was good in 2008, ain't relevant in the 2016 cycle. Blaming Dubya only works for a limited period, think the well is empty. But Obama is a perfect target, he's the incumbent, not Dubya LOL😀😀

[Mr. Illini]

People already associate them very much so. A public endorsement would define Jeb's candidacy as such even more, something he wouldn't want.

It would hurt him.

[dudeabides]

Here's an idea pbrower2a,  Republicans will remind how lousy a President Barack Obama is, particularly at the Republican convention,  and pound on this theme right through election day. Trust me! There is a lot of fodder on which to work on. Every statement, every policy, every statement and every promise Obama has made will be scrutinized and examined. All our party has to say, is "Had enough? ...then help is on the way", Hillary is now in a place where Republicans are very comfortable,  no bragging rights as far as Secretary of State goes. Yep plenty of negatives about Obama-Hillary, so go on pound on George W. Bush, but in case you forgot, what was good in 2008, ain't relevant in the 2016 cycle. Blaming Dubya only works for a limited period, think the well is empty. But Obama is a perfect target, he's the incumbent, not Dubya LOL😀😀

Very well said my friend.

When Mitt Romney made his "47%" gaffe, he did so by exaggerating numbers.

The vast majority of people on public assistance are hard working people who are victims of a bad economy. They don't want to rely on government, but they are forced to.

That being said, there are always going to be those who want to rely on government. The Democrats offer free cell phones, food stamps, and free health care via medicaid. So, Romney was not wrong when he said some will vote Democrat no matter what.

However, for the vast majority of Americans, these are tough economic times. But I refuse to believe that the vast majority of those who are poor want to remain poor, I refuse to believe the vast majority on food stamps want to be on food stamps, and I know people want rising incomes again.

The choice in this election will be clear. If you believe that government regulation of the economy is a good thing, that we should be willing to accept record poverty and food stamp use, if you believe that we shouldn't grow at more than 2%, if you believe that increasing our national debt by $8 trillion in 6 years and 7 months is acceptable, if you believe small businesses should not open or expand, and if you believe in record low labor participation, then Hillary Clinton would love to have your vote.

But, if you think we can grow at 4% with the right policies and that we should work to reform our entitlement programs and tax code to reduce our national debt, than the Republican candidate - so long as it's not Donald Trump - is how you should vote.

 

[Stranger in a strange land]

I can't wait for the Donald to point out what a sh**tty President he was.

The Donald is going to mop the floor with Jeb at the debate, and it will be glorious to watch.

[dudeabides]

I can't wait for the Donald to point out what a sh**tty President he was.

The Donald is going to mop the floor with Jeb at the debate, and it will be glorious to watch.

Donald Trump will mop the floor with Jeb only amongst his half literate base, everyone else will be laughing at Donald Dump.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

I can't wait for the Donald to point out what a sh**tty President he was.

The Donald is going to mop the floor with Jeb at the debate, and it will be glorious to watch.

It's going to be great to watch Trump eat Bush alive.

[dudeabides]

Donald Trump will mop the floor with Jeb only amongst his half literate base, everyone else will be laughing at Donald Dump.

Dude, you’ve been taking a Donald Dump sized sh**t in your pants every day for the past month.  Pretending you aren't being beaten isn't going to magically make Trump’s rhetoric less damaging and effective.  Before you go on with blah blah blah he supported socialized medicine blah blah abortion stop for a second and realize none of that matters; the last guy who got the nomination created the prototype for Obamacare for Christ sake.  What matters most in a presidential primary is perceived strength and rhetoric.  As long as Donald keeps steamrolling over this entire field and not apologizing for anything no one is going to look stronger and no one can match his rhetorical skills.  Did you see him completely emasculate Scott Walker in Iowa the other day?  Even if he eventually flames out the damage Trump will do to Bush and his brand at these debates will be massive. 

First of all, Donald Trump is not going to be the debate winner, I can tell you that. When it comes to economics and foreign policy, he knows nothing. He's a terrible public speaker and he doesn't know how to answer questions.

Secondly, my fear is actually not Donald Trump's ability to win the primaries. Be it Herman Cain in 2012, Fred Thompson in 2008, Elizabeth Dole in 2000, or Phil Gramm in 1996, history shows us that challengers to the establishment favorite lose. My fear is that Donald Trump is lowering the level of dialogue in our country and making Republicans look dumb. He is exploiting people who are scared, angry, and many who aren't very smart. Of course, the Donald isn't very smart either so I doubt it's intentional.

Funny, Donald Trump is doing favors for some of the others running. He makes Jeb Bush look even more electable than he already is, Rick Perry look presidential, Lindsey Graham look like a strong leader, and he's making Scott Walker look like the common sense conservative in the race. Sorry my friend, the guy is a socialist, there is no way around it.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Donald Trump will mop the floor with Jeb only amongst his half literate base, everyone else will be laughing at Donald Dump.

Dude, you’ve been taking a Donald Dump sized sh**t in your pants every day for the past month.  Pretending you aren't being beaten isn't going to magically make Trump’s rhetoric less damaging and effective.  Before you go on with blah blah blah he supported socialized medicine blah blah abortion stop for a second and realize none of that matters; the last guy who got the nomination created the prototype for Obamacare for Christ sake.  What matters most in a presidential primary is perceived strength and rhetoric.  As long as Donald keeps steamrolling over this entire field and not apologizing for anything no one is going to look stronger and no one can match his rhetorical skills.  Did you see him completely emasculate Scott Walker in Iowa the other day?  Even if he eventually flames out the damage Trump will do to Bush and his brand at these debates will be massive. 

