Althouse: "[W]hy would the Republican party want this one family to dominate their presidencies from the late 1980s into the 2020s, when both Bush presidencies so far have left so much to be desired?"

January 21, 2015

"[W]hy would the Republican party want this one family to dominate their presidencies from the late 1980s into the 2020s, when both Bush presidencies so far have left so much to be desired?"

Perfect question.

OR: Even if you liked H.W. and W. or both, how could a party possibly want a single nuclear family to be the source of all of its presidents for a period of 32 (or 36) years?

160 comments:

Big Mike said...: Why does anybody think that the Republican nominee will be chosen before the summer of 2016?

Let's not get so eager to see Obama gone that we forget the calendar's role in the election cycle.; 1/21/15, 10:58 AM
Expat(ish) said...: Well, it presupposes that the Bush presidencies were negative. So they kind of lose me there.

I'd say the same thing about Clinton's second term or Reagan's first were the question framed on their backs.

_XC; 1/21/15, 11:01 AM
Ann Althouse said...: @Big Mike I don't see the relevance of your comment. Obviously, the money is falling into place right now, and the options are getting limited. Are you just trying to say you don't want to talk about it? This post is me deciding to talk about it. Skip the thread if you don't think it's a worthy subject.; 1/21/15, 11:02 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "Well, it presupposes that the Bush presidencies were negative. So they kind of lose me there."

I get the impression you wrote that before I added my "OR" question. What do you think now?; 1/21/15, 11:03 AM
cubanbob said...: Funny how all these earnest Democrats never ask themselves the same question, like why Hillary? Is the Democrat lineup filled with all stars? Who is one the Democrat bench as of now? Hillary and maybe the court jester Biden and the fake Indian Harvard communist Warren. Some line up there.; 1/21/15, 11:03 AM
MayBee said...: Why do we have to talk about presidential candidates for 4 years these days.

Can't we ever drop the election cycle reporting?; 1/21/15, 11:04 AM
bleh said...: The Bushes have covered the bases of the Republican electorate. George pere is a textbook establishment Republican. Moderate, technocratic, compromising, experienced, etc. Somewhat patrician, in sharp contrast to his wife's "everyman" style. George fils is less patrician and less technocratic, more Southern and religious, and more outwardly pro-military. He speaks the language of the social conservatives, while at the same time not being an extremist. He was actually quite an effective politician.

It's not hard to see how various segments of the Republican electorate can imagine that Jeb embodies the preferred attributes while offering the promise of even better governance. Jeb, after all, was always supposed to the be the one. Supposedly. He's been able to watch firsthand his father and his brother be the most powerful man in the world. Surely Jeb is prepared.

I do think the Bush name is more of a liability than an asset, but the "Bush fatigue" stuff is way overblown, for the reasons I mention. If Hillary appears to be the odds-on favorite to win the Democratic nomination, Jeb will definitely run and probably win. Bush fatigue and Clinton fatigue cancel each other out, IMHO.; 1/21/15, 11:05 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "I'd say the same thing about Clinton's second term or Reagan's first were the question framed on their backs."

What does that mean?

Anyway, Hillary is subject to the criticism that there shouldn't be a third Clinton term, but that criticism can't be used if Jeb Bush is the opponent. From his perspective, that's a reason for him to run now, so he can lessen the criticism that we've had too much of the Bush family, but why should the GOP sacrifice a good argument against Hillary?; 1/21/15, 11:05 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: A single nucular family somehow seems like less of a problem.; 1/21/15, 11:07 AM
Expat(ish) said...: @Ann - Yes, I did post before the "or" and I certainly am not a fan of dynastic politics. Two words for you: Kennedy. (old joke)

Also, my point on Reagan (1st term) or Clinton (2nd term) is that it's hard to see how well/poorly a president did when you're pretty close to them, especially after a rocky period.

The first GWB is probably far enough away to be seen as a caretaker. Clinton is not judgable yet, I don't think.

There are exceptions, I think. Modern era we have Carter, and probably BHO, where you can make the call.

Early 20th Century it was pretty clear that Taft and Hoover were headed for the bin. And Kennedy and FDR were going up. LBJ is a good example of a guy we still don't quite have our hands around.

Sorry, soapbox.

-XC; 1/21/15, 11:11 AM
MaxedOutMama said...: I can't figure it out myself. However, looking at the Dem side and the push for Hillary (with happy mentions on DU of Chelsea's upcoming eligibility), it appears to be a broader social thing.

Maybe this is how Rome fell? Certainly it is a sign of social decay.

PS: And after all those years of marriage, Hillary is more closely related to Bill than the Bush bros.

Why the dynasty urge/surge?; 1/21/15, 11:11 AM
traditionalguy said...: JEB Bush was raised a Bush more than he was raised as a Texan. He attended an Andover Academy. At least he skipped Skull and Bones at Yale after that and he went to University of Texas.

But Scott Walker has a political touch that is today's and not the stale Connecticut Bush elite approach to ruling privilege.; 1/21/15, 11:11 AM
bleh said...: The impression I get of Jeb is that he's highly intelligent, moderate, pragmatic and not much of a culture warrior. He seems more "everyman" than his father, but less NASCAR than his brother. Somewhere in the middle.

Republicans would be wise to take his candidacy seriously, if they want any chance to appeal to squishy independents and disaffected Democrats. Jeb is like Romney, perhaps not as successful or competent, but much more likable. If voters only used their brains, a guy like Romney would win every time. Unfortunately, voters also use their hearts, their guts and their lady parts when assessing candidates.

At this point, I think Jeb, Walker, and Christie are the most formidable candidates, with Rand Paul being the wild card. Rubio is Veep material.; 1/21/15, 11:14 AM
Original Mike said...: "Anyway, Hillary is subject to the criticism that there shouldn't be a third Clinton term, but that criticism can't be used if Jeb Bush is the opponent. From his perspective, that's a reason for him to run now, so he can lessen the criticism that we've had too much of the Bush family, but why should the GOP sacrifice a good argument against Hillary?"

With party candidates now selected in primaries, there is no such a thing as the GOP in the sense you used the term.

I do think Bush vs. Hillary neutures the dynasty repulsion. In that case, I think there's a good chance Jeb mops the floor with Hillary.; 1/21/15, 11:16 AM
AustinRoth said...: I know few people who do. I fact I would expand it to the general problem of political dynastic families at all levels of politics.

But what solution is there? It has been the case back to the founding of our country that there are certain families that dominate politics for a few generations, at all levels (local, state, nationally).

