Bush in 2008?

[blackfox]

This would be Jeb Bush this time around...I know that the 2004 election hasn't even been tackled, so this may be a tad premature, but do you think he might be the rep. nominee in 2008? Do you think he might have a better chance following his brother GW (if he wins), or competing against Kerry (if he wins)? The next 4 years will probably be fairly rough, with having to deall with the fallout of Iraq and the huge defecits, so I could easily see Kerry, if he does a poor job, or is stymied by the Rep. Congress, become another perceived Carter...I could also see Bush (GW) continuing to pass the buck to the future and distracting the populace enough to get through his second term looking ok...opinions on Jeb? In general? On the state of the US and the world come 2008 (w/ either pres. in 2004)?

[bousozoku]

Jeb Bush is a lousy governor, so I can't see that he would change as president.

e.g. Floriduh's voters approved an amendment to make certain there is high speed rail between major cities--Orlando, Tampa, Miami, Jacksonville, and Tallahassee. The governor doesn't like it so he wants Floriduh's voters to change their minds. It's much easier than actually dealing with the issue, right?

[blackfox]

Jeb Bush is a lousy governor, so I can't see that he would change as president.

e.g. Floriduh's voters approved an amendment to make certain there is high speed rail between major cities--Orlando, Tampa, Miami, Jacksonville, and Tallahassee. The governor doesn't like it so he wants Floriduh's voters to change their minds. It's much easier than actually dealing with the issue, right?
UH...as a resident of Texas in the mid-to-late 90's, GW was a lousy governor also...and it did not stop him...also, Jeb is married to a hispanic woman I believe, and I could very well see this spun by the Rep. party to appeal to the large contingency of hispanic/minority voters...

[poopyhead]

the republicans need new blood (literally and figuratively)
so far both bushs have been poor leaders with the current bush being a bellicose bass turd and a simpleton whose world view seems to revolve around both his and his accomplices stock portfolio

If republicans hope to remain a viable political party then they need to move far right religiously to stoke their christian moralist base or once more discover the middle of the road so as to appeal to the majority of americans

for a while the republican and democratic parties seemed to be moving towards each other with both parties spouting similar platitudes now, however, the republicans have lost their way, they no longer even have their economic low tax low debt policies to stand by

bushy2 has managed to combine into one the most disgusting and disturbing traits of both democrats and republicans, a false facade of moral rightousness/christin "family values" and the former trends of tax and spend democrats

I think the republicans have moved into a time of crisis as a party to which the nomination of bushy3 may deal a fatal blow

[zimv20]

i believe this country is headed for a meltdown in the next 4 years. whichever party isn't in power will get the WH in 2008. i don't want it to be jeb bush, so in a way getting gw bush "re"-elected would suit that purpose for me.

[blackfox]

i believe this country is headed for a meltdown in the next 4 years. whichever party isn't in power will get the WH in 2008. i don't want it to be jeb bush, so in a way getting gw bush "re"-elected would suit that purpose for me.
Isn't that so depressing...damned if you do...damned if you don't...I just want to emigrate to Canada for a while...

[IJ Reilly]

This would be Jeb Bush this time around...

Whew, for a second there I thought you were talking about Neil!

[zimv20]

Whew, for a second there I thought you were talking about Neil!
bush family calendar says: 2016

[Lyle]

Isn't that so depressing...damned if you do...damned if you don't...I just want to emigrate to Canada for a while...You may be able to move in with Alec Baldwin. It is my understanding that he moved to Canada after Bush was elected in 2000.

[blackfox]

You may be able to move in with Alec Baldwin. It is my understanding that he moved to Canada after Bush was elected in 2000.
I am not sure if you implied this, but I am not necessarily a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal. In 2000, my favorite candidates were McCain and Bradley, not necessarily because of their party, but because, right or wrong, I respected them as individuals, and although I disagreed with them both on selective issues, I believed them to be somewhat intelligent and more importantly, people with some integrity. I ended up voting for Gore, as I had Bush as a Gov. in Texas, and regardless of politics, I felt he did a poor job, and was unprepared for the office of President, as he had so little experience (Texas has a very weak governership). Nevertheless, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He ran as a "compassionate conservative" and a "uniter". Neither panned out, and we are left with deficits, a divided country and an ill-advised and poorly planned war, which will cost us greatly. At times I feel GW is unfairly criticized, like the recession being his fault and so on, but the reason I am so depressed about the state of affairs, is that He has NOT been an integral, intelligent man in the oval office, and we are left with either 4 more years of this, or the malignment of someone else (in this case, Kerry) who will have to try and clean up his mess. Either way, the Republican party wins, and most people lose...besides, Vancouver is a great town.