First of all, Donald Trump is not going to be the debate winner, I can tell you that. When it comes to economics and foreign policy, he knows nothing. He's a terrible public speaker and he doesn't know how to answer questions.

Secondly, my fear is actually not Donald Trump's ability to win the primaries. Be it Herman Cain in 2012, Fred Thompson in 2008, Elizabeth Dole in 2000, or Phil Gramm in 1996, history shows us that challengers to the establishment favorite lose. My fear is that Donald Trump is lowering the level of dialogue in our country and making Republicans look dumb. He is exploiting people who are scared, angry, and many who aren't very smart. Of course, the Donald isn't very smart either so I doubt it's intentional.

Funny, Donald Trump is doing favors for some of the others running. He makes Jeb Bush look even more electable than he already is, Rick Perry look presidential, Lindsey Graham look like a strong leader, and he's making Scott Walker look like the common sense conservative in the race. Sorry my friend, the guy is a socialist, there is no way around it.

Dude, you come off as a shill for the Bush Family; a family who, singlehandedly, lowered the level of dialogue in politics.  What was Willie Horton about?  Oh, I know, it was Bush 41's late flunky, Lee Atwater, injecting a racially inflammatory (but irrelevant) issue into a Presidential campaign.  Let's get a bit real here.

You're right about one thing.  Donald Trump may be able to win the debate amongst those who are scared, angry, and just smart enough to know they've been screwed.  The problem for Jeb Jeb is that the number of such people who vote in GOP primaries is greater than you think. 

But let's put Donald Trump aside:  Why Jeb Bush?  Is he REALLY the smartest?  Is he REALLY the most experienced?  Is he REALLY the most electable?

As for the smartest, who knows?  Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have high IQs and that hasn't impressed you.  What keen insight does Jeb Bush have that other Republican candidates don't have?  I'd really like to know this.  He can talk the Bush Establishment line, but that line, arguably, hasn't been a line that's been good for America, at least in the eyes of Americans who have to endure the consequences of Bushism.

As for the most experience, where does Jeb come off as having more experience than George Pataki?  He's not served in the military, whereas Lindsey Graham has 21 years experience in the Congress and extensive service as a military officer.  He doesn't come near to the experience of John Kasich in government, and he has not succeeded in business to the degree of Carly Fiorina.  I would be hard-pressed to say that Jeb Bush has any more relevant "experience" for the Presidency than, say, Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum.  And he's been out of public office since January, 2007.  If he weren't a Bush, we wouldn't be talking about him as viable, and that's the bottom line here.  The only candidates that are less experienced are Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Rand Paul.

As to electable:  He's a Bush, and Bush Fatigue is real.  Americans have had one Clinton, and they were OK with the last one when he left office.  Americans have had two (2) Bushes, and were happy with neither.  Jeb looks better than his brother.  That's setting the bar low, IMO.

[dudeabides]

Donald Trump will mop the floor with Jeb only amongst his half literate base, everyone else will be laughing at Donald Dump.

Dude, you’ve been taking a Donald Dump sized sh**t in your pants every day for the past month.  Pretending you aren't being beaten isn't going to magically make Trump’s rhetoric less damaging and effective.  Before you go on with blah blah blah he supported socialized medicine blah blah abortion stop for a second and realize none of that matters; the last guy who got the nomination created the prototype for Obamacare for Christ sake.  What matters most in a presidential primary is perceived strength and rhetoric.  As long as Donald keeps steamrolling over this entire field and not apologizing for anything no one is going to look stronger and no one can match his rhetorical skills.  Did you see him completely emasculate Scott Walker in Iowa the other day?  Even if he eventually flames out the damage Trump will do to Bush and his brand at these debates will be massive.  

First of all, Donald Trump is not going to be the debate winner, I can tell you that. When it comes to economics and foreign policy, he knows nothing. He's a terrible public speaker and he doesn't know how to answer questions.

Secondly, my fear is actually not Donald Trump's ability to win the primaries. Be it Herman Cain in 2012, Fred Thompson in 2008, Elizabeth Dole in 2000, or Phil Gramm in 1996, history shows us that challengers to the establishment favorite lose. My fear is that Donald Trump is lowering the level of dialogue in our country and making Republicans look dumb. He is exploiting people who are scared, angry, and many who aren't very smart. Of course, the Donald isn't very smart either so I doubt it's intentional.

Funny, Donald Trump is doing favors for some of the others running. He makes Jeb Bush look even more electable than he already is, Rick Perry look presidential, Lindsey Graham look like a strong leader, and he's making Scott Walker look like the common sense conservative in the race. Sorry my friend, the guy is a socialist, there is no way around it.

Dude, you come off as a shill for the Bush Family; a family who, singlehandedly, lowered the level of dialogue in politics.  What was Willie Horton about?  Oh, I know, it was Bush 41's late flunky, Lee Atwater, injecting a racially inflammatory (but irrelevant) issue into a Presidential campaign.  Let's get a bit real here.