Think of the Adams, the Rockefellers, the Harrisons, the Roosevelts, the Gores, the Daleys, the Kennedys and the Bushes.

Eventually their power wanes naturally, and new political families arise.; 1/21/15, 11:17 AM
bleh said...: There are natural limits to political dynasties. The Bushes just happen to have a wealth of talent in the family.

The Clintons had one child only: Chelsea, who has zero charisma or charm, and who as a woman will not be able to carry on the family name.

The Clinton dynasty is already over; it began and ended with Bill. Hillary suffers from a different affliction. She's plain unlikable and shrill. I hope the Democrats nominate her.; 1/21/15, 11:22 AM
Curious George said...: 36 years? What are you talking about?

It couldn't be more than 20.

Math is hard.; 1/21/15, 11:27 AM
SteveR said...: Well it speaks to money. And a lack of good candidates on either side.; 1/21/15, 11:27 AM
Meade said...: Isn't it bigoted to reject a person based on attributes beyond their control? Such as the family they were born in to?; 1/21/15, 11:28 AM
rehajm said...: John Althouse Cohen says he's holding out hope Al Gore will run in 2016.

Quoting Supreme Court Justice: Wow, Wow!; 1/21/15, 11:28 AM
tim in vermont said...: We don't, but the Chamber of Commerce, screw the working man, wing does.

But OTOH, name the leading Democrat besides Obama who is under 60.; 1/21/15, 11:30 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: I agree it is a perfect argument against Bush III.

I have asked that question myself - Bush I and Bush II were two mediocre presidents at best - why should we think Jeb will be any better?; 1/21/15, 11:32 AM
Real American said...: you'll probably find that during the contested primaries, more GOP voters will want someone other than Jeb Bush to win the nomination.; 1/21/15, 11:34 AM
bleh said...: Al Gore?

The guy who invented the Internet? The green energy charlatan, aka crony capitalist billionaire? The divorced guy who was once accused of sexually assaulting a masseuse?

That Al Gore?

Hahahahahahahahahaha.; 1/21/15, 11:36 AM
Meade said...: I have a dream that we will one day have a nation where presidential candidates will not be judged by their surnames, but by the content of their character. I have a dream today!; 1/21/15, 11:37 AM
bbkingfish said...: The national Republican Party has been the Bush family political apparatus since Nixon made GHW Bush chair of the RNC in 1973.

Next question, please.; 1/21/15, 11:37 AM
rehajm said...: Because of bird in hand. It's difficult to accurately assess the evolution of candidate to president. Candidates are prone to distort, omit, overvalue, underplay. Lie.

Brand identity and name recognition are comforting. And they count for something.; 1/21/15, 11:37 AM
James Pawlak said...: No support from me for this RINO.; 1/21/15, 11:40 AM
BarrySanders20 said...: Release the chakra!; 1/21/15, 11:41 AM
cubanbob said...: I voted for Jeb three times for governor but not this time in a primary for president. I don't want a moderate Republican, that's a lite Democrat. I don't want new government programs and initiatives. I want a roll back, a shrinkage in government taxation, spending and overall reach. Moderates don't do that and since moderate Republicans didn't win the last two presidential elections there is no reason to believe a moderate Republican will the next time and even if he did, so what? A slightly less toxic version of a Democrat isn't what the country needs.; 1/21/15, 11:41 AM
Rusty said...: I think the Bush family has spent enough time in the oval office. Let's give a more conservatiuve republican a chance.; 1/21/15, 11:42 AM
bleh said...: Althouse, your son needs to brush up on his history.

In response to someone else saying Nixon probably won the 1960 election, he said, "Have you looked at the electoral votes? It wasn't even close."

Kennedy carried Texas and Illinois by razor thin margins. Those two states represented 51 electoral votes, more than enough for Nixon to win. Both states were also the subject of widespread allegations of voter fraud committed by Democrats.; 1/21/15, 11:42 AM
Shanna said...: Can't we ever drop the election cycle reporting?

I feel the same. I don't want to hear about it till next year, personally.

But I don't want Jeb. Or Hillary.; 1/21/15, 11:45 AM
Hagar said...: If Jeb wins the primaries, so be it, and he certainly can be president.

And, after Obama, Reid, Pelosi, I am voting Republican even if the candidate should have a cloven hoof and a forked tail!; 1/21/15, 11:51 AM
lgv said...: How about we think of him as Jeb Smith for a second and determine if he is the best candidate for the job? If the answer is yes, then why not support Jeb Bush?

First, is the word nuclear is meant to be some type of pejorative descriptor? What difference does it make that they are from the same family? The presidencies of H.W. and W. were very different, just as they were different people.

The bottom line is that not wanting a dominate family may not trump the willingness to select the best candidate. This does not mean I think Jeb is the best potential candidate. I don't. I just won't rule him out because he is a Bush.; 1/21/15, 11:57 AM
TosaGuy said...: When the Donks run Dukakis, Gore and Kerry it gets to be a pretty easy decision.; 1/21/15, 11:59 AM
MadisonMan said...: I would certainly vote for Jeb Bush over Hillary!!

I'd be thinking it's not a great choice, though, as I filled in the space on my ballot with the black pen in the basement of the church where I vote.

And then in 8 years, we can choose between Geo. Bush III and Chelsea! Oh yeah!; 1/21/15, 12:01 PM
Big Mike said...: @Althouse, then take another look. The Iowa caucus will take place on January 18, 2016. It is by no means certain that Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney or Chris Christie or anyone else on the radar of the mainstream media today will win it. The New Hampshire primary will be on January 26, which is 370 days from now.

You and I are comparable in age (I'm a little older). Have you never noticed how rare it is for the front-running candidate in the year before the election year to actually be the candidate when the dust settles? So I don't much care who the front-runner is today. He's doomed no matter who it is.

Big donors may think Jeb Bush is worthy of investment right now, but in your post when you ran a poll comparing support for Mitt Romney to support for Jeb Bush, Romney stomped all over Bush. And hardly anyone who is not a registered Democrat wants Mitt, Part III. So that's another reason not to worry about Mitt or Jeb, either one.

Bottom line is, I don't know who is going to be the 2016 Republican nominee, but at this point it's wildly unlikely to be Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush.

You decided to talk about Mitt and Jeb, I'm trying to tell you why it's Shakespearian: "Much Ado About Nothing."; 1/21/15, 12:01 PM
m stone said...: Meade: "I have a dream that we will one day have a nation where presidential candidates will not be judged by their surnames, but by the content of their character."