[Lyle]

I am not sure if you implied this, but I am not necessarily a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal.I did not necessarily imply this. ;) I didn't know if you were really considering emigrating to Canada or if that was just a figure of speech....besides, Vancouver is a great town.Well, there's something we can agree on. ;)

[miloblithe]

I agree that there's a good chance that if Kerry wins, there's so much Bush crap to clean up that he'll be blamed and out in 2008. If Bush wins, well, we're all in trouble. Lord knows what he'd do with the free hand of a second term. I mean, at some point we have to stop "swatting at flies" and invade China, right?

[Neserk]

Isn't that so depressing...damned if you do...damned if you don't...I just want to emigrate to Canada for a while...

We'll all just go live with Skunk for awhile. I'm sure he won't mind a few Americans running around his place ofr 4 years...

[Neserk]

You may be able to move in with Alec Baldwin. It is my understanding that he moved to Canada after Bush was elected in 2000.

Apparently that goes in the pile of "was never said" along with Gore claiming to invent the internet...

[blackfox]

We'll all just go live with Skunk for awhile. I'm sure he won't mind a few Americans running around his place ofr 4 years...
Well, I do have UK citizenship(along with US)...I just prefer Canada(no disrespect Skunk...)

[skunk]

We'll all just go live with Skunk for awhile. I'm sure he won't mind a few Americans running around his place ofr 4 years...
I'd better start work on that extension, then! :)

[Lyle]

Apparently that goes in the pile of "was never said" along with Gore claiming to invent the internet...I stand corrected (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/leave.htm). It was just wishful thinking on my part.

[Neserk]

I stand corrected (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/leave.htm). It was just wishful thinking on my part.


I had no proof one way or the other... I believed it when I heard he said it and I believed it when I heard he didn't actually say it (second made more sense since he didn't actually leave)... without seeing a person actually saying something it is hard to know what is true and what is not in these situations...

[bousozoku]

UH...as a resident of Texas in the mid-to-late 90's, GW was a lousy governor also...and it did not stop him...also, Jeb is married to a hispanic woman I believe, and I could very well see this spun by the Rep. party to appeal to the large contingency of hispanic/minority voters...

Yes, Jeb is married to a Hispanic woman (Columba) and she's as bad as he is. He sent his son out on the campaign trail in 2000 for G.W. to capture the hispanic vote. He could send his drug-using, prescription-forging daughter to help address prescription drug reform.

I could see how his son would appeal to the Hispanic community, but any other groups? I don't think so.

[Frohickey]

I hope that Jeb does not run for the Presidency. Plus, I doubt he would be elected, at all.
Now, who would the GOP run in 2008.

I love chinese food, so by definition, I love Rice!!! :D :D :D

Dunno if she has political aspirations though.

[Frohickey]

Yes, Jeb is married to a Hispanic woman (Columba) and she's as bad as he is. He sent his son out on the campaign trail in 2000 for G.W. to capture the hispanic vote. He could send his drug-using, prescription-forging daughter to help address prescription drug reform.

I could see how his son would appeal to the Hispanic community, but any other groups? I don't think so.

Jeb doesn't have a monopoly on illegal-drug using children.
Al Gore Jr. was busted for illegal drugs too.

[Krizoitz]

I believe that Jeb was the nominee apparent until George won in Texas.

[Neserk]

Jeb doesn't have a monopoly on illegal-drug using children.
Al Gore Jr. was busted for illegal drugs too.

Perhaps you should delve a little deeper into what actually happened...

[IJ Reilly]

Perhaps you should delve a little deeper into what actually happened...

He was arrested for marijuana possession. I guess this is still a big deal in some states.

[Neserk]

He was arrested for marijuana possession. I guess this is still a big deal in some states.


And what was the circumstances of Bush's offsprings problem? I think by comparison you will find young Gore's arrest to be minor... one can hardly compare the two.