You're right about one thing.  Donald Trump may be able to win the debate amongst those who are scared, angry, and just smart enough to know they've been screwed.  The problem for Jeb Jeb is that the number of such people who vote in GOP primaries is greater than you think.  

But let's put Donald Trump aside:  Why Jeb Bush?  Is he REALLY the smartest?  Is he REALLY the most experienced?  Is he REALLY the most electable?

As for the smartest, who knows?  Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have high IQs and that hasn't impressed you.  What keen insight does Jeb Bush have that other Republican candidates don't have?  I'd really like to know this.  He can talk the Bush Establishment line, but that line, arguably, hasn't been a line that's been good for America, at least in the eyes of Americans who have to endure the consequences of Bushism.

As for the most experience, where does Jeb come off as having more experience than George Pataki?  He's not served in the military, whereas Lindsey Graham has 21 years experience in the Congress and extensive service as a military officer.  He doesn't come near to the experience of John Kasich in government, and he has not succeeded in business to the degree of Carly Fiorina.  I would be hard-pressed to say that Jeb Bush has any more relevant "experience" for the Presidency than, say, Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum.  And he's been out of public office since January, 2007.  If he weren't a Bush, we wouldn't be talking about him as viable, and that's the bottom line here.  The only candidates that are less experienced are Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Rand Paul.

As to electable:  He's a Bush, and Bush Fatigue is real.  Americans have had one Clinton, and they were OK with the last one when he left office.  Americans have had two (2) Bushes, and were happy with neither.  Jeb looks better than his brother.  That's setting the bar low, IMO.

I'm sure your a nice guy, but you come off as completely brainwashed by Donald Trump.

First of all, the Willie Horton ad campaign was not about race, but nice try. It was about crime. Michael Dukakis, Governor of Massachusetts and Democratic Presidential Nominee, was always soft on crime and that was the point the Bush/Quayle campaign was trying to illustrate.

Donald Trump is not winning any debates. Frankly, he relies on people not reading, not learning, and being scared and angry in a corner for support. The vast majority of Americans are smarter than Trump's supporters and the Donald himself, which is why he will lose the debates and the GOP nomination.

Conservatives like me went out and cast our ballots for Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum during the 2012 primaries, I supported Gingrich. But when Mitt Romney was nominated, we realized he was the better candidate than Barack Obama. This time, I am breaking with my fellow conservatives in support of Jeb Bush, who is conservative but his tone is more moderate. The point is, Donald Trump's views are out of line with the vast majority of Republicans, and most Republicans aren't bigots who rely on government to get ahead.

George Pataki is a career politician. He's been in elected office since the 1980s. John Kasich has been in elected office for 26 years. Lindsey Graham has been in office for two decades. Rick Santorum was in politics for years. All have fine experience, but Jeb Bush has experience as a businessman in real estate, as Florida's Secretary of Commerce, as the founder of a charter school, and as Governor of one of America's largest and most diverse states.

Even if Jeb's last name was Smith, he'd still have a record of reducing taxes by $18 billion, increasing reserves by $8 billion, vetoing $2 billion in increased spending, reducing the size of state government and privatizing services, enacting medicaid reform that was patient centered, enacting medical liability reform, enacting worker's compensation reform, signing Stand Your Ground into law, being tough on crime, enacting historic school choice while ending social promotion in 3rd grade, and protecting the Everglades.

As far as Bush fatigue is concerned, this isn't 2012. George W. Bush was elected President of the United States after his father had lost re-election and left office with a 56% disapproval rating.

Frankly, I find it ironic that someone who is supporting a low-life like Donald Trump for President would say the Bush's are setting the bar low. I'll just come out and say it: I believe, on top of being a socialist, an egomaniac, and just plain stupid, Donald Trump is a low-life. I don't care how much money he has, the man is dysfunctional. He's white trash. No thanks.

I have no reason to dislike you personally and while I respect your right to your opinion, I have to say that the cult of Donald Trump is just something I'm not willing to join.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Donald Trump will mop the floor with Jeb only amongst his half literate base, everyone else will be laughing at Donald Dump.

Dude, you’ve been taking a Donald Dump sized sh**t in your pants every day for the past month.  Pretending you aren't being beaten isn't going to magically make Trump’s rhetoric less damaging and effective.  Before you go on with blah blah blah he supported socialized medicine blah blah abortion stop for a second and realize none of that matters; the last guy who got the nomination created the prototype for Obamacare for Christ sake.  What matters most in a presidential primary is perceived strength and rhetoric.  As long as Donald keeps steamrolling over this entire field and not apologizing for anything no one is going to look stronger and no one can match his rhetorical skills.  Did you see him completely emasculate Scott Walker in Iowa the other day?  Even if he eventually flames out the damage Trump will do to Bush and his brand at these debates will be massive.  

First of all, Donald Trump is not going to be the debate winner, I can tell you that. When it comes to economics and foreign policy, he knows nothing. He's a terrible public speaker and he doesn't know how to answer questions.

Secondly, my fear is actually not Donald Trump's ability to win the primaries. Be it Herman Cain in 2012, Fred Thompson in 2008, Elizabeth Dole in 2000, or Phil Gramm in 1996, history shows us that challengers to the establishment favorite lose. My fear is that Donald Trump is lowering the level of dialogue in our country and making Republicans look dumb. He is exploiting people who are scared, angry, and many who aren't very smart. Of course, the Donald isn't very smart either so I doubt it's intentional.