Well said, if not inversely, for the dyslexic understanding.; 1/21/15, 12:06 PM
Lyle Smith said...: Amen! Preach it Ann.; 1/21/15, 12:08 PM
Shanna said...: So I don't much care who the front-runner is today. He's doomed no matter who it is.

Indeed. The smart money waits.

If past republican primary behavior is an indicator, it would be the 'next guy in line', meaning the guy who didn't get the nom last time. We had so many candidates last time, though, that might not be easy to nail down but I would say Rick Perry is the best candidate for that role. If he can get it together. I liked him best last time so I may be biased, though I came around on Romney he couldn't close the deal.

Remember when Jeb had a hot son that people thought was being groomed? Whatever happened to that guy?; 1/21/15, 12:10 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "John Althouse Cohen says he's holding out hope Al Gore will run in 2016."

A clue: If something sounds hard to believe, consider whether it's humor.; 1/21/15, 12:18 PM
Roost on the Moon said...: I think Will Wilkinson gets it right. These "royal families" are uncomfortable for most peoples' mistaken conception of how our government works, but they makes complete sense.; 1/21/15, 12:18 PM
JAORE said...: re: the 36 years, that is, one presumes, 1988 to 2016+8, with the hoped for re-election.; 1/21/15, 12:21 PM
Michael K said...: " Both states were also the subject of widespread allegations of voter fraud committed by Democrats."

William Rogers told Nixon that he had enough evidence to overturn the election but Nixon declined because he thought it would damage the country.

Remember when we had patriots in politics ?

We will get to see how Walker and Jindal do over the next year. I don't think Christie's "Sopranos" style will go over well in the rest of the country.

Cruz and Paul are first term Senators. No history of governing anything. I think we may have learned our lesson on that.

I still support Romney but doubt he will be the candidate.

Never forget that a country that is worried about food containing DNA is not one to trust seeing through politicians' lies.

For the non-biologists, there is NO food that does not have dna. It's like fearing "dihydrogen monoxide."; 1/21/15, 12:24 PM
mtrobertsattorney said...: Aside from the dynasty problem, Jeb has a another problem--he appears soft and physically weak.

He needs to spend 6 months with a trainer at his local gym.; 1/21/15, 12:32 PM
Hagar said...: The Republican quest for the presidency is absolutely hopeless, except that we have to elect someone, and who will represent the opposition? Hillary!? Cherokee Liz? Alfred E. Neumann?; 1/21/15, 12:35 PM
dreams said...: "William Rogers told Nixon that he had enough evidence to overturn the election but Nixon declined because he thought it would damage the country."

If Nixon had been less honorable, he most likely would have survived Watergate by destroying the tape recording. We know what the Dems did to save the dishonorable Clinton's butt.; 1/21/15, 12:44 PM
bleh said...: "A clue: If something sounds hard to believe, consider whether it's humor."

The claim would be harder to believe if Gore wasn't actually being bandied about as a possible challenger to Hillary.

The humor is lost on me.; 1/21/15, 12:46 PM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: "A clue: If something sounds hard to believe, consider whether it's humor."

Apply that to Jeb Bush running. He's just having fun with you.; 1/21/15, 12:46 PM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: And why would the Republican Party give a Romney a 4th chance to run for President? More humor!; 1/21/15, 12:51 PM
Paco Wové said...: Joe Biden Reveals ‘There Is A Chance’ He Would Challenge Hillary Clinton; 1/21/15, 12:57 PM
Revenant said...: How about we think of him as Jeb Smith for a second and determine if he is the best candidate for the job?

Isn't that a pretty obvious "no"? Minus the name he's just another politically moderate Republican ex-governor. The party's got lots of those.; 1/21/15, 1:05 PM
Charlie Currie said...: Third time's a charm?; 1/21/15, 1:07 PM
mccullough said...: I can't decide if it's worse to succeed because you were born into a certain family or because you married into a certain family. I hope not to have to make that choice.; 1/21/15, 1:17 PM
Nonapod said...: I'm continuously bemused by what motivates voters in general. As far as I can tell most people appear to vote based on emotional, ephemeral vagaries like how a particularly candidate makes them feel, their personality ect. Horseshit like whether or not they believe that a given candidate "cares" about people like them or not. Look at what happened in 2012 with Romney and the 47% crap. I think people want a pal, a drinking buddy, or a boyfriend more than a president.

So I guess the real question is whether or not people could see Jeb as a pal.; 1/21/15, 1:23 PM
Michael said...: The obvious answer to this question is: why not? All 3 Bushes were fine men of significant accomplishment before being considered Presidential. GHWB handled a series of crises - the S&L collapse, the Kuwait invasion, the fall of the Soviet Union - with great deftness. (Ross Perot has a lot to answer for.) GWB is currently more controversial, but has nothing to fear from History. We could do better, but we could also do far worse and quite possibly will.; 1/21/15, 1:24 PM
phantommut said...: I like Jeb. Forgive me if I think the GHWB and GWB acquitted themselves honorably as Presidents. (They may not be listed among the greats, but I doubt ARM or GM's entirely hypothetical grandkids will give a crap about them, save trying to remember which was which for school exams.)

But no, dynasties strike me as thoroughly out-of-keeping with the American ideal, if not tradition.

There's plenty of young blood in the Republican party, coming in across the spectrum of classical Big Government Republicanism (Christie) to Libertarian (Paul) to Pragmatist (Walker) to Social Conservative (Jindal).

Time to move on.; 1/21/15, 1:24 PM
Sebastian said...: @BDNYC: "Republicans would be wise to take his candidacy seriously, if they want any chance to appeal to squishy independents and disaffected Democrats."

Correct.

In the primaries, Jeb has the advantage over senators. He will have money lined up and a quite conservative resume. He is a successful ex-governor from a critical state. He is next in line. He will be acceptable to the evangelicals in the base. Opponents to his right will split conservatives.

Perry is viable but needs to up his game intellectually. Walker is attractive but has an inferior record and cannot count on winning his own state in the general. Jindal is impressive but lacks the presidential persona. Christie will be unacceptable to most of the base. Romney had his chance.

In the general, he will be able to attract moderates, independents, and semi-Democratic soccer moms. He can win Florida, which is essential. Yes, the name is a liability, but he has a real shot. Bush/Kasich will put two battlegound states in play. Bush/Martinez scrambles the ethnic calculus.

