November 16, 2015

5 reasons why Jeb's people think he just might win.

Enumerated by Byron York:
1) A large majority of [focus] group members were undecided and felt no rush to decide anything....

2) After all that has happened, the New Hampshire voters still had a positive, or mostly positive, impression of Bush. They see him as smart, mature and dull.

3) They like Donald Trump, think he’s fun, but are concerned about giving Trump the vast powers of the presidency.

4) They love Ben Carson as a non-politician with a gentle bedside manner, but are a little discomfited by his offbeat views on a number of topics.

5) They see Marco Rubio as a perfect vice president and wonder if he is too young, and has too few accomplishments, for the top job.
I'll sum that up: If Jeb can just keep standing there, smart, mature and dull, he may be the last man standing as all the others collapse on their own.

By the way, Jeb Bush was on "Meet the Press" yesterday, and we thought he was excellent (and, yes, too, he was smart, mature, and dull). Transcript. Excerpt:

CHUCK TODD: [W]hat do you say to voters that right now, they want outsiders, and they don't care that they don't have a lot of experience. Do you think what happened in Paris should change the mindset of the Republican voter? And what's your case to them to make them do that?

JEB BUSH: Yeah, look, I think as we get closer to the primaries, people are going to want to know who can sit behind the big desk. Who has the judgment and the temperament to lead this country? And if you listen to some of the candidates speaking about Syria, for example, they're all over the map. I laid out a strategy two months ago at the Reagan Library, and its proper strategy I think to be able to destroy ISIS and to have change in the regime related to Assad so that there can be peace and security in the region, and lessening the threat to our own national security....

CHUCK TODD: Let me go to the refugee issue. Would you, do you believe we should still try to accept some of these Syrian refugees? And if not, what do you do with them?

JEB BUSH: The great majority of refugees need to be safely kept in Syria. Which means the safe zones need to be serious. We need to build a coalition that can fight both Assad and ISIS and give people safe haven. I do think we have a responsibility to help with refugees after proper screening. And I think or focus out to be on the Christians who have no place in Syria anymore. They're being beheaded, they're being executed by both sides. And I think we have a responsibility to help. But ultimately, the best way to deal with refugees is to have a strategy to take out ISIS and Assad and act on that strategy immediately....

70 comments:

dreams said...

I don't think so.

Brando said...

Bush has a few big problems that will keep him from getting nominated. First, he's been out of politics for nearly a decade, and hasn't run in a campaign since 2002. Not necessarily disqualifying, but his rusty-ness is showing. Second, the family legacy thing--it shouldn't necessarily disqualify (or qualify, for that matter) anyone, but it clearly is hurting him, particularly where he cannot distance himself from the less popular parts of his brother's legacy. And third, he projects an image of a bored, somewhat goofy guy. Even if he's not, that's the image he's projecting. Voters aren't into that, and they fear with good reason that this spells disaster if he gets the nomination.

I'm not sure when he'll drop out, but I wouldn't be too surprised if he dropped out before Christmas.

Tom said...

I'll die nasty with Trump before I'll dynasty with Bush or Clinton.

Michael K said...

I expect him to stay in as long as he has money. McCain is probably his model.

AprilApple said...

No. No more Bush. No more Clinton.

AprilApple said...

The media are desperate for a sure-fire loser for Hillary to beat. Jeb and Kasich will do, and they insist we will select them.

Roger Sweeny said...

In 2012, a big Republican issue was opposition to Obamacare. So they nominated a man who had instituted something very similar in Massachusetts. Assuming Hillary is the Democratic nominee, a big issue will be "no dynasties." So I suppose the Republicans will nominate George W. Bush's brother.

traditionalguy said...

The media talking heads are stuck on hoplessness about the Caliphate War. Taking the Obama approach as all that can be done leaves us helpless and hopeless and the news reader bimbos were expressing a sad frustration. No one suggested Bush redux.

They also had to keep up the Trump blind spot tokeep their jobs.

chuck myguts said...

And the biggest reason that he won't be elected.....
His stance on immigration would sideline a huge amount of the republican base

Larry J said...

Jeb Bush wants to get the nomination without the Republican base. Should he do so, he'll find that on election day, millions of the base will stay home just as they did for Romney in 2012. Bush either has some rather strange beliefs about what it'll take to win the election or the worst political advisors in America (or both).

Bill Peschel said...

When both candidates are in the pockets of the banks, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, who cares who wins? In the end, they do.

Limited blogger said...

I always 'vote'. Meaning I trek to the polling place, sign in, take a ballot and go to the curtained booth. I however do not vote on every line of the ballot. If I don't feel strongly, and certainly about a candidate or proposal, I leave the line blank.

If Bush is the Republican nominee, I will leave the Presidential line blank.

Laslo Spatula said...

So far the only 'High Energy' Jeb has shown is to shiv Rubio.

He seemed to enjoy that.

I am Laslo.

bbkingfish said...

Eventually, the GOP will come around to Jeb. Even young Marco.

Cruz seems to have his own Texas sugar daddies, so it will be interesting to see whether he breaks off for a third party run. Now that would be fun.

Michael K said...

"millions of the base will stay home just as they did for Romney in 2012"

This seems to be an enduring myth. The Romney vote was at least as high as that for McCain. Obama won the election on turnout, some of which was probably from cemeteries. Obama's vote was reduced from 2008, Romney's was not.

David Begley said...

Marco can't be Jeb's VP because they live in the same state.

damikesc said...

Immigration is the KEY issue this election season. Bush is DOA on that alone.

Nonapod said...

I'll never understand this weird faith in Jeb that some people seem to have. Under normal circumstances there might be reason for Jeb's campaign to hold out hope that he;ll somehow be the last one standing, but the reality is that there are several alternatives that are most likely more appealing and more realistic at this point.

Brando said...

"Should he do so, he'll find that on election day, millions of the base will stay home just as they did for Romney in 2012."

If Bush somehow got nominated--I think he won't--the more likely scenario is that he will fail to appeal to moderates and Democrats who don't like Hillary, particularly because he'll be trying so hard to win over conservatives who don't trust him anyway.

Conservatives will vote for a sea turtle if the choice is between that and Hillary. I don't think very conservative voters actually stay home when the choice is between an insufficiently conservative Republican and a very left-wing Democrat.

Laslo Spatula said...

The only way I could get behind Jeb is if he was a woman with a great ass.

I am Laslo.

I Callahan said...

This seems to be an enduring myth. The Romney vote was at least as high as that for McCain. Obama won the election on turnout, some of which was probably from cemeteries. Obama's vote was reduced from 2008, Romney's was not.

Nothing mythical about it. If Obama ran on turnout, then by default Romney lost on turnout, which means that a bunch of people who would have voted for him didn't. That group isn't moderates or liberals, so also by default, it must be conservatives.

Paul Snively said...

If we elected "smart, mature, and dull," the recently-late Fred Dalton Thompson would have been President.

I Callahan said...

Conservatives will vote for a sea turtle if the choice is between that and Hillary. I don't think very conservative voters actually stay home when the choice is between an insufficiently conservative Republican and a very left-wing Democrat.

No, Brando, we won't. If there isn't a dime's difference between the Dem candidate and the GOP candidate, I won't be picking one. I went along with that thinking for Dole, W and McCain ; and for Romney I held my nose. But I won't do it again, and I suspect there were a lot who felt this way for Romney, and a lot more who will feel this way if Jeb gets the nomination.

Writ Small said...

The problem is Republicans have great candidates - but only on paper. On close scrutiny every candidate running has serious, if not fatal, flaws. That's also true on the other side.

Jeb could be this year's 2004 John Kerry. Kerry was boring and going nowhere with not a single strong debate performance. Then people voted and the exciting favorite, Howard Dean, flamed out. Other alternatives were no good, and so stiff Kerry won by default. Something similar happened with McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012. The last minute switch to the boring guy everyone trashed all along is one way to pick a candidate and then lose the presidency.

Anonymous said...

Did I hear Jeb say that we should consider letting in Syrian Christians, preferentially to Muslims ? BTW, his Middle East plan is the best I've heard of.

Brando said...

"No, Brando, we won't. If there isn't a dime's difference between the Dem candidate and the GOP candidate, I won't be picking one. I went along with that thinking for Dole, W and McCain ; and for Romney I held my nose. But I won't do it again, and I suspect there were a lot who felt this way for Romney, and a lot more who will feel this way if Jeb gets the nomination."

Duly noted--I don't think that statement will be tested on Bush, but I suspect there will be a lot of nose-holding next fall. I expect to do some nose-holding myself.

Any way you cut it, we're probably going to have a mediocre (at best) president, and plenty of partisan gridlock (which is preferable to passing bad laws) but even that is better than getting Clinton back in there.

Brando said...

"Nothing mythical about it. If Obama ran on turnout, then by default Romney lost on turnout, which means that a bunch of people who would have voted for him didn't. That group isn't moderates or liberals, so also by default, it must be conservatives."

Does anyone have a good study on this? I heard pundits arguing this both ways. I can picture someone disliking Romney and Obama both enough to not vote, but I can't picture someone who is very conservative choosing to not vote with those two as the choices.

Limited blogger said...

No pastels! Bold colors!

Jeb! isn't even pastel, he's gray.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

The Bush people don't understand that a candidate like Rubio, Carson or Trump can gain the experience necessary in the public mind to be President by beating the front runner. Or maybe they do understand. Bush has presented himself in such a way that beating him won't be judged as much of an accomplishment.

mccullough said...

Jeb is calm. A rare trait in political candidates.

Eric said...

Brando:
it clearly is hurting him, particularly where he cannot distance himself from the less popular parts of his brother's legacy. And third, he projects an image of a bored, somewhat goofy guy.

You weren't specific, but these 2 observations point to the specific episode where Jeb Bush was handed a singular opportunity on a silver platter to establish a distinct compelling position that would have dynamically recast the character of his presidential campaign: the Megyn Kelly "knowing what we know now" hypothetical about the decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom, which sits atop the "less popular parts of his brother's legacy".

The Kelly hypothetical should have been a home run for Bush. He simply needed to respond in his comfort zone - as a policy wonk - which usually comes off as a "bored, somewhat goofy guy" but would have been perfectly suited to flip the 'gotcha' question in his favor.

Instead, the one instance that being wonkish was the best response, Bush very clumsily retreated from the issue crying the disclaimer that he would not "relitigate" the decision for OIF. That fundamental strategic error backed him and all the other Republican candidates into a corner where they were forced to stipulate the adversarial claim that the decision for OIF was a mistake.

Yet vigorously re-litigating the decision for OIF for the public was exactly the tack Bush needed to take in order seize the opportunity to establish a strong position for his presidential campaign. The choice he made, instead, of retreating from the controversy could not work in the first place because, as you said, Jeb Bush "cannot distance himself from ... his brother's legacy", especially not when events in Iraq continue to be at the front of the news.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of Bush's lost opportunity is that it's simple to re-litigate the issue - strictly according to the controlling law and policy and the determinative facts, the decision for OIF was correct.

To learn how Jeb Bush should have responded to the Kelly hypothetical and re-litigated the decision for OIF, see the explanation of the law and policy, fact basis for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In the same vein, see Recommendation: How to talk about your Iraq vote (advice to Hillary Clinton).

dreams said...

Bush was a good governor but can't seem to get into a good flow in this campaign, a little bit tone deaf too.

Big Mike said...

I'll sum that up: If Jeb can just keep standing there, smart, mature and dull, he may be the last man standing as all the others collapse on their own.

I think Jeb has already collapsed on his own; he just doesn't get it yet.

With all the problems that the next president is going to inherit, I think "dull" is a poor qualification. Someone dull would not have made a good 16th president, nor would someone dull have been a good man to have the White House on December 7th, 1941.

MikeR said...

It's not hard. Jeb Bush has no chance, never did. Lots of us have said _from the very beginning_: I don't want another Bush.
It's just hard for the king-makers to accept that the voters might not listen to them.

dreams said...

I think Bush would probably be a better president than Rubio who doesn't have any experience, plus, Rubio hopped into bed with the despicable Chuck Schumer on immigration.

traditionalguy said...

Restoration of the Bush Family Monarchy will have to await a Napoleonic Trump fixing the disorders that seem impossible to fix everybody else.

Brando said...

"You weren't specific, but these 2 observations point to the specific episode where Jeb Bush was handed a singular opportunity on a silver platter to establish a distinct compelling position that would have dynamically recast the character of his presidential campaign: the Megyn Kelly "knowing what we know now" hypothetical about the decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom, which sits atop the "less popular parts of his brother's legacy"."

The fact that he wasn't ready for those questions about Iraq (and had to backtrack over the ensuing weeks) shows that he is not taking the campaign seriously. Obviously someone was going to ask him about that!

mikee said...

Jeb can't win against Hillary, because he won't call her a lying, corrupt, shrewish, law-breaking, authoritarian horror of an incompetent politician.

lgv said...

Smart, mature, and dull will lose the election. Just like Hillary lost the nomination to Obama. The the one term senator won the general election. So, the anti-Rubio concept doesn't cut it.



Meade said...

Anyone But Clinton.

BDNYC said...

Marco can't be Jeb's VP because they live in the same state.

Why do people keep saying this? I believe even Althouse, a law professor who should know better, has mentioned it.

Dick Cheney was a Texas resident until a few months before the 2000 election, when he changed his residency to Wyoming to run on the Bush ticket. Jeb could easily change his residency to Maine or Texas in order to run with Rubio.

wildswan said...

The party of reform socialism is the Republican party, Internally there's debt and social collapse, externally there's ISIS and company. No Democrat will do anything about any of it because no Democrat is able to believe that government or socialism can cause major problems. So even if you believe in socialism, We are really a failed socialist state for which there's no hope of reform outside of the Republican party, only more of the same.

More Moslem immigrants and more terror attacks; more Hispanic immigrants and more black unemployment; more "free" programs we can't pay for and more debt we can't keep up with; more EPA regulation and more expensive energy; more failing schools and more attacks on school reformers; more Obamacare provisions kicking in and more sick people kicked in the gut by deductibles, premiums and the refusal of doctors to accept them as patients; more VA scandals

Socialism in the USA. If you like being a Monica, vote Hillary.

wildswan said...

Oh sorry, the page reloaded and left out the start of my post where I was arguing that we have to vote for the Republican candidate, we are out of time for Americans to play around and sulk and expect the country to survive. Everyone should vote Republican.

And then I went on

The party of reform socialism etc.

David Begley said...

BDNYC

VP Cheney had long maintained a residence in WY. He was elected to the House from WY. A federal judge ruled he had a legal residence in WY.

No such legal case can be made for Bush and especially Rubio.

Not going to happen.

Larry J said...

Brando said...
"Nothing mythical about it. If Obama ran on turnout, then by default Romney lost on turnout, which means that a bunch of people who would have voted for him didn't. That group isn't moderates or liberals, so also by default, it must be conservatives."

Does anyone have a good study on this? I heard pundits arguing this both ways. I can picture someone disliking Romney and Obama both enough to not vote, but I can't picture someone who is very conservative choosing to not vote with those two as the choices.


Not a study but some simple numbers from the linked article:

131 million voters cast their ballots in the 2008 election in which Barack Obama defeated Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) by a 53% to 46% margin. Obama received 69.4 million votes, while McCain received 59.9 million.

In 2012, Obama defeated Romney by a 50% to 48% margin. Obama received 59.8 million votes, and Romney received 57.1 million votes — 2.7 million fewer than Obama in 2012, but also 2.8 million fewer than McCain in 2008.

Surprisingly, President Obama’s 2012 vote total — 59.8 million — was 100,000 less than the 59.9 million John McCain received in 2008.

tim maguire said...

Mr. Bush, I refute you thus: "Immigration."

And just to kick you while you're down, "Common Core."

tim maguire said...

I'm looking at Real Clear Politics right now and John Kasich beats Bush in New Hampshire. John Freakin' Kasich!

Tell me again about Bush's path to the nomination?

SukieTawdry said...

Obama got approximately 3.5 million fewer popular votes in 2012 than he did in 2008. McCain got approximately a million fewer popular votes than Mitt. There were 2.2 million fewer votes cast in 2012. According to Wikipedia, the demographic subgroups Mitt carried were: males, married people, conservatives, Republicans, independents, whites, Protestants, regular religious service attendees, people over 39 years of age, people earning at least $50,000/yr, the south, non-urban areas. Obama and Romney split the heterosexual vote. The subgroups McCain carried were: Republicans, conservatives, married people, whites, the south, regular religious service attendees, Protestants, people aged 65 and older, people earning $50,000-$75,000 and $100,000-$200,000, rural areas. He and Obama split the 40-49 year old age group.

In 2008, whites were 72% of the total vote; in 2012, whites were 74%. The black percentage of the total vote (13%) was the same for both elections. In 2008, Protestants were 54% of the electorate; in 2012, they were 53%. Southerners represented 32% of the total vote in 2008 and 34% in 2012. The urban vote was 30% in 2008 and 32% in 2012. Married people represented 6% less of the electorate in 2012. Liberals increased their numbers in 2012, moderates decreased their numbers and conservatives remained the same. The age demographics were roughly the same in both elections as were the education demographics. More high and middle income people turned out in 2008. There was a greater turnout among low income people in 2012.

So, what does it all mean? Beats me. Should Romney have won that election? Beats me.

I won't vote for Jeb, but I'm in California so it matters not a whit which presidential candidate I vote for. Hillary will carry California.

BDNYC said...

@ David Begley

Before the 2000 election, Cheney lived in Dallas and was a Texas resident for half a decade.

Earlier this year, the Bushes build Jeb a home in Maine. So Jeb can easily show a physical presence in Maine and an intent to make Maine his place of habitation. I bet Jeb can also show, for good measure, that he has spent x amount of time each year in Maine. Also, Jeb grew up in Texas, went to school at UT and worked in Houston for many years. I wonder if he owns properties there.

In any event, there's nothing in the Constitution to prevent an all Florida ticket. Even if Jeb is legally a Florida resident, the worst that could happen is Florida's electors won't be able to vote for BOTH the GOP president and veep. Even if the veep is disputed as a result, assuming the Senate remain GOP, a GOP president will not be forced to serve with a Democrat veep.

Brando said...

"Surprisingly, President Obama’s 2012 vote total — 59.8 million — was 100,000 less than the 59.9 million John McCain received in 2008."

Thanks for that info--though without knowing who stayed home from voting GOP and why, it could just as easily be that Romney got fewer GOP moderates than McCain (who remember, only 4 years before the 2008 election had been John Kerry's first choice for VP--he had a moderate image before the election).

What is clear is that there is some number of conservatives who don't vote because they see the GOP nominee as too liberal (to the extent that they really don't care if the Dems win), some number of moderates who are turned off by what they view as the two parties' extremes, and some number of liberals who likewise stay home because they see the Dem nominee as too conservative to the extent they don't care if the GOP wins. The question is how many of each we're talking about, and what sort of candidate can turn out their own base, keep the moderates in the fold, and not fire up the opposing base, just enough to win a majority of electoral votes.

Find that candidate, or otherwise you're better off spending your time figuring out how to live with being in the minority.

Nichevo said...

Traditional guy, do you even realize that Napoleon is one of history's villains?

Achilles said...

Romney wrote, passed, and implemented obomneycare in Massachusetts.

I wonder who stayed home in 2012.

Achilles said...

The people of this country are tired of the ruling class. They got obamacare shoved down their throats and are watching politicians dump debt on their children to pay off cronies. Now they are watching the ruling class try to import cheap labor and a more compliant electorate.

Nobody perceived as doing the bidding of the ruling class will break 20% in the primary. That means Bush and Rubio.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Something's wrong with people who like Donald Trump - at least the way he's been acting this year. Did they prompt the focus geoup in some way to like him?

is it "Like what he's saying" maybe?

Brando said...

"Romney wrote, passed, and implemented obomneycare in Massachusetts. I wonder who stayed home in 2012."

Oh we could play that game all day--Romney called Romneycare a mistake, referred to himself as "severely conservative", decided he was pro-life and anti-gay marriage, called for more tax cuts, called for tougher rules for illegal immigrants and a more aggressive foreign policy, and picked Paul Ryan (who back then was a conservative hero, particularly for his entitlement reform proposals) as VP. Moderates could have been just as easily turned off by him.

Out of curiosity, did anyone here who considers themselves very conservative actually sit out any recent presidential elections because the GOP nominee was too close to the Dems? I'm not saying such people don't exist, I just don't think they're big enough in number to swing the election the other way.

"Nobody perceived as doing the bidding of the ruling class will break 20% in the primary. That means Bush and Rubio."

That may be--I don't think Bush will stay in this much longer--but there's a lot of room for this race to shuffle early next year. The party goes with "establishment" picks by definition.

Brando said...

"is it "Like what he's saying" maybe? "

I'll admit there are some things Trump says where I have to admit I agree more with him than the rest of the field. I just can't reconcile it with what a complete disaster he would be both as a general election candidate and as president if it ever came to that.

Fen said...

Nope. Jeb Bush has made it clear that he has been groomed by the Establishment Party (E).

Not only will I refuse to vote for him, I will vote Democrat (even Hillary) for the first time in 30 years.

Let it burn.

Achilles said...

Brando said...

"That may be--I don't think Bush will stay in this much longer--but there's a lot of room for this race to shuffle early next year. The party goes with "establishment" picks by definition."

You wrote a bunch of stuff about Romney pretending to be conservative. Rubio pretended to be against amnesty in 2010 also. We are tired of people who campaign one way and legislate another. The ruling class wants different things than we do. We are tired of people like Romney and Rubio who put on an act.

Even Hillary has built up resistance in the Dem base. Democrat voters are slower and dumb, but even They are tired of the attached parasite.

Limited blogger said...

Fen is right.

I voted for Reagan twice, GHWB twice, Dole, GW twice, McCain and Romney.

Not voting for Bush.

Brando said...

"We are tired of people who campaign one way and legislate another. The ruling class wants different things than we do. We are tired of people like Romney and Rubio who put on an act."

Every one of these candidates puts on an act of some sort--Trump, Rubio, obviously Hillary. I'm looking at what they're saying not because I believe any of them are going to do it (e.g., those "tax plans" that are about as likely to happen as Sanders' plan to give everyone free tuition somehow) but as a way of measuring their temperament for when unexpected things happen. As they say, if you want to hear God laugh, tell Him your plans--there wasn't much talk of terrorism in the 2000 election but that issue defined the ensuing four years. We can't know what's going to be the biggest issue for 2017-21--maybe a major recession--so character and temperament are the most important things we have.

I voted for Romney precisely because I thought he'd be a pragmatist who could advance a right-leaning agenda on tax reform and entitlement reform, or at least something closer to that than Obama would. Obama has proven to just give us more gridlock and incompetence.

I don't have as dim a view of Rubio as you do, but my main wishlist for next fall is preventing a Hillary presidency. I believe she has Nixon's worst qualities and none of his positives. And unlike with Nixon, we don't have her own party ready to draw a line. So the key factor with the GOP is to not scuttle their chances for the general election.

clint said...

Gee. What's missing?

His five reasons include one dismissal of each of three of the four candidates currently out-polling him.

And he doesn't mention the one that's blowing him away in the fundraising.

I wonder why.

Anthony said...

The Republicans typically favor candidates with executive experience, generally state governors, as presidential candidates. With all the governors doing poorly, Jeb might think that when the Republican electorate finally calms down, they'll vote for him over the senators.

Michael K said...

"Romney wrote, passed, and implemented obomneycare in Massachusetts. "

Another myth.

I get tired of trying to correct this but Romney was responding to a theory that free riders were a major problem with health care costs. Heritage later decided this was not important and dropped the idea. The Mass legislature is 90% Democrat and passed a bill that included an employer mandate, not part of the "free rider" argument. Romney vetoed this and some other provisions that went beyond the single mandate concept. The legislature over rode his veto. After he left office, Deval Patrick, an Obama wanna-be, added to the program.

Romney made a serious mistake not to disown a program that went far beyond what he had approved,. Maybe it was pride.

He did not "write, pass and implement" that program.

Bob R said...

The "be the last dull, thoughtful man standing" has been successful - for Kerry. Didn't work out too well for him in the general.

For those who say the election is all about immigration - that might not have sounded so silly three days ago.

The Godfather said...

Do you remember the old joke about the two guys who are walking through the jungle, and they come upon a hungry tiger. One of the guys immediately puts on his running shoes. His companion says, You're a fool; You can't outrun a tiger. The other guy says, I don't have to; I just have to outrun you.

Jeb has to outrun a loudmouth millionaire, a doctor who is Black (a plus) and a Seventh Day Adventist (a minus; they're wierder than Mormons), and two inexperienced but articulate Cuban-American Senators who (like Obama in 2008) never ran anything but their mouths. I don't think anyone else counts.

If I were Jeb, I'd hang in there. I don't think he'll get the nomination, and I don't support him, but what has he got to lose?

Quaestor said...

I'll die nasty with Trump before I'll dynasty with Bush or Clinton.

Heck of a good bumper sticker! Mind if I steal it?

D. B. Light said...

Like his father, Jeb would make a fine president, but is a terrible campaigner. His father was taken down by a rogue billionaire. Jeb will suffer the same fate. Too bad. Let's just hope that we don't wind up with another Clinton.

Spiros Pappas said...

Jeb? Totally inadequate and a loser.

Unknown said...

But he still cannot beat a confused, brain damaged grandmaw.

Yechiel said...

mikee said...

"Jeb can't win against Hillary, because he won't call her a lying, corrupt, shrewish, law-breaking, authoritarian horror of an incompetent politician."


Funny, she doesn't look shrewish...


I slay myself.