Funny, Donald Trump is doing favors for some of the others running. He makes Jeb Bush look even more electable than he already is, Rick Perry look presidential, Lindsey Graham look like a strong leader, and he's making Scott Walker look like the common sense conservative in the race. Sorry my friend, the guy is a socialist, there is no way around it.

Dude, you come off as a shill for the Bush Family; a family who, singlehandedly, lowered the level of dialogue in politics.  What was Willie Horton about?  Oh, I know, it was Bush 41's late flunky, Lee Atwater, injecting a racially inflammatory (but irrelevant) issue into a Presidential campaign.  Let's get a bit real here.

You're right about one thing.  Donald Trump may be able to win the debate amongst those who are scared, angry, and just smart enough to know they've been screwed.  The problem for Jeb Jeb is that the number of such people who vote in GOP primaries is greater than you think.  

But let's put Donald Trump aside:  Why Jeb Bush?  Is he REALLY the smartest?  Is he REALLY the most experienced?  Is he REALLY the most electable?

As for the smartest, who knows?  Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have high IQs and that hasn't impressed you.  What keen insight does Jeb Bush have that other Republican candidates don't have?  I'd really like to know this.  He can talk the Bush Establishment line, but that line, arguably, hasn't been a line that's been good for America, at least in the eyes of Americans who have to endure the consequences of Bushism.

As for the most experience, where does Jeb come off as having more experience than George Pataki?  He's not served in the military, whereas Lindsey Graham has 21 years experience in the Congress and extensive service as a military officer.  He doesn't come near to the experience of John Kasich in government, and he has not succeeded in business to the degree of Carly Fiorina.  I would be hard-pressed to say that Jeb Bush has any more relevant "experience" for the Presidency than, say, Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum.  And he's been out of public office since January, 2007.  If he weren't a Bush, we wouldn't be talking about him as viable, and that's the bottom line here.  The only candidates that are less experienced are Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Rand Paul.

As to electable:  He's a Bush, and Bush Fatigue is real.  Americans have had one Clinton, and they were OK with the last one when he left office.  Americans have had two (2) Bushes, and were happy with neither.  Jeb looks better than his brother.  That's setting the bar low, IMO.

I'm sure your a nice guy, but you come off as completely brainwashed by Donald Trump.

First of all, the Willie Horton ad campaign was not about race, but nice try. It was about crime. Michael Dukakis, Governor of Massachusetts and Democratic Presidential Nominee, was always soft on crime and that was the point the Bush/Quayle campaign was trying to illustrate.

Donald Trump is not winning any debates. Frankly, he relies on people not reading, not learning, and being scared and angry in a corner for support. The vast majority of Americans are smarter than Trump's supporters and the Donald himself, which is why he will lose the debates and the GOP nomination.

Conservatives like me went out and cast our ballots for Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum during the 2012 primaries, I supported Gingrich. But when Mitt Romney was nominated, we realized he was the better candidate than Barack Obama. This time, I am breaking with my fellow conservatives in support of Jeb Bush, who is conservative but his tone is more moderate. The point is, Donald Trump's views are out of line with the vast majority of Republicans, and most Republicans aren't bigots who rely on government to get ahead.

George Pataki is a career politician. He's been in elected office since the 1980s. John Kasich has been in elected office for 26 years. Lindsey Graham has been in office for two decades. Rick Santorum was in politics for years. All have fine experience, but Jeb Bush has experience as a businessman in real estate, as Florida's Secretary of Commerce, as the founder of a charter school, and as Governor of one of America's largest and most diverse states.

Even if Jeb's last name was Smith, he'd still have a record of reducing taxes by $18 billion, increasing reserves by $8 billion, vetoing $2 billion in increased spending, reducing the size of state government and privatizing services, enacting medicaid reform that was patient centered, enacting medical liability reform, enacting worker's compensation reform, signing Stand Your Ground into law, being tough on crime, enacting historic school choice while ending social promotion in 3rd grade, and protecting the Everglades.

As far as Bush fatigue is concerned, this isn't 2012. George W. Bush was elected President of the United States after his father had lost re-election and left office with a 56% disapproval rating.

Frankly, I find it ironic that someone who is supporting a low-life like Donald Trump for President would say the Bush's are setting the bar low. I'll just come out and say it: I believe, on top of being a socialist, an egomaniac, and just plain stupid, Donald Trump is a low-life. I don't care how much money he has, the man is dysfunctional. He's white trash. No thanks.

I have no reason to dislike you personally and while I respect your right to your opinion, I have to say that the cult of Donald Trump is just something I'm not willing to join.

The Willie Horton ad was ALL about race:

1.  The ad was about a prisoner (a lifer) committing a serious new offense (a rape) while on a furlough.  Yes, Dukakis was Governor when this happened, but the furlough program (since discontinued for certain violent classes of offenders) was NOT a Dukakis creation; it was something in place when he took over the Massachusetts Governorship in 1975.

2.  William Horton was never known as "Willie" Horton until Lee Atwater's ad.  Atwater deliberately referred to Horton as "Willie" to raise the specter of race into this issue. 