In the primaries, rational Republicans will consider his chances in the general. They are likely to decide he is the most conservative candidate who is actually electable.; 1/21/15, 1:31 PM
Robert Cook said...: Aren't both parties embarrassed (or depressed) to admit they have no one to put forth or discuss for the nomination then Jeb or Hillary?

Well...if it's neither of them, who the fuck else is there? Isn't this more embarrassing/depressing?

And, does it matter? Whoever is the president will follow the program, further the prerogatives of Wall Street and the banks, and continue the failed polices of the last...how many decades?; 1/21/15, 1:34 PM
CWJ said...: Why would the NFL give starting quarterback jobs to not only a father but also two of his sons? The question and three superbowl rings answers itself.

If Jeb is the best candidate for the job, then why not?; 1/21/15, 1:35 PM
rhhardin said...: The media will use a not-fit-to-be-president narrative on anybody not in a dynasty.

Dynasty members are exempt. It's a class thing.; 1/21/15, 1:38 PM
Hagar said...: La Tejana Susana is not interested. In the first place she is too smart for that. She knows what they did to the Sarahcuda. And Washington is full of people, issues, and problems she does not much care for, and the chile is not worth crap back there either.

Nor is she a firebrand conservative. In fact, what she is, is an oldfashioned southwestern Democrat.; 1/21/15, 1:43 PM
Shanna said...: Aren't both parties embarrassed (or depressed) to admit they have no one to put forth or discuss for the nomination then Jeb or Hillary?

There are tons of other options on the repbulican side. There is no need for Jeb.

On the dem's, surely there is some governor out there flying under the radar? Senator's generally make terrible presidents.; 1/21/15, 1:43 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "You and I are comparable in age (I'm a little older). Have you never noticed how rare it is for the front-running candidate in the year before the election year to actually be the candidate when the dust settles? So I don't much care who the front-runner is today. He's doomed no matter who it is."

Maybe, but that process doesn't occur without input from people who are paying attention. If we decide to ignore it, that will change the process. You can ignore it, but you haven't convinced me to ignore it. I feel that I am playing a role in the process (however small).

"Bottom line is, I don't know who is going to be the 2016 Republican nominee, but at this point it's wildly unlikely to be Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush."

But if you had to place a bet now, who would you bet on? I asked that question last night in a conversation, without thinking about who I'd bet on, but then, having to decide, I bet on Romney.

It's not so absurd. Hillary also ran before, she just didn't get past Obama. Romney also failed to get past Obama.

I thought it was absurd in 1968 for Richard Nixon to think he could be President. No way! But that happened.

Also, in the 1950s, the Democrats nominated Adlai Stevenson twice and many people wanted to nominate him a third time.

So where did it come from, this idea that if you've played the game past a certain point once, you should never play again.

Romney has experience, and he knows all the shots that can be taken against him and how to deal with it all. Everyone else is a neophyte. Why the love of neophytes? I'm a little tired of the great neophyte of 2008.; 1/21/15, 1:44 PM
tim in vermont said...: I can't decide if it's worse to succeed because you were born into a certain family or because you married into a certain family. I hope not to have to make that choice.

Well, that was the choice in 04.; 1/21/15, 1:45 PM
Hagar said...: What I want Susana Martinez to do, is serve out her 2nd term as governor - or as much as she can and still run for state attorney general.

8 years as governor and hearing all these stories about where the bodies are buried, and then she gets to investigate and prosecute. You go for it, girl!; 1/21/15, 1:49 PM
Quaestor said...: Dynasties are anathema to republics. Even the Romans didn't have such a father-son-son consulship before Augustus. Please don't run, Jeb. If you can raise some cash, fine. Don't it and give the loot to the National Committee for the final drive in October '16.; 1/21/15, 2:02 PM
Chuck said...: I don't see much mystery in all of this. Jeb Bush might be the nominee, or he might not.

Whoever is the nominee, I will want him (or her) to win and beat the hell out of the Democrat.

There is something called name recognition, and it helps. No matter if your name is Kennedy or Clinton or Cuomo, or Dingell, or Jackson, or Udall, or Brown. (Which Democrat family dynasties have I forgotten?)

Would anyone worry about "too many Kennedys"? That is, if a Kennedy had served as governor of his or her state with distinction and was seeking higher national office. Instead of being a philandering substance abuser?

I understand that much of the national mainstream media might doubt "another Bush." But that's because the national mainstream media mostly loathes Republicans.; 1/21/15, 2:07 PM
Lyle said...: I totally agree with Althouse on Romney. The guy is a decent man with all the requisite experience to make a great President. Don't buy into all the b.s. people are throwing his way.; 1/21/15, 2:14 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Ann Althouse said...
I'm a little tired of the great neophyte of 2008.

That would be the guy in charge of the best run economy in the western world.; 1/21/15, 2:25 PM
tim in vermont said...: Well, the President doesn't "run" the economy, that's a leftist concept from Fascism and Communism. It is little wonder that the least left economy in the Western world would be the strongest. Little wonder at all.; 1/21/15, 2:36 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Honestly, I think the economy does as well as it does despite what the government tries to do.

Remember, he was against fracking, and look at the good that's done for the economy.; 1/21/15, 2:38 PM
Blue Ox said...: @Sebastion

@BDNYC: "Republicans would be wise to take his candidacy seriously, if they want any chance to appeal to squishy independents and disaffected Democrats."

Correct.

One big problem with this thinking.

Romney won the independent vote. He's not President today because millions of the base stayed home.; 1/21/15, 2:43 PM
tim in vermont said...: Remember, he was against fracking, and look at the good that's done for the economy.

He was for "skyrocketing electricity prices" and "European level" gas prices, and he didn't get those either. Thanks to fracking for natural gas, electricity prices have stayed relatively stable. Not in his plan, but against it.

So I am not sure what kinds of bows he can take, except that he has printed trillions of dollars, and if the bill for that never comes due, he's a genius.; 1/21/15, 2:46 PM
lemondog said...: As of 1/14/2015

2016 Republican Presidential Nominee Odds

2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee Odds; 1/21/15, 2:48 PM
Roger Sweeny said...: Romney has experience, and he knows all the shots that can be taken against him and how to deal with it all.

No, he doesn't. He didn't know in 2012 and I have no reason to think he does now.; 1/21/15, 2:51 PM
chillblaine said...: "That would be the guy in charge of the best run economy in the western world."

Janet Yellen is a woman.

