Oh this does not sound good. [Archive]

aquajet

May 11, 2006, 01:33 AM

...

Bush tips brother Jeb for White House

US President George W Bush said that his younger brother Jeb would make a "great president", setting off speculation that a third member of the political dynasty could try for the White House.

Jeb Bush, who is the governor of Florida, said however that while he appreciated the flattering comments, he has no intention now of running for the top job.

Mr Bush told Florida journalists in an interview that his brother was an "excellent leader".

"I think Jeb would be a great president. But it's up to Jeb to make a decision to run," Mr Bush said in comments published in several state newspapers.

"I would like to see Jeb run at some point in time, but I have no idea if that's his intention or not."

The Bush family is one of the pre-eminent US political dynasties. The brothers' father, George Bush, occupied the White House from 1988-92.

-AFP

LethalWolfe

May 11, 2006, 01:36 AM

W/how much W has pee'd in the pool, do you really think his bro has a snowball's chance anytime soon?

Lethal

yg17

May 11, 2006, 01:36 AM

Everyone sing along....

"O Canada, our home and native land!"

xsedrinam

May 11, 2006, 01:37 AM

¡Viva la Floriduh!

zimv20

May 11, 2006, 01:51 AM

thanks, jet.

i've always thought that jeb was smarter than george. if he did want to run, he'd be in a weird place that he'd either have to embrace his brother's job (political suicide) or distance himself (bush familial suicide).

i'd rather see chelsea clinton run against either one of the twins. a proper debate would be most enlightening.

badmofo9000

May 11, 2006, 04:18 AM

I am sure Jeb will run in the future, just not in 2008. He would need time to let the American people warm up to the idea of another Bush administration. 2012 or 2016 maybe.

If you want to see who I think the next Bush presidency will belong to, it is George P. Bush, Jeb's son. I find this inevitable just like another Clinton presidency. It is really two bad US politics will be controlled by only two families for the forseeable future. I am not too old but for as long as I can remember it has been only Bush/Clinton Administrations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Bush

blackfox

May 11, 2006, 04:39 AM

Jeb is going to have his hands full for a while. I don't know how long his gubernatorial term has remaining, but until then he will have to deal with:

(a) the state increasingly catching on fire
(b) the state getting more and more windy and full of too much water
(c) the state's economic and political fallout of (a) and (b)
(d) the state being Florida
(e) immigration policy focus

I have to wonder whether Florida's general propensity for wierdness and odd religious fervor is related to the fact that the weather gets more apocalyptic each year. I expect one of the horseman to be doing the local forecasts.

Also, frankly, I don't want a President named Jeb. Even more so if it is short for Jebidiah.

Qoxiivi

May 11, 2006, 06:00 AM

If we vote another Bush president, we deserve what's coming.

Unfortunately, it's not just Americans (primarily not in fact) that suffer from the shoddy products of their misappropriated ‘democracy’.

IanF0729

May 11, 2006, 09:10 AM

Unfortunately, it's not just Americans (primarily not in fact) that suffer from the shoddy products of their misappropriated ‘democracy’.

True, but I simply refuse to beleive that Americans could be stupid enough to do it again...

Even my parents hate Bush at this point! :eek:

pseudobrit

May 11, 2006, 09:24 AM

True, but I simply refuse to beleive that Americans could be stupid enough to do it again...

Even my parents hate Bush at this point! :eek:

Remember, it doesn't matter how bad the Shrub is if he can make the Democratic nominee look worse.

In that case, it becomes a case of

"anybody but Bush... except that guy."

mactastic

May 11, 2006, 10:24 AM

Jeb is going to have his hands full for a while. I don't know how long his gubernatorial term has remaining...
IIRC Jeb is out next year.

I think this country is sour on two bad Bush presidencies. It will be a while before another Bush is considered.

And for the person who said this country is controlled by the Clintons and the Bushes - Clinton is what they call 'new money'. Bush is what they call 'a legacy'. Out here we call them 'trustafarians'.

New money doesn't get control of the country. Old money keeps that club pretty exclusive. Maybe in another 50 or 100 years if the Clinton family pursues politics extensively.

Now the Kennedys are a different story...

IJ Reilly

May 11, 2006, 12:14 PM

If Jeb turns the party down, there's always Neil.

zimv20

May 11, 2006, 12:21 PM

If Jeb turns the party down, there's always Neil.
and after that, there's a whole 'nother generation of bushes just champing at the bit.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/29/jeb.bush.daughter.drugs/story.noelle.booking.jpg

http://www.thefirsttwins.com/images/JennaBush.jpg

IJ Reilly

May 11, 2006, 12:32 PM

Girl wrestling on the White House lawn -- I could get used to that!

jelloshotsrule

May 11, 2006, 12:48 PM

I am not too old but for as long as I can remember it has been only Bush/Clinton Administrations.

you mean since like, roughly, 1988? :p

i too doubt that jeb will run in 08. wouldn't be surprised to see a bush in the whitehouse in the near future, though.

aquajet

May 11, 2006, 06:05 PM

I'll pick door number two, Bob.

solvs

May 12, 2006, 02:19 AM

I'm sure that was a plan, somewhere down the road. Notice who's calling for it. But I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon, and Jeb has known that for awhile.