[IJ Reilly]

And what was the circumstances of Bush's offsprings problem? I think by comparison you will find young Gore's arrest to be minor... one can hardly compare the two.

Well sure, it wasn't the hard stuff, but Frohickey did make a technically true statement (except that it was Al Gore III who was busted for pot possession, not Al Gore, Jr.).

Personally, I don't know why anyone would bring this up. When it comes to drug problems, nearly every family's had them, so I don't see what is gained by throwing rocks. At some point, it always comes down to hypocrisy.

[Neserk]

Well sure, it wasn't the hard stuff, but Frohickey did make a technically true statement (except that it was Al Gore III who was busted for pot possession, not Al Gore, Jr.).

Personally, I don't know why anyone would bring this up. When it comes to drug problems, nearly every family's had them, so I don't see what is gained by throwing rocks. At some point, it always comes down to hypocrisy.

I didn't bring up, so I can't answer that ... just pointing out the two are completely different...

[bousozoku]

Jeb doesn't have a monopoly on illegal-drug using children.
Al Gore Jr. was busted for illegal drugs too.

Yes, I would imagine every politician has someone embarrassed enough to take drugs. However, oxycontin is a bit stronger than marijuana and forging prescriptions is a bit wilder too.

[jefhatfield]

This would be Jeb Bush this time around...I know that the 2004 election hasn't even been tackled, so this may be a tad premature, but do you think he might be the rep. nominee in 2008? Do you think he might have a better chance following his brother GW (if he wins), or competing against Kerry (if he wins)? The next 4 years will probably be fairly rough, with having to deall with the fallout of Iraq and the huge defecits, so I could easily see Kerry, if he does a poor job, or is stymied by the Rep. Congress, become another perceived Carter...I could also see Bush (GW) continuing to pass the buck to the future and distracting the populace enough to get through his second term looking ok...opinions on Jeb? In general? On the state of the US and the world come 2008 (w/ either pres. in 2004)?

it's possible that jeb can make it in 2008

i wouldn't like it since the usa needs more than just a few political dynasties...clintons, gores, bushies, doles, and kennedys running the show...we need much more variety

the gop has lost touch with the majority of americans and cater too much to born again christians, entrepreneurs, the ultra rich, and gun owners

what about gun victims, women, minorities, the middle and lower classes, union members, employees? it's amazing that the gop actually wins half the races out there since their constituency is by far in the minority

[blackfox]

it's possible that jeb can make it in 2008

i wouldn't like it since the usa needs more than just a few political dynasties...clintons, gores, bushies, doles, and kennedys running the show...we need much more variety

the gop has lost touch with the majority of americans and cater too much to born again christians, entrepreneurs, the ultra rich, and gun owners

what about gun victims, women, minorities, the middle and lower classes, union members, employees? it's amazing that the gop actually wins half the races out there since their constituency is by far in the minority
I tend to look at it as the GOP exploits human tendencies of greed and selfishness...while the Democrats exploit compassion and idealism (and some naivete)...for their own ends...I prefer the latter...but the former has a strong appeal, w/o a doubt. (I am way too cynical)

[Frohickey]

it's possible that jeb can make it in 2008

i wouldn't like it since the usa needs more than just a few political dynasties...clintons, gores, bushies, doles, and kennedys running the show...we need much more variety

the gop has lost touch with the majority of americans and cater too much to born again christians, entrepreneurs, the ultra rich, and gun owners

what about gun victims, women, minorities, the middle and lower classes, union members, employees? it's amazing that the gop actually wins half the races out there since their constituency is by far in the minority

Agreed, we need to get away from political dynasties. Present day are the Kennedys, Bushs, Clinton and Gore. But remember the Rockefellers and Roosevelts as well.

As far as losing touch with the majority of americans, I am an equal opportunity political buffet caterer-consumer. I'd gladly support Democrats, Republicans, Greenies, Libertarians, Communists, etc that support my causes, which would be maximizing individual liberties, smaller government, more responsibility, etc.

Its just that somehow, Democrats, Greenies and Communists do not support my causes, or do not support them anymore (Democrats used to).

BTW, there are no gun victims. Guns are not sentient beings.

[skunk]

BTW, there are no gun victims. Guns are not sentient beings.
So there are no gun owners either?