Republicans always settle for last time's runner-up. That would be Rick Santorum. If Mitt happens, I think he gets it. Too much baggage with that Bush name.; 1/21/15, 2:51 PM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: For the Republican candidate to win in 2016, voters will have to be ready to trust the Republican Party with the House, Senate, and Presidency again.

Even if they are almost ready, they can always give a Democrat one term to see if Republicans have really earned it.; 1/21/15, 3:02 PM
Big Mike said...: @Althouse, why on earth would you assume that I'm not paying attention?

The fact that I'm dismissive of Christie, Romney, and Jeb Bush doesn't mean I'm not paying attention. When the right person enters the race, I'll be right there (assuming he'd like a person experienced in big data analytics to support micro-targeting and GOTV) to support his campaign.

If I had to bet right now, which I don't, I suspect that the nominee will be Perry, with a hedge bet on Rubio. Take Perry's Texas out of the economic calculations, and ARM's suggestion that the US has the best "run" economy is immediately open to challenge. But I don't have to bet right now so I won't.

I think Mitt Romney is a great fix-it guy and I hope the Republican President elected in 2016, whomever it is, makes effective use of him fixing the total botch of things that Obama and the Democrats have made of things. Perhaps he could run the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or a cabinet post. I can't imagine how Jeb Bush might fit in.; 1/21/15, 3:05 PM
Michael K said...: "If Nixon had been less honorable, he most likely would have survived Watergate by destroying the tape recording."

Most of the scandal came from Nixon trying to protect the men who had been arrested doing something that he may not have known about. Most of the tapes were stream of consciousness from a guy who wanted to look tough but probably wasn't that in private moments.

The taping system was installed by LBJ, if not Kennedy. The LBJ tapes are just coming out years after his death.; 1/21/15, 3:07 PM
Michael K said...: "admit they have no one to put forth or discuss for the nomination then Jeb or Hillary? "

You really are silly. We have been having conversations about how deep the GOP bench is and you missed it all.; 1/21/15, 3:08 PM
Big Mike said...: @tim in vermont, correct! Since FDR the President has taken responsibility for the economy, but in our system there's darn little they can do to "run" it.; 1/21/15, 3:13 PM
David said...: Curious George said...
36 years? What are you talking about?

It couldn't be more than 20.

Math is hard.

There you go again, George.

G.H.W.B was inaugurated in 1989. If Jeb is elected and serves two terms, his presidency will end in 2025. Presto! 36 years.

Seeing things from more than one point of view is hard.; 1/21/15, 3:17 PM
Achilles said...: Meade said...

"I have a dream that we will one day have a nation where presidential candidates will not be judged by their surnames, but by the content of their character. I have a dream today!"

This particular candidate supports amnesty. He supports common core. He supports the continued expansion of government.

It isn't just about the name. It is about the base of the party that wants less government, less influence pedaling, less ruling elite.

We don't want someone with lots of experience. The federal government is a dumpster fire. It doesn't matter who runs it. It will be a giant unmanageable bureaucracy if the best manager in the world takes the office. If Paul is elected he might suck at management, but he is the one guy who if elected I guarantee the government would shrink.

All we can hope for now is a smaller dumpster fire that doesn't put our kids quite as far into debt. My greatest hope is I can stop looking at other countries to move to and we can plan on staying here. On current pace the government takes far too much of our time and income. Most of us just wish we didn't even have to care who is president. They shouldn't have that much power.; 1/21/15, 3:20 PM
David said...: On the other hand, why would a sensible political party reject a highly qualified candidate (experience, previous electoral success, strong base in crucial Florida, centrist, recognizable name, powerful hispanic appeal) on the basis of his name.

Centrist is a dirty word to some Republicans but it wins elections in this country.; 1/21/15, 3:21 PM
Achilles said...: Big Mike said...
"@tim in vermont, correct! Since FDR the President has taken responsibility for the economy, but in our system there's darn little they can do to "run" it."

The president, like the rest of government, cannot do much to help. They can however make it worse.

That is why the only thing I want the president to be able to do is cut it down.; 1/21/15, 3:22 PM
Shanna said...: The government can not 'fix' the economy. It runs in cycles and there will be ups and down. What it can do is get in or out of its way.

last time's runner-up. That would be Rick Santorum.

Bah! Santorum. That's not going to happen. Like Big Mike, my current money is on Perry but he is going to have to be convincing. There are a few other contenders, I think Walker is probably a little green.; 1/21/15, 3:25 PM
Blue Ox said...: Centrist is a dirty word to some Republicans but it wins elections in this country.

Just ask Presidents Romney and McCain!; 1/21/15, 3:26 PM
Shanna said...: Centrist is a dirty word to some Republicans but it wins elections in this country.

When is the last time it did that?; 1/21/15, 3:27 PM
Fandor said...: Let me say this about the myths that have grown up around the 2012 presidential election.

EVERY poll, save Rassmussen gave Romney the edge to win the election in 2012. And the Rassmussen poll had it almost a dead heat.

EVERYONE on the Republican side said Romney was one of the BEST presidential candidates the Republicans ever fielded.

Even that slob, Michael Moore said in the days before the election (paraphrasing here),"I think I better get use to saying, President Romney."
And he was saying it with sad resignation.

Romney killed Obama in the first debate. The president looked absolutely lost.

In the 2 subsequent debates, Obama relied more on snark than substance and a little help from Candy Crawley. Romney's performance was solid, with the exception of not slapping down Crawley who injected herself into the debate, helping Obama.

Up until the last night, Romney campaigned heart and soul to win the presidency.

After Obama won and he took his bow, he looked DAZED, as if he couldn't beleive he'd won. In my opinion, I think even he believed the presidency was lost.

So how did Romney manage to lose the election that should have been his?

He lost because of the petty bickering among purist conservatives and social conservatives, with their unpopular positions, who stayed home. Ideologue idiots who would rather sit an election out until they can field a candidate they feel has conservative integrity.
Combine that with an incumbent president and voter fear of not voting for the first black president (oh, my... what will my friends think if I tell them I didn't vote for Obama. People will tag me as a racist. Let's give him another chance. He's just getting started).

And that blowhard Christe walking hand and hand with Obama on the devastated beaches of New Jersey didn't help. Bloomberg had the balls to tell Obama to stay away. Christe could and should have done the same.
And even with that, Romney was gracious. He said,"Chris did what he felt he had to do."

Never mind that Obama and his amateur team are a bunch of screw ups, or to use the president's term, JV. His second chance has been a disaster and we are still sitting on the edge of our seats waiting to see how the curtain falls.

