How would GW Bush do in this field? Would (and is) he be considered a moderate?

[Simfan34]

What about the Bush of today, and Bush 2000? I'm inclined to say both- if they're different people, even- would be in T-Paw land.

[Wisconsin+17]

Probably dominate, I'd assume.

Against abortion, against gay marriage, from Texas.

Think of the power of Newt in the South - with a successful governorship and no marital baggage.

Look at how well Cain was doing before he got sandbagged.

[Niemeyerite]

Probably dominate, I'd assume.

Against abortion, against gay marriage, from Texas.

Think of the power of Newt in the South - with a successful governorship and no marital baggage.

Look at how well Cain was doing before he got sandbagged.

Are you talking about Rick Perry?

[dg87]

Probably dominate, I'd assume.

Against abortion, against gay marriage, from Texas.

Think of the power of Newt in the South - with a successful governorship and no marital baggage.

Look at how well Cain was doing before he got sandbagged.

Are you talking about Rick Perry?

Even Bushs rhetorical skills beat those of Perry. Also Bush was able to transport his message in a serious and concerned manner (despite how much someone could oppose it) something I never saw from Perry.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

2000 GW would've hung around Huntsman in the polls. I picture modern GW having the same path as Rick Perry.

[King]

Bush would have taken the Perry bounce and ran with it.

[anvi]

Bush would have done well, and would probably be winning.  By now, against the current field, the 2000 Bush would have taken Iowa, South Carolina, Florida, Missouri and Colorado, at least.  He certainly had shortcomings as a candidate, but he did have the rare ability to get broad support among religious conservatives and tow the middle of the line on defense and economic issues.  It's kind of hard to find electoral fault with a candidate who won two terms.  (Well, he didn't really win the first one, but still...)

[Yank2133]

Bush would have taken the Perry bounce and ran with it.

This.

[Indy Texas]

Let's recall Bush's platform in 2000...(taken from campaign materials available at 4president.org)

EDUCATION:
Bush will spend $5 billion for early intervention to help every child read by third grade.
He will expand character education in schools to help teach our children there are right and wrong choices in life.
He will make it easier to remove disruptive students, stop junk lawsuits against teachers and strengthen classroom safety.
Tea Party says...Government spending on education; indoctrinating our children via the public school system; pandering to teachers' unions

HEALTHCARE:
He’ll sign a Patient’s Bill of Rights that holds HMOs accountable...And families should get help with the cost of caring for elderly family members at home. He’ll expand research into curing cancer, Alzheimer’s and other diseases, in part by dramatically increasing the budget of the National Institutes of Health.
Tea Party says...attacking the free market by demonizing HMOs; making people more dependent on government for healthcare; throwing more money at a meddling federal agency

TAXES:
The biggest percentage reductions go to those in the lower tax brackets because they often face higher marginal tax rates than the wealthy.
Tea Party says...Class warfare! We should cut taxes for the rich and make poor people pay more!

FOREIGN POLICY:
President Bush will order an immediate review of overseas deployments: no U.S. troops should be in harm’s way unless America’s interests are at stake.
Tea Party says...George W. Bush is trying to weaken America and apologize to those who hate us!

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

If term limits weren't around and he did run, he would've dropped out long ago.  Even most Republicans know that he'd lose at least 30 states to Obama.

[Wisconsin+17]

Next up:

Roosevelt vs Roosevelt!

[anvi]

Yeah, I hear what you're saying, IndependentTX, Bush's 2000 policy agenda would certainly have to be adjusted for today's circumstances.  On the other hand, the TEA Party isn't driving the GOP's wagon this year like they did in 2010.  I'm just saying that, as a candidate, Bush found a way to rhetorically walk on both sides of the fence that runs through the very different contours of the GOP better than any of the prospective nominees out there now.

[Simfan34]

If term limits weren't around and he did run, he would've dropped out long ago.  Even most Republicans know that he'd lose at least 30 states to Obama.

Oh, I'm thinking of a nomination not taking his prior tenure into account.

[hotpprs]

Well, since the Tea Party movement was born, it seems to be more clear what being a GOP conservative stands for.
I don't think GW Bush would be a big favorite of Tea Party supporters, so I think he would definitely fall into the moderate category.