The issue, truthfully, had relatively little to do with how Dukakis would have managed the office of the Presidency, but it did inspire the kind of emotional reasoning amongst low information voters that you, dudeabides, are constantly chiding Trump for.  If so, perhaps Trump has learned something from the Bushes after all.  If you were one of the Bushes crying to Trump about how he's a demagogue, Trump's answer would be "I know you are, but what am I?"

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I think we may overestmate the W. factor.

[dudeabides]

Donald Trump will mop the floor with Jeb only amongst his half literate base, everyone else will be laughing at Donald Dump.

Dude, you’ve been taking a Donald Dump sized sh**t in your pants every day for the past month.  Pretending you aren't being beaten isn't going to magically make Trump’s rhetoric less damaging and effective.  Before you go on with blah blah blah he supported socialized medicine blah blah abortion stop for a second and realize none of that matters; the last guy who got the nomination created the prototype for Obamacare for Christ sake.  What matters most in a presidential primary is perceived strength and rhetoric.  As long as Donald keeps steamrolling over this entire field and not apologizing for anything no one is going to look stronger and no one can match his rhetorical skills.  Did you see him completely emasculate Scott Walker in Iowa the other day?  Even if he eventually flames out the damage Trump will do to Bush and his brand at these debates will be massive.  

The Willie Horton ad was ALL about race:

1.  The ad was about a prisoner (a lifer) committing a serious new offense (a rape) while on a furlough.  Yes, Dukakis was Governor when this happened, but the furlough program (since discontinued for certain violent classes of offenders) was NOT a Dukakis creation; it was something in place when he took over the Massachusetts Governorship in 1975.

2.  William Horton was never known as "Willie" Horton until Lee Atwater's ad.  Atwater deliberately referred to Horton as "Willie" to raise the specter of race into this issue. 

The issue, truthfully, had relatively little to do with how Dukakis would have managed the office of the Presidency, but it did inspire the kind of emotional reasoning amongst low information voters that you, dudeabides, are constantly chiding Trump for.  If so, perhaps Trump has learned something from the Bushes after all.  If you were one of the Bushes crying to Trump about how he's a demagogue, Trump's answer would be "I know you are, but what am I?"

No, Michael Dukakis did not create the furlough program. But, Dukakis continued the program and ran as an anti-capital punishment candidate in 1988. He supported the program. Dukakis was soft on crime, and that was the issue. The Willie Horton ads had absolutely nothing to do with race. It had everything to do with crime. Criminals are black and white, victims are black and white.

I completely disagree with you in terms of the Willie Horton ad being unfair to Michael Dukakis. Dukakis being soft on crime was an issue because the President must face enemies who are as bad as characters like Horton. The way to judge Dukakis on foreign policy, since he was never in a position where he dealt with foreign affairs, was through his record on crime. Additionally, there are federal crimes that require a tough attorney general and strict federal law.

Frankly, I actually don't know if the Willie Horton ad campaign was necessary. George Bush could have made an economic case for his election as President and still won by the margin he did. Contrary to what you believe, I am not a spokesperson for the Bush family. I think George Bush was a great public servant and person, I think he was a good President, but not great. I think George W. Bush was a good but not great President. I think Jeb Bush was a great Governor and based on his resume and not his last name, I believe he'd be a great President.

Donald Trump has not learned anything from the Bush family. George Bush served our country in uniform, Donald Trump has made it clear he dislikes our veterans. George W. Bush took positions and stuck with them regardless of polls, Donald Trump has not done that. Jeb Bush is running a campaign that seeks to appeal to people's hopes, Donald Trump is appealing to people's fears.

[heatmaster]

Well said dudeabides,  there are a few on this thread, who refuse to understand your well presented arguments. They seem to assume based on his past statements, that Trump will "mop the floor with Jeb". My response to that, is what premise do you go by to support your arguments. I and many others contributing to this thread would like to understand how you reached your conclusions. I for one, have only seen Donald the blow-hard in action, all we hear is "I" and "me" and an awful lot of bragging and little else. What will happen and I hope and believe this, Trump will self-destruct, he is unable to articulate positions on issues, because he has none. His positions if he has any, will likely reveal inconsistencies and bye-bye Trumpster the Dumpster☺

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Donald Trump will mop the floor with Jeb only amongst his half literate base, everyone else will be laughing at Donald Dump.

Dude, you’ve been taking a Donald Dump sized sh**t in your pants every day for the past month.  Pretending you aren't being beaten isn't going to magically make Trump’s rhetoric less damaging and effective.  Before you go on with blah blah blah he supported socialized medicine blah blah abortion stop for a second and realize none of that matters; the last guy who got the nomination created the prototype for Obamacare for Christ sake.  What matters most in a presidential primary is perceived strength and rhetoric.  As long as Donald keeps steamrolling over this entire field and not apologizing for anything no one is going to look stronger and no one can match his rhetorical skills.  Did you see him completely emasculate Scott Walker in Iowa the other day?  Even if he eventually flames out the damage Trump will do to Bush and his brand at these debates will be massive. 

First of all, Donald Trump is not going to be the debate winner, I can tell you that. When it comes to economics and foreign policy, he knows nothing. He's a terrible public speaker and he doesn't know how to answer questions.

Secondly, my fear is actually not Donald Trump's ability to win the primaries. Be it Herman Cain in 2012, Fred Thompson in 2008, Elizabeth Dole in 2000, or Phil Gramm in 1996, history shows us that challengers to the establishment favorite lose. My fear is that Donald Trump is lowering the level of dialogue in our country and making Republicans look dumb. He is exploiting people who are scared, angry, and many who aren't very smart. Of course, the Donald isn't very smart either so I doubt it's intentional.