So, worry about unimportant crap like dynasties and purity of the message. When it all sorts out, we are a 50/50 country, that hopefully leans right, and we need a leader who recognizes that.

Reagan knew it. He also knew how to compromise.
Romney knew it as a conservative governor in a liberal state.
Bush, no doubt, knows it too, from that mixed bag of tricks in Florida.

But, like Ann and Meade, I'd put my money on Romney again.
He is still the best candidate the Republicans have.

Maybe, if he earns the right to run again, a majority of Americans will elect Mitt Romney.; 1/21/15, 3:29 PM
Hagar said...: Eisenhower had a recording system in the Oval Office.
Kennedy apparently installed an improved one.
There is a story that Bobby saw LBJ in the Oval Office and admitted to all kinds of doings by the Kennedys with LBJ gleefully recording it all little realizing that Bobby had been in charge of installing the system and was wearing some kind of interference device so that nothing decipherable was recorded.; 1/21/15, 3:33 PM
sparrow said...: Honestly if I like the guy I don't really care about the family, except in that it may indicate character. The Bush presidents were only so so in my opinion and Jeb appears to be the weakest of the set. I'd rather have another Adams.; 1/21/15, 3:37 PM
Anonymous said...: At least his dad and brother are somewhat attractive.; 1/21/15, 3:43 PM
Meade said...: "There are a few other contenders, I think Walker is probably a little green."

First black president, first female president... someone has to be the first green president.; 1/21/15, 3:44 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: At this point, if not well before, Romney's goals are primarily linked to his religion. He would like to be the Mormon JFK. Those complaining about his failure to go for the jugular are ignoring his twin, not entirely complementary, goals - advancing his religion and becoming president.; 1/21/15, 3:54 PM
Francisco D said...: Meade's dreams aside, I find it difficult to believe that Americans will want the third member of the Bush family as POTUS.

I like the Bushes, have contributed to their campaigns and voted for then 4 times (twice for GHW and twice for GW). However, it is time for new blood and candidates who will actually SHRINK the size of government.

I have that dream.; 1/21/15, 4:03 PM
dreams said...: Romney won the votes of white males and married woman. I think it was the minority vote that was the reason Obama won.; 1/21/15, 4:13 PM
DanTheMan said...: R's run moderates - Dole, McCain, Romney. R's lose.

R's run "divisive, ignorant conservatives" - Reagan, Reagan, GWB, GWB. R's win.

The only wildcard is Bush Sr. He was supposed to be Reagan Mark II. If he had been, he would have won, too.; 1/21/15, 4:26 PM
Original Mike said...: "At this point, if not well before, Romney's goals are primarily linked to his religion."

There was a point, early on, that I thought your insights were worth considering. But after hundreds of posts, it's become clear you're just a loon.; 1/21/15, 4:28 PM
sprx said...: If its Hillary vs. Jeb I'm writing in Ross Perot, Jr.; 1/21/15, 4:37 PM
Jon Burack said...: Fandor, I do not see this at all.

"He lost because of the petty bickering among purist conservatives and social conservatives, with their unpopular positions, who stayed home."

Romney failed to connect with a vast majority of people, including many (like me) who voted for him. He never made anyone feel their own lives would be changed for the better by making him president. Whether it was him or his team, I cannot tell.

In my view, his greatest mistake was to parrot a view that appealed ONLY those purists you say did him in. I mean his 47% remark, which told half the electorate NOT to vote for him, he did not need them! It was factually an absurdity (no evidence at all supports the idea that a dependent class of 47% always votes Democratic to defend its dependency.) It was a horrible as well as false insult that in fact reveals the arrogance and ignorance of the very purist strain of the party you think turned against him. It is THEY who think there is a 47%, even as many of them drive the roads in their Social Security supported RVs or collect their farm subsidies, or whatever. As Bob Dylan once said, "name me someone who's not a parasite and I'll go out and say a prayer for him." Romney, you, me, the tea party, Bob himself, that's all of us. But you do not win elections by alienating so many of us needlessly about it.

Jeb Bush is not going to make such a fundamental mistake. People will like him and he will in fact make them like his brother and father as well. I prefer him.; 1/21/15, 4:43 PM
Curious George said...: "David said...
There you go again, George.

G.H.W.B was inaugurated in 1989. If Jeb is elected and serves two terms, his presidency will end in 2025. Presto! 36 years.

Seeing things from more than one point of view is hard."

The topic was candidacy, not those attaining the office. In that period we had Dole and McCain.; 1/21/15, 4:45 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: One thing that is somewhat attractive about JEB is that he is likely to attract more of the Hispanic vote than most other Republicans. And, every Hispanic who votes to put the first Hispanic (his wife) in the White House, is one vote that doesn't go to Hillary! Or, really two. And, his oldest son, George P., is probably pretty enough to still be a telenovela heart throb (if I remember right, he ran Hispanic outreach for his uncle, George W., in 2000, and was rated the #3 most eligible bachelor by People magazine that year).; 1/21/15, 5:03 PM
Chuck said...: Centrist is a dirty word to some Republicans but it wins elections in this country.

And "centrist" is such a seductive word for Democrats, that their left-wingers go to extraordinary lengths to adopt the trappings of leftism.; 1/21/15, 5:15 PM
Michael said...: Romney can of course win, especially against Hillary. Romney oozes vitality. Hillary is gathering a stoop, a grandmotherly toothy look that is not attractive. He looks healthy while she does not. She has been on the national stage w/ responsibilities she did not seem to either grasp or could not fulfill if she did. He has simply not been a great politician and that could be his secret weapon.

Bush cannot win. The brand has been trashed by the press and the low information voter would not be able to distinguish between Jeb and GW going illegally for his third term.

I had dinner with Cruz a few weeks back and he is an interesting man with a background that is as American as it gets. He is plain spoken. He clearly cares about the country and where it is headed. He is a bit wooden but is working to overcome it.

In general I would wait to see which GOP candidate the press begins to support and then go the other direction.; 1/21/15, 5:17 PM
Chuck said...: "Centrism," not "leftism." Freudian slip.; 1/21/15, 5:17 PM
Rusty said...: AReasonableMan said...
Ann Althouse said...
I'm a little tired of the great neophyte of 2008.

That would be the guy in charge of the best run economy in the western world

Yeah. Canada is awesome!; 1/21/15, 5:19 PM
RecChief said...: most of us don't.