FFTT

May 12, 2006, 02:28 AM

Looks in international real estate guide for places to retire on under $12,000
per year. :cool:

Thomas Veil

May 12, 2006, 10:16 AM

~Shard~

May 12, 2006, 10:21 AM

True, but I simply refuse to beleive that Americans could be stupid enough to do it again...

Never underestimate American stupidity. :cool:

IJ Reilly

May 12, 2006, 11:03 AM

Hey, leave Stan out of this. He was funny on purpose.

Thomas Veil

May 12, 2006, 12:16 PM

Would you believe I could not find the picture of Stan I really wanted -- with his hat off, scratching his head in confusion? That would've matched even more closely, but despite the fact that that pose is a Stan Laurel trademark, copied by everyone who imitates him, I was unable to find such a picture of Stan himself on Google, Yahoo or Dogpile. Odd.

IJ Reilly

May 12, 2006, 12:59 PM

cslewis

May 12, 2006, 01:05 PM

Is there any realistic shot that he could be impeached after the November elections?

Thomas Veil

May 12, 2006, 08:35 PM

No...Stan Laurel is dead.

mactastic

May 12, 2006, 08:40 PM

Is there any realistic shot that he could be impeached after the November elections?
All depends on the outcome of the elections. No way you'll see a GOP congress impeach. Not even very likely that you'll see a Democratic one do it - even if they do take control it will likely be only by a few seats.

blackfox

May 12, 2006, 09:37 PM

You've got to wonder what the ultimate benefit of impeachment would be.

If Bush was impeached, you are left with President Cheney. If, through some miracle both are removed then you are left with Hastert.

Also, strangely, an impeachment might even help the GOP, which is struggling with an identity-crisis. Impeachment, especially if Democratically-led, might give the GOP the time and opportunity to distance itself from Bush and reconstruct it's position(s) and image coming into the 2008 Elections.

zimv20

May 12, 2006, 09:51 PM

You've got to wonder what the ultimate benefit of impeachment would be.

If Bush was impeached, you are left with President Cheney. If, through some miracle both are removed then you are left with Hastert.
remember that impeachment does not equal removal from office, that's a separate trial by the senate. so an impeachment should send a signal that someone (congress, the people, or at least the House) is unhappy.

i'd rather have a president hastert than either of those other two clowns. and because of an oddity with the rules for a trial of a sitting VP, the VP gets to vote at his own trial.

blackfox

May 12, 2006, 09:54 PM

remember that impeachment does not equal removal from office, that's a separate trial by the senate. so an impeachment should send a signal that someone (congress, the people, or at least the House) is unhappy.

i'd rather have a president hastert than either of those other two clowns. and because of an oddity with the rules for a trial of a sitting VP, the VP gets to vote at his own trial.
oh, there are not enough signals already?

What about the other part of my quote? You have to think there is internal debate among the GOP about such things...

bousozoku

May 12, 2006, 10:03 PM

IIRC Jeb is out next year.

I think this country is sour on two bad Bush presidencies. It will be a while before another Bush is considered.

And for the person who said this country is controlled by the Clintons and the Bushes - Clinton is what they call 'new money'. Bush is what they call 'a legacy'. Out here we call them 'trustafarians'.

New money doesn't get control of the country. Old money keeps that club pretty exclusive. Maybe in another 50 or 100 years if the Clinton family pursues politics extensively.

Now the Kennedys are a different story...

Jeb Bush has been here for around 7.5 years, it seems. Hurricane Floyd (1999) was where he really showed himself. That was also the last time I viewed him in a positive light. He is mostly a good speaker but he's a bit more direct about avoiding the issues than others in his family, such as the time his daughter was forging prescriptions. He rarely stumbles, though, and his Spanish is serviceable.

Since then, it's been more about helping big business and hurting consumers. It's likely that the people here in Floriduh would vote him into the presidency. People from Texas probably would do the same.

zimv20

May 12, 2006, 10:08 PM

oh, there are not enough signals already?
yeah, good point. under normal circumstances, a formal censure would mean something to an administration. but for an administration which panders to only a subset of the population, it probably won't mean much.

What about the other part of my quote? You have to think there is internal debate among the GOP about such things...
absolutely. the issue you're getting at is, under a dem congress, an impeachment and possible removal could be portrayed as a partisan act. i suppose how well that resonates would depend on which and how many repubs went along for it.

i'd rather have the proceedings and risk the fallout. we need to take back our country.

zap2

May 12, 2006, 10:17 PM

does Bush's massive 31% of the public will vote for Jeb

Democrates here we come!

mactastic

May 13, 2006, 10:26 AM

oh, there are not enough signals already?

What about the other part of my quote? You have to think there is internal debate among the GOP about such things...
Are you referring to the bounce in the polls that Clinton received during his impeachment? I think that is on the minds of a lot of Democratic Congresscritters and hopefuls. Many will want to impeach Bush in order to send a message, and to avenge the politically-motivated impeachment of Clinton. But others will be cautioning that impeachment will only rally Bush's base again, pushing his numbers higher. And they are quite possibly right.

Personally I'd rather see President 29% (hopefully President 20% by then, but I digress) serve out the rest of his miserable term with Congressional oversight committees nipping at his heels, uncovering all the scandals of the Bush administration. Leave Bush in office so that people can see the failure of 'compassionate conservatism' and vote against it in '08.

And possibly pack Bush off to the Hague for some face time with the court there after he leaves office.