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

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Why does dudeabides (it's offensive that a Bush supporter has that name, but anyway) always thinks he needs to be a campaign surrogate?

Long story short, W will OBVIOUSLY support his brother and I doubt a public acknowledgement of that will have any impact at all.

[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.

[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?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

There's an awful lot above that I don't see her as having to have a long hard look at herself. Maybe some people need to look at themselves.

It's pretty simple, she's the most politically active First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt - making yourself a political figure NOT a traditional spouse like Michelle Obama, comes with risks. She does have a knack to have people believe the worst about her. That's obviously a problem, she's not a natural wholesale politician like Bill. She's essentially a technocrat.

A lot of these critisicms don't seem to be based on anything other than groupthink. Now, she might be the hosebeast so many think she is, but I don't know her. But saying she'd never have been where she is without her husband? Sure his name carries weight but who the hell actually knows?

I sound like bloody  dudeabides but there it is...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Basically: see above to prove my point.