Smacks of dynasty. Also one of the myriad reasons to oppose Hillary! as well as her spawn, when chelsea announces her run (make no mistake, she will); 1/21/15, 5:21 PM
JackOfClubs said...: I actually like Jeb better than either George. I wish he had run in 2000. I just can't get over the dynastic question. The main reason I am glad Jeb is running is that it kills Christie's chances. I plan on voting for Walker if he makes it to the CA primaries (and maybe even if he doesn't).; 1/21/15, 5:27 PM
AReasonableMan said...: Rusty said...
Yeah. Canada is awesome!

Too vulnerable to the commodities market and too dependent on China, like Australia.

"Canada's gross domestic product expanded at a 2.8 per cent annual pace in the past three months, Statistics Canada said today.

While this is a solid growth figure, this is still underperformance relative to the U.S," Scotiabank said after the numbers came out."; 1/21/15, 5:29 PM
Brando said...: There may be good reasons to oppose Jeb's candidacy, but opposing him for his family connection makes as little sense as favoring him for those connections.

If all he had to show for himself was his being a Bush (sort of like having your marriage to Bill Clinton be your strongest argument for your candidacy) then yes, by all means oppose him for that.; 1/21/15, 5:53 PM
Michael K said...: "At this point, if not well before, Romney's goals are primarily linked to his religion."

Delusion doesn't quite cover it.
Sort of like the right saying Obama was born in Kenya.; 1/21/15, 5:56 PM
AReasonableMan said...: Romney is a leader of his church. Why would he not be interested in advancing his religion? His candidacy for 2016 doesn't make a lot of sense otherwise. Or are you arguing that it is entirely preening ego on his part?; 1/21/15, 6:03 PM
Matt said...: "Isn't it bigoted to reject a person based on attributes beyond their control? Such as the family they were born in to?"

No. Because said politician would likely not be in the position to win the nomination if they didn't have a family member who held the position they are running for. It's why we left England; so we didn't have to deal with dynasties and such. Granted we have a choice through voting but there is a distinct advantage to someone in the family.; 1/21/15, 6:08 PM
Chef Mojo said...: My money is on Perry. He had a rough time of it in '12 with the back surgery and meds. But if Nixon could overcome the debate sweat image and a hostile press to take it in '68, then second chances are par for the course in US politics.

Why would anyone discount the guy who oversaw the most dynamic economy in the United States? Obama's bragging last night would be meaningless if you took Texas out of the equation. I would imagine 15 years of successfully governing a state like Texas would more than establish his bona fides as an executive worthy of being president.

That's where I'm throwing my support. I also like Jindal. A Perry/Jindal ticket would be great.

I'm not going support any of the dynastic candidates. Dynastic succession is something I'm very uncomfortable with, as an American who believes in the ideal of a republican democracy.; 1/21/15, 6:28 PM
richard mcenroe said...: Democrats:

Roosevelt, the President who wouldn't leave...

The Kennedies

The Clintons

The Gores...

Why is this question asked only of Republicans?; 1/21/15, 6:45 PM
richard mcenroe said...: BDNYC Then Democrats should think about voting for Jeb, since he already endorses so many of their key issues like amnesty and Common Core.

Republicans and conservatives...not so much.; 1/21/15, 6:48 PM
Michael K said...: "His candidacy for 2016 doesn't make a lot of sense otherwise."

Come on. You can't be this stupid ! He thinks he can do a good job ! Why would Obama run ?
I have my theories but surely you don't agree. !; 1/21/15, 6:50 PM
Big Mike said...: @Chef Mojo, that's what I said at 3:05. Glad we're on the same page of the hymnal.; 1/21/15, 6:59 PM
Original Mike said...: I don't think the "AReasonableMan" in this thread is the stupid fuck we've come to know and detest.; 1/21/15, 7:00 PM
el polacko said...: why might the party want to put forward another bush in the run for the presidency ? our current president answered that question in his speech yesterday when he explained that it's because they "won both of them" when a bush ran before.; 1/21/15, 7:06 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Because Republicans care only for power, not legacy.

The senior Bush incidentally was not all that horrible a president, governing somewhat successfully at a time of great international transition.; 1/21/15, 7:08 PM
jr565 said...: I'd prefer Romney over Bush. And would prefer some others over Romney. But at the end of the day, if Bush is the nominee I'll prefer him over Hillary/Warren. Please god not more leftism.; 1/21/15, 7:21 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Original Mike said...
I don't think the "AReasonableMan" in this thread is the stupid fuck we've come to know and detest.

Not really sure what you are trying to say here Mikey.; 1/21/15, 7:26 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Good to see R&B back here. He arrives at a time of crisis on the right. Apparently it didn't occur to anyone that gas might fall to $2 a gallon again. Their entire rationale for existence appears to have collapsed.

Still, there's always tax cuts for the rich. Let's bring back the Laffer curve, that's always good for a laugh.; 1/21/15, 7:32 PM
jr565 said...: AReasonableMan wrote:
Good to see R&B back here. He arrives at a time of crisis on the right. Apparently it didn't occur to anyone that gas might fall to $2 a gallon again. Their entire rationale for existence appears to have collapsed.

Gas prices are temporary.; 1/21/15, 7:38 PM
jr565 said...: And Obama is not responsible for the lowering of gas prices.; 1/21/15, 7:39 PM
jr565 said...: AReasonable Man wrote:
Still, there's always tax cuts for the rich. Let's bring back the Laffer curve, that's always good for a laugh.

Do you really think you liberals should be mocking others over economic issues and ideas?; 1/21/15, 7:41 PM
tim in vermont said...: Apparently it didn't occur to anyone that gas might fall to $2 a gallon again.

Well as long as you guys are trying your best to see to it that it is temporary, there is.

Obama's energy secretary's stated goal was "European level" gas prices, at the time $9 a gallon.

So forgive me if I would like to see the lower prices structurally secured.; 1/21/15, 7:43 PM
jr565 said...: This is Obama's plan. FREE child care. Tax the rich. FREE college. Tax the rich. Free shit. Tax the rich.
Promise impossible things and then say we'll tax the rich to get them.

Any one advocating that has no cause to tell others they're dummies for believing in things like basic economics.; 1/21/15, 7:43 PM
Anonymous said...: That would be the guy in charge of the best run economy in the western world.

In 2014 the United States clocked in at 116th place for economic growth, between Guinea and Mali.

This, you're bragging about?; 1/21/15, 7:47 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: When did Guinea and Mali join the western world?; 1/21/15, 7:54 PM
Original Mike said...: "Not really sure what you are trying to say here Mikey."