[Frohickey]

I tend to look at it as the GOP exploits human tendencies of greed and selfishness...while the Democrats exploit compassion and idealism (and some naivete)...for their own ends...I prefer the latter...but the former has a strong appeal, w/o a doubt. (I am way too cynical)

You mean the GOP encourages individual responsibility and independence, while the Democrats encourage dependency and class warfare, maybe a little bit of racial warfare to go along with it.

[skunk]

You mean the GOP encourages individual responsibility and independence, while the Democrats encourage dependency and class warfare, maybe a little bit of racial warfare to go along with it.
I notice it was a Republican President who started the latest bit of racial warfare.

[blackfox]

You mean the GOP encourages individual responsibility and independence, while the Democrats encourage dependency and class warfare, maybe a little bit of racial warfare to go along with it.
First of all, I wasn't making a judgement of which is better, just calling it how I see it...second of all, there is a fine line between "independence" and "individual responsibility" and greed and selfishness...many hide the latter under the cloak of the former...not all, but many. I do not expect you to understand the compassion comment...as far as the dependency and class warfare go, I'll give you that it might at times, but that was the point of my original post, that these tendencies are already there, regardless...

[Frohickey]

I notice it was a Republican President who started the latest bit of racial warfare.

It was? I think Lincoln was the one that wanted to free the slaves. Are you saying that Lincoln should not have pushed for emancipation because you consider it to be racial warfare?

I do not consider emancipation as racial warfare, more like a redefinition of the term 'property' as excluding sentient beings.

[zimv20]

I do not consider emancipation as racial warfare
i do not consider Lincoln's party as the republican party of today

[Frohickey]

I do not expect you to understand the compassion comment...

HEY! My political party is the one that ran a candidate on Compassionate Conservatism... I think that I fully understand the compassion comment. :p

[Frohickey]

i do not consider Lincoln's party as the republican party of today

Yeah, I do not consider Jefferson's party as the Democratic party of today either... more like Stalin's party, or is that Castro's party. :eek:

[blackfox]

It was? I think Lincoln was the one that wanted to free the slaves. Are you saying that Lincoln should not have pushed for emancipation because you consider it to be racial warfare?

I do not consider emancipation as racial warfare, more like a redefinition of the term 'property' as excluding sentient beings.
No, I believe Skunk was referring to our current President, who has started a war between Muslims/Arabs and Christians/Whites...you only have to look to an address he made a few weeks ago to see that point...in that address, he said in effect that "arabs" have a chance for democracy and us "whites" are trying to teach it to them, and if you disagree with our war effort, you are a racist. As always, rich in irony...

[poopyhead]

I do not consider emancipation as racial warfare, more like a redefinition of the term 'property' as excluding sentient beings.

sentient beings are still held as property

[blackfox]

Yeah, I do not consider Jefferson's party as the Democratic party of today either... more like Stalin's party, or is that Castro's party. :eek:
Is this a rhetorical statement, designed to get a rise? The Democrats of today are among the most Centrist Democrats ever. Do you think that anything left of Fascist is Communist? Or that any government that somehow limits your absolute freedom is an oppressive Tolatarian one?

[zimv20]

Yeah, I do not consider Jefferson's party as the Democratic party of today either... more like Stalin's party, or is that Castro's party. :eek:
i think you're the only one invoking presidents from more than 30 years ago. i'm not sure what any of it proves.

[poopyhead]

Yeah, I do not consider Jefferson's party as the Democratic party of today either... more like Stalin's party, or is that Castro's party. :eek:

how can you compare stalin and castro
lenin and castro maybe
but certainly not stalin

might I remind you that it is the Republican party which for the past several decades has posed the most serious thereat to freedom of speech not the democrats

As I see it the choice between republican and democrat is a choice between economic liberty or civil liberties, I would choose the later any day. The only party that even seems to attempt to advocate true classical liberty on which the US was founded are the libertarians who have been so over run with gun nuts and militia freaks that while I support many of their ideas I find it hard to support the party.

[IJ Reilly]

Is this a rhetorical statement, designed to get a rise? The Democrats of today are among the most Centrist Democrats ever. Do you think that anything left of Fascist is Communist? Or that any government that somehow limits your absolute freedom is an oppressive Tolatarian one?