Funny, Donald Trump is doing favors for some of the others running. He makes Jeb Bush look even more electable than he already is, Rick Perry look presidential, Lindsey Graham look like a strong leader, and he's making Scott Walker look like the common sense conservative in the race. Sorry my friend, the guy is a socialist, there is no way around it.

I've said this recently - look at the 2012 Debates. What "won" them wasn't the person who knew their stuff, it was the person who could land the zingers and act like the biggest a**hole. Considering the GOP seems like to belligerence... Trump is a master at it.

In my mind, one of the reasons why Trump is a legitimate threat and why the GOP should be worried, is to me, he's basically Newt Gingrich but gaffe-proof, with a bigger ego and with Independent wealth.

[JonathanSwift]

A Gingrich supporter who thinks Trump is "stupid, dysfunctional, egomaniacal, low-life white trash?" Now I've seen it all.

[dudeabides]

Donald Trump will mop the floor with Jeb only amongst his half literate base, everyone else will be laughing at Donald Dump.

I've said this recently - look at the 2012 Debates. What "won" them wasn't the person who knew their stuff, it was the person who could land the zingers and act like the biggest a**hole. Considering the GOP seems like to belligerence... Trump is a master at it.

In my mind, one of the reasons why Trump is a legitimate threat and why the GOP should be worried, is to me, he's basically Newt Gingrich but gaffe-proof, with a bigger ego and with Independent wealth.

Newt Gingrich accomplished things as House Speaker. He fought for a capital gains tax cut, welfare reform, more police on our streets, and the first balanced budget in a generation. Gingrich came from nowhere and rose to become a successful member of congress and later, advocate for the causes he believes in. When Newt Gingrich ran for President in 2012, he appealed to people's hopes and not their fears. He talked about issues, he didn't just use rhetoric. Trump is nothing at all like Gingrich.

A Gingrich supporter who thinks Trump is "stupid, dysfunctional, egomaniacal, low-life white trash?" Now I've seen it all.

All of those adjectives to describe Trump, absolutely.

Well said dudeabides,  there are a few on this thread, who refuse to understand your well presented arguments. They seem to assume based on his past statements, that Trump will "mop the floor with Jeb". My response to that, is what premise do you go by to support your arguments. I and many others contributing to this thread would like to understand how you reached your conclusions. I for one, have only seen Donald the blow-hard in action, all we hear is "I" and "me" and an awful lot of bragging and little else. What will happen and I hope and believe this, Trump will self-destruct, he is unable to articulate positions on issues, because he has none. His positions if he has any, will likely reveal inconsistencies and bye-bye Trumpster the Dumpster☺

Thank you my friend, you also make great arguments. Unfortunately, those who are part of the cult of Donald Trump won't agree.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Here's an idea pbrower2a,  Republicans will remind how lousy a President Barack Obama is, particularly at the Republican convention,  and pound on this theme right through election day. Trust me! There is a lot of fodder on which to work on. Every statement, every policy, every statement and every promise Obama has made will be scrutinized and examined. All our party has to say, is "Had enough? ...then help is on the way", Hillary is now in a place where Republicans are very comfortable,  no bragging rights as far as Secretary of State goes. Yep plenty of negatives about Obama-Hillary, so go on pound on George W. Bush, but in case you forgot, what was good in 2008, ain't relevant in the 2016 cycle. Blaming Dubya only works for a limited period, think the well is empty. But Obama is a perfect target, he's the incumbent, not Dubya LOL😀😀

Very well said my friend.

When Mitt Romney made his "47%" gaffe, he did so by exaggerating numbers.

The vast majority of people on public assistance are hard working people who are victims of a bad economy. They don't want to rely on government, but they are forced to.

That being said, there are always going to be those who want to rely on government. The Democrats offer free cell phones, food stamps, and free health care via medicaid. So, Romney was not wrong when he said some will vote Democrat no matter what.

However, for the vast majority of Americans, these are tough economic times. But I refuse to believe that the vast majority of those who are poor want to remain poor, I refuse to believe the vast majority on food stamps want to be on food stamps, and I know people want rising incomes again.

The choice in this election will be clear. If you believe that government regulation of the economy is a good thing, that we should be willing to accept record poverty and food stamp use, if you believe that we shouldn't grow at more than 2%, if you believe that increasing our national debt by $8 trillion in 6 years and 7 months is acceptable, if you believe small businesses should not open or expand, and if you believe in record low labor participation, then Hillary Clinton would love to have your vote.

But, if you think we can grow at 4% with the right policies and that we should work to reform our entitlement programs and tax code to reduce our national debt, than the Republican candidate - so long as it's not Donald Trump - is how you should vote.

 

That wasn't a "gaffe" by Romney; it was an unintended window into his soul. 

Romney's elitist contempt for the less fortunate came through loud and clear, and that's why, in the end, he lost an election he should have won. 

[dudeabides]

Here's an idea pbrower2a,  Republicans will remind how lousy a President Barack Obama is, particularly at the Republican convention,  and pound on this theme right through election day. Trust me! There is a lot of fodder on which to work on. Every statement, every policy, every statement and every promise Obama has made will be scrutinized and examined. All our party has to say, is "Had enough? ...then help is on the way", Hillary is now in a place where Republicans are very comfortable,  no bragging rights as far as Secretary of State goes. Yep plenty of negatives about Obama-Hillary, so go on pound on George W. Bush, but in case you forgot, what was good in 2008, ain't relevant in the 2016 cycle. Blaming Dubya only works for a limited period, think the well is empty. But Obama is a perfect target, he's the incumbent, not Dubya LOL😀😀

Very well said my friend.

When Mitt Romney made his "47%" gaffe, he did so by exaggerating numbers.

The vast majority of people on public assistance are hard working people who are victims of a bad economy. They don't want to rely on government, but they are forced to.

That being said, there are always going to be those who want to rely on government. The Democrats offer free cell phones, food stamps, and free health care via medicaid. So, Romney was not wrong when he said some will vote Democrat no matter what.

However, for the vast majority of Americans, these are tough economic times. But I refuse to believe that the vast majority of those who are poor want to remain poor, I refuse to believe the vast majority on food stamps want to be on food stamps, and I know people want rising incomes again.

The choice in this election will be clear. If you believe that government regulation of the economy is a good thing, that we should be willing to accept record poverty and food stamp use, if you believe that we shouldn't grow at more than 2%, if you believe that increasing our national debt by $8 trillion in 6 years and 7 months is acceptable, if you believe small businesses should not open or expand, and if you believe in record low labor participation, then Hillary Clinton would love to have your vote.

But, if you think we can grow at 4% with the right policies and that we should work to reform our entitlement programs and tax code to reduce our national debt, than the Republican candidate - so long as it's not Donald Trump - is how you should vote.

 

That wasn't a "gaffe" by Romney; it was an unintended window into his soul. 

Romney's elitist contempt for the less fortunate came through loud and clear, and that's why, in the end, he lost an election he should have won. 

Mitt Romney has donated large sums of money to charity, though he never bragged about it because he's a good man.

You seem to dislike competent and smart people.

[heatmaster]

Fuzzy bear, you are so entrenched in this idea of "political correctness" and Romney's unfortunate gaffe about the "47 percent" was exactly that, a gaffe. Folks getting bent out of shape, for other people telling it like it is, is precisely why America is where it is. No one can say exactly what is on there mind for fear of being pounded on. If it is a gaffe which Romney committed,  I agree with his sentiments,  you have shift less layabouts,  who prefer the government to take care of there needs. All because they are takers and naturally vote Democrat, because "Mommy" takes care of everything. "Daddy" who represents the Republicans doesn't want to deny the less fortunate those supports they need. But what we do take great exception to, is those layabout waste of spaces, most of whom make up the 47 percent is to get off their collective a#$%! for a change, and contribute to society,  instead of being moronic parasites. Maybe "Fuzzybear" thinks things are okay and we shouldn't make the hard choices, maybe you Secretly are a Democrat parading as an Independent, maybe you are not offended with the idea that Donald Trump should be President, if so, could you please explain to me, what has that blow-hard ever contributed to society? he would be better served running as a Democrat,  he shares every position that most Democrats advocate.  As for this idea he should have the right to participate in a important debate, why? Because he is polling at 18% in most polls? Because he is a moronic loud - mouth who hasn't a clue on any of the issues? He's good for one thing,  mouthing off  tasteless smart ass zingers, he should be running for comedian-in-chief, not commander-in-chief, he has been unable to behave in a responsible manner,  it shows in his choice of a wife, does this country need a manipulative bimbo as first lady? Please give us a break Fuzzy bear and other's who secretly & publicly support the dumpster😑

[dudeabides]

Fuzzy bear, you are so entrenched in this idea of "political correctness" and Romney's unfortunate gaffe about the "47 percent" was exactly that, a gaffe. Folks getting bent out of shape, for other people telling it like it is, is precisely why America is where it is. No one can say exactly what is on there mind for fear of being pounded on. If it is a gaffe which Romney committed,  I agree with his sentiments,  you have shift less layabouts,  who prefer the government to take care of there needs. All because they are takers and naturally vote Democrat, because "Mommy" takes care of everything. "Daddy" who represents the Republicans doesn't want to deny the less fortunate those supports they need. But what we do take great exception to, is those layabout waste of spaces, most of whom make up the 47 percent is to get off their collective a#$%! for a change, and contribute to society,  instead of being moronic parasites. Maybe "Fuzzybear" thinks things are okay and we shouldn't make the hard choices, maybe you Secretly are a Democrat parading as an Independent, maybe you are not offended with the idea that Donald Trump should be President, if so, could you please explain to me, what has that blow-hard ever contributed to society? he would be better served running as a Democrat,  he shares every position that most Democrats advocate.  As for this idea he should have the right to participate in a important debate, why? Because he is polling at 18% in most polls? Because he is a moronic loud - mouth who hasn't a clue on any of the issues? He's good for one thing,  mouthing off  tasteless smart ass zingers, he should be running for comedian-in-chief, not commander-in-chief, he has been unable to behave in a responsible manner,  it shows in his choice of a wife, does this country need a manipulative bimbo as first lady? Please give us a break Fuzzy bear and other's who secretly & publicly support the dumpster😑

[ElectionsGuy]

It doesn't really matter. Nobody cares about George W Bush anymore.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Here's an idea pbrower2a,  Republicans will remind how lousy a President Barack Obama is, particularly at the Republican convention,  and pound on this theme right through election day. Trust me! There is a lot of fodder on which to work on. Every statement, every policy, every statement and every promise Obama has made will be scrutinized and examined. All our party has to say, is "Had enough? ...then help is on the way", Hillary is now in a place where Republicans are very comfortable,  no bragging rights as far as Secretary of State goes. Yep plenty of negatives about Obama-Hillary, so go on pound on George W. Bush, but in case you forgot, what was good in 2008, ain't relevant in the 2016 cycle. Blaming Dubya only works for a limited period, think the well is empty. But Obama is a perfect target, he's the incumbent, not Dubya LOL😀😀

Very well said my friend.

When Mitt Romney made his "47%" gaffe, he did so by exaggerating numbers.

The vast majority of people on public assistance are hard working people who are victims of a bad economy. They don't want to rely on government, but they are forced to.

That being said, there are always going to be those who want to rely on government. The Democrats offer free cell phones, food stamps, and free health care via medicaid. So, Romney was not wrong when he said some will vote Democrat no matter what.

However, for the vast majority of Americans, these are tough economic times. But I refuse to believe that the vast majority of those who are poor want to remain poor, I refuse to believe the vast majority on food stamps want to be on food stamps, and I know people want rising incomes again.

The choice in this election will be clear. If you believe that government regulation of the economy is a good thing, that we should be willing to accept record poverty and food stamp use, if you believe that we shouldn't grow at more than 2%, if you believe that increasing our national debt by $8 trillion in 6 years and 7 months is acceptable, if you believe small businesses should not open or expand, and if you believe in record low labor participation, then Hillary Clinton would love to have your vote.

But, if you think we can grow at 4% with the right policies and that we should work to reform our entitlement programs and tax code to reduce our national debt, than the Republican candidate - so long as it's not Donald Trump - is how you should vote.

 

That wasn't a "gaffe" by Romney; it was an unintended window into his soul. 

Romney's elitist contempt for the less fortunate came through loud and clear, and that's why, in the end, he lost an election he should have won. 

Mitt Romney has donated large sums of money to charity, though he never bragged about it because he's a good man.

You seem to dislike competent and smart people.

If I recall the vast proportion of Romney's charitable giving was to his Church.

Also, the fact that you repeat generalizations.... wait, how old are you?

[heatmaster]

Here's an idea pbrower2a,  Republicans will remind how lousy a President Barack Obama is, particularly at the Republican convention,  and pound on this theme right through election day. Trust me! There is a lot of fodder on which to work on. Every statement, every policy, every statement and every promise Obama has made will be scrutinized and examined. All our party has to say, is "Had enough? ...then help is on the way", Hillary is now in a place where Republicans are very comfortable,  no bragging rights as far as Secretary of State goes. Yep plenty of negatives about Obama-Hillary, so go on pound on George W. Bush, but in case you forgot, what was good in 2008, ain't relevant in the 2016 cycle. Blaming Dubya only works for a limited period, think the well is empty. But Obama is a perfect target, he's the incumbent, not Dubya LOL😀😀

Very well said my friend.

When Mitt Romney made his "47%" gaffe, he did so by exaggerating numbers.

The vast majority of people on public assistance are hard working people who are victims of a bad economy. They don't want to rely on government, but they are forced to.

That being said, there are always going to be those who want to rely on government. The Democrats offer free cell phones, food stamps, and free health care via medicaid. So, Romney was not wrong when he said some will vote Democrat no matter what.

However, for the vast majority of Americans, these are tough economic times. But I refuse to believe that the vast majority of those who are poor want to remain poor, I refuse to believe the vast majority on food stamps want to be on food stamps, and I know people want rising incomes again.

The choice in this election will be clear. If you believe that government regulation of the economy is a good thing, that we should be willing to accept record poverty and food stamp use, if you believe that we shouldn't grow at more than 2%, if you believe that increasing our national debt by $8 trillion in 6 years and 7 months is acceptable, if you believe small businesses should not open or expand, and if you believe in record low labor participation, then Hillary Clinton would love to have your vote.

But, if you think we can grow at 4% with the right policies and that we should work to reform our entitlement programs and tax code to reduce our national debt, than the Republican candidate - so long as it's not Donald Trump - is how you should vote.

 

That wasn't a "gaffe" by Romney; it was an unintended window into his soul.  

Romney's elitist contempt for the less fortunate came through loud and clear, and that's why, in the end, he lost an election he should have won.  

Mitt Romney has donated large sums of money to charity, though he never bragged about it because he's a good man.

You seem to dislike competent and smart people.

If I recall the vast proportion of Romney's charitable giving was to his Church.

Also, the fact that you repeat generalizations.... wait, how old are you?

I will treat that remark about generalizations with the contempt it deserves;  no rebuttal or points to buttress, what would very likely be weak or moronic arguments, and is that "wait, how old are you?""a smart - assed Trumpism,  you come from his neighborhood or maybe work for him, right?😊

[andrew_c]

W endorsing Jeb would have minimal effect.  W on the campaign trail wouldn't necessarily be game over for Jeb, but it would certainly cost Jeb a couple of winnable states.