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I was wrong.; 1/21/15, 7:55 PM
Gahrie said...: I don't remember anyone getiing shitty when Ted Kennedy ran for president.; 1/21/15, 7:57 PM
Original Mike said...: At 6:03pm there is a post from "AReasonableMan" with no avatar and a profile staring date of June 2013. Is that you?; 1/21/15, 7:58 PM
Meade said...: "I don't remember anyone getiing shitty when Ted Kennedy ran for president. "

I do.; 1/21/15, 8:15 PM
Michael K said...: "governing somewhat successfully at a time of great international transition."

As opposed to you-know-who.; 1/21/15, 8:18 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Meade said...
"I don't remember anyone getiing shitty when Ted Kennedy ran for president. "

I do.

I kind of do too. Not that's there anything wrong with that.; 1/21/15, 8:19 PM
Original Mike said...: I guess it was you. What is your fixation with Romney's religion?; 1/21/15, 8:35 PM
30yearProf said...: The Republican Party establishment is short sighted, elitist, and stupid about politics. They love Aristocracy and all wish they were Lord or Lady Oneup.; 1/21/15, 8:59 PM
Drago said...: AReasonableMeltdown: "I kind of do too. Not that's there anything wrong with that."

Only if you consider Roger Mudd simply asking Teddy why he wanted to be President to be especially "sh***y".

Of course, most lefties simply assume any question not vetted prior to the offering to one of their left wing gods is rather poor form and simply not done.

tut tut; 1/21/15, 9:33 PM
Drago said...: 30yearProf: "The Republican Party establishment is short sighted, elitist, and stupid about politics. They love Aristocracy and all wish they were Lord or Lady Oneup"

And, I'm afraid, those are their "good" qualities.; 1/21/15, 9:33 PM
Drago said...: AReasonableMeltdown: "Still, there's always tax cuts for the rich. Let's bring back the Laffer curve, that's always good for a laugh."

Laffer has been proven correct.

Decreased tax rates from the prior rate to the new rates (across the board) did in fact yield more revenue.

Of course, if ARMeltdown is talking about the "make-believe" Laffer curve (the one where lefties assert that Laffer-ites claim reducing tax rates "always" yields higher net taxable revenue regardless of the start/stop points on the curve), then, well, what can one say? It's a "pretend" argument.; 1/21/15, 9:37 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: I'm reminded of this comic .; 1/21/15, 9:38 PM
chickelit said...: how could a party possibly want a single nuclear family to be the source of all of its presidents for a period of 32 (or 36) years?

I don't understand the qualifier "nuclear" and I'm suspicious of the author's motivates.

It smell like bait.; 1/21/15, 9:44 PM
Drago said...: I find it particularly ironic that the entire "You didn't build that!!!eleventy" crowd has suddenly decided that one barack obama is responsible for "building" $2/gallon gas.

It's almost as if the left doesn't really believe a single thing they lecture the rest of us about.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled "No more dynasties" party on the left while they slap another Clinton sticker on their modes of conveyance (lets hope it's a bike lest the aroma of mendacity arise and suffocate us all).; 1/21/15, 10:15 PM
cubanbob said...: AReasonableMan said...
Good to see R&B back here. He arrives at a time of crisis on the right. Apparently it didn't occur to anyone that gas might fall to $2 a gallon again. Their entire rationale for existence appears to have collapsed. "

Yes private sector fracking on private land led to an oil surplus in a still shitty economy. naturally Obama, the left and the government played no role in bringing about an oil surplus too bad that can't be said about bringing on and helping retain a shitty economy.

I'm considered 'rich'. I like tax cuts. Better my money in my pocket than my money in yours.; 1/21/15, 11:11 PM
Michael K said...: "When did Guinea and Mali join the western world?"

After Obama took over our economy.; 1/21/15, 11:19 PM
John Lawton said...: I stand with Scott Walker, and that's just all there is to it. A proven leader and a proven winner.; 1/21/15, 11:35 PM
cubanbob said...: Although as I said before Jeb isn't my choice for the primary if worse comes to worse this time it really will count to vote for the lesser of the two evils.

As for dynasties, what are the Democrats complaining about? They had a Kennedy as President, a Kennedy as Attorney General, two Kennedy's as Senators and more than one Kennedy as Congressman and three Kennedy's have run for president and an Ambassadorship. The Kennedy's still have a greater number of political offices held than the Bush's who only have two presidencies (so far), two governorships, one agency head and one Congressman.; 1/21/15, 11:41 PM
Gahrie said...: the Bush's who only have two presidencies (so far), two governorships, one agency head and one Congressman.

43's grandfather, Prescott Bush, served as a senator from Connecticut.; 1/22/15, 12:05 AM
cubanbob said...: Gahrie said...
the Bush's who only have two presidencies (so far), two governorships, one agency head and one Congressman.

43's grandfather, Prescott Bush, served as a senator from Connecticut.

1/22/15, 12:05 AM"

Noted and corrected. However the Kennedy's still hold the lead.; 1/22/15, 12:29 AM
Anonymous said...: "When did Guinea and Mali join the western world?"

I said that we were 167th between Guinea and Mali, not that Guinea and Mali were in the western world.

The 166 nations that have healthier economies than us include every continent except Antarctica and North America. I'm pretty sure there's something in there you'd call "western".; 1/22/15, 1:04 AM
Anonymous said...: I loves me some bush.; 1/22/15, 5:32 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: U.S. climbs to third in ranking of world's most competitive economies.; 1/22/15, 7:36 AM
Danno said...: ARM, You didn't appear to understand one of the questions posed to you over several posts last night. Did you post the thread at 6:03 pm last night under ARM, but without the avatar and a 2013 profile?; 1/22/15, 7:57 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm thoroughly Bushed. No more.; 1/22/15, 8:43 AM
I Callahan said...: Ideologue idiots who would rather sit an election out until they can field a candidate they feel has conservative integrity.

Now you've talked me into it! Let's go Bush or Romney!!!!; 1/22/15, 8:44 AM
Unknown said...: ---Aren't both parties embarrassed (or depressed) to admit they have no one to put forth or discuss for the nomination then Jeb or Hillary? ---

Its the media that tries to select the candidates for the Republicans. Grassroots have plenty of alternatives but Big Media loves to go to the tried, the true and the mushy Rep for their love, Hillary! to beat.; 1/22/15, 8:53 PM