He's just following in the slimy footsteps of that right wing godhead, Bill O'Reilly.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405040007

[Frohickey]

might I remind you that it is the Republican party which for the past several decades has posed the most serious thereat to freedom of speech not the democrats

As I see it the choice between republican and democrat is a choice between economic liberty or civil liberties, I would choose the later any day. The only party that even seems to attempt to advocate true classical liberty on which the US was founded are the libertarians who have been so over run with gun nuts and militia freaks that while I support many of their ideas I find it hard to support the party.

Oh yes. How I loathe the Campaign Finance Reform law signed by GWBush. Good thing we have people like Senator Mitch McConnell, Congressman Ron Paul and organizations like the NRA that would go to bat against CFR and its infringement on the 1st Amendment. I don't see the ACLU doing its bit against CFR.

[Frohickey]

i think you're the only one invoking presidents from more than 30 years ago. i'm not sure what any of it proves.

Heck, I would trade GWBush for a JFKennedy, complete with his womanizing traits, just as long as we get JFKennedy's tax-cutting trait again. :eek:
Oh wait, does that mean we get to do Vietnam all over again? :eek: :eek: It might be fun to see a Ted-the-hero-of-Chappaquiddick-Kennedy rail against his brother. :D

[Neserk]

i do not consider Lincoln's party as the republican party of today

That makes sense since Lincoln was *by definition* a democrat. Words change meaning over time this is an excellent example!

[poopyhead]

Oh yes. How I loathe the Campaign Finance Reform law signed by GWBush. Good thing we have people like Senator Mitch McConnell, Congressman Ron Paul and organizations like the NRA that would go to bat against CFR and its infringement on the 1st Amendment. I don't see the ACLU doing its bit against CFR.

Going by the plain words interpretation you prefer
I don't remember a right to donate to political candidates within the body of constitution
sure you might be able to argue that it is a free speech issue but that would entail one using a pretty liberal interpretation of what is meant by free speech. One would have to go with freedom of expression to constitutionally invalidate strictures on donation, which most conservatives hate because freedom of expression allows flag burning and crosses in urine.

[skunk]

No, I believe Skunk was referring to our current President, who has started a war between Muslims/Arabs and Christians/Whites...you only have to look to an address he made a few weeks ago to see that point...in that address, he said in effect that "arabs" have a chance for democracy and us "whites" are trying to teach it to them, and if you disagree with our war effort, you are a racist. As always, rich in irony...
A cigar for that man! :rolleyes:

[Frohickey]

Going by the plain words interpretation you prefer
I don't remember a right to donate to political candidates within the body of constitution
sure you might be able to argue that it is a free speech issue but that would entail one using a pretty liberal interpretation of what is meant by free speech. One would have to go with freedom of expression to constitutionally invalidate strictures on donation, which most conservatives hate because freedom of expression allows flag burning and crosses in urine.

Not this conservative. You can burn your flag or pee on your cross all you want, just don't use my tax dollars to do it with.

As to a right to donate to political candidates, its there, inside the 9th Amendment, sitting side-by-side with the right to privacy, and the right to a privately-funded abortion. :eek:

[poopyhead]

As to a right to donate to political candidates, its there, inside the 9th Amendment, sitting side-by-side with the right to privacy, and the right to a privately-funded abortion. :eek:

but then you would be agreeing with me which would indicate a lack of consistency in your argument. It would appear that you would want to pick and choose rights and freedoms to best suit your own needs while denying some rights to others. This would lead to you being an elitist which you previously denied being.

[pseudobrit]

BTW, there are no gun victims. Guns are not sentient beings.

What do you call people, if not victims, who've lost their house when it's hit by a hurricane?

Or their lives in a flood?

Or are you just playing with semantics?

[Voltron]

Originally Posted by Frohickey
BTW, there are no gun victims. Guns are not sentient beings.

So there are no gun owners either?
Huh? :rolleyes:
Car owners, home owners etc. You can own an inanimate object.
Hmm Car victims, Boat victims, swimming pool victims, too much time spent on the computer victims.

[skunk]

Huh? :rolleyes:
Car owners, home owners etc. You can own an inanimate object.
By your rather strange logic, if a gun victim is an impossibility, a gun owner is too. I'm afraid your grasp of elementary english is letting you down.

[mactastic]

HEY! My political party is the one that ran a candidate on Compassionate Conservatism... I think that I fully understand the compassion comment. :p

Yeah, and you appear to understand the concept every bit as well as he does. :eek: