Yes, have noticed that too. The big dispute seems to be between FReepers who will never vote for Bush, under any circumstances, and those who will hold their noses in the general if he does get the nomination.
There are definitely some appealing things about Bush. He does have good exec experience, including in emergency management. He does support some Conservative policies. He’d stand a much better chance of appointing Conservatives to the Courts than a Dem. And he has great fundraising and campaign organizing capability (through his family network).
Downsides are his many not-so-Conservative policies and the stigma of his family name (both from overexposure of it in national politics and a couple decades worth of sometimes undeserved bashing that isn’t forcefully responded to).
I’m guessing that people who might be drawn to him for his positives are going instead to Walker, who has those positives (fundrasing and building campaign orgs TBD) as well but also lacks many of the negatives.
A president had very little to do with managing an emergency. That’s just a hard cold fact. And nothing about Bush makes him with my vote. It’s better that the gop lose hard, again and again until they reform into an American party in line with tea,,, or until they vanish.
Souter.......
Walker also has big positives that Bush lacks: 1) He’s proven himself as able and willing to conduct political trench warfare against the most pure evil of the evil DemonCraps and defeated them thrice; 2) He’s won and won repeatedly in a strongly blue northern state, something none of the other pubbies candidates has done; and 3) He’s stayed true to conservative principles while making strategic compromises to advance his conservative agenda. IOW he’s the strongest conservative candidate we’ve had since Renaldus Magnus.