Bush 44? [Jeb Bush for President]

Opinion Journal ^ | Aug 9, 2005 | BRENDAN MINITER

[The Raven]

He denies he's even interested, and a long list of political analysts have already written him off with the belief that the appearance of political nepotism would be too unseemly for voters to put the brother of the current president in the Oval Office. But in politics timing is everything, and as the clock advances towards 2008, things are starting to fall into place to give Jeb Bush the momentum he needs to win the White House. And this isn't contingent on Hillary Clinton emerging as the Democrats' nominee--though if she does, the path will be all the smoother for another Bush.

Let's first dispense with the idea that Jeb's biggest liability would be his last name. Since when does name recognition hurt in politics? It's true that many of this brother's political adversaries would simply cross out "George" in their campaign literature and ink in "Jeb" above it. MoveOn.org and other Democratic interest groups would find plenty of willing donors. George Soros would likely make another multimillion-dollar pledge to drive the Bushes from Washington. But then again, they did all that last time, and we aren't discussing who will challenge President Kerry.

[Shawndell Green]

"Almost like those Arab countries where the same family rules for decades."

Not at all. George Bush the Elder and the Younger both became President only after free elections, and that is the only way Jeb could become President. That makes all the difference in the world.

[Shawndell Green]

I agree with your post. I would too would vote for Cheney before I would vote for Jeb, but that is not going to happen.

[Final Authority]

It all depends if no other Republican can pass muster with the Council on Foreign Relations. If he is the chosen one from the Republican side, he may get the nod to proceed. I suspect Hillary has already gotten her nod from the CFR to proceed as the CFR will never have anybody in the race, in any column, who they are against.

[Republican Wildcat]

Three names on the list? Why not add some more - you can then create a list going all the way back to the party's founding in the 1850s: "There's been a (list of names) on the ticket every year since the party was founded!!!!"

[Republican Wildcat]

You say one thing but mean another. I have to clarify what your meaning is. You support him merely because he is a Bush and I want that clarified. So I change your wording to what it should be.

[Republican Wildcat]

Wow, you go from me saying that there are some good things about everyone to being a Clinton lover. Now who needs some lessons in reading comprehension?

You said one thing but meant another. He had to clarify what your meaning is. You like Clinton and he wanted that clarified - so he changed your wording to what it should be.

[Republican Wildcat]

Is that what you heard from Tony Snow?

[Sentis]

In every other post he said he wants Jeb Bush in office becuase he was a Bush. Then in the next post tells me he doesn't vote for somebody just because of an accident of Birth. I needed to clarify what was meant. He was the one accusing me of reading comprehension problems.

[Sentis]

Oh another crazed Jeb fan. I can then imply you want to give the White House to the democrats.

[Republican Wildcat]

In every other post he said he wants Jeb Bush in office becuase he was a Bush.

He said no such thing.

[Republican Wildcat]

He was the one accusing me of reading comprehension problems.

Either that or you have an inability to tell the truth. Which is it?

[Die_Hard Conservative Lady]

I would have to know what his agenda would be regarding the borders before I would consider voting for him.....

[Sentis]

Oh, I must have mistaken him for the other people that think Jeb would make a good candidate. Maybe He was just the one foaming at the mouth about how self made men were not good presidents and that Reagan was less of a president because he had been an actor and that that didn't make him a self made man? Or was he the one the inferred that the rich make better presidents because Clinton was a self made man and that made selfmade men somehow lesser men than the Bush bunch? Or was that another one of the Bush Dynasty people that wants to give the white house away?

[Unicorn]

Thats bullshit.

[Sentis]

Oh attack away because I called your precious hero Bush the worst kind of Republican president we could possibly have gotten stuck with a social conservative and liberal finacially. Jeb would be as bad or worse in my opinion but never fear he would lose the election for us all and let the democrats back in the door.

[Republican Wildcat]

He didn't say any of that either.

[GOP_1900AD]

We got lucky with W. Sadly, many have concluded that someone who is very bland is the right "formula" for '08. Big mistake ... BIG, BIG mistake. But go right ahead ... ignore me. I really don't care any more.

[GOP_1900AD]

Look, I didn't write the book on harsh reality. You can only go so far trying for the squishy middle. That barely worked in 2000. In '04, W got reelected because of the war and because he actually gave in a bit to conservatives. Ignore conservatives again and it will be a Lefty back in the WH.

[Sentis]

Oh he didn't and I quote..



"I, too, much prefer people who start at the bottom and lie, cheat, and sell their soul to the Devil to get to the top to someone who starts off at or near the top and doesn't have to do those things."

Now my remark was about Reagan and Johnny Z said this and while he was alluding to Clinton he did not say Clinton, Implying that Reagan and Clinton are somehow peas of a pod.

"And I said I'd take an honest man born rich over a liar and a cheat born poor every time and twice on Sundays."

He has a serious problem with self made men. Especially since my comment before was that every one had some good qualities and Johnny went off on this rant again.

Should I continue? When the fool attacks Reagan and compares him to Clinton then we all know where his allegience lies. I didn't bring up Clinton I said we need a man like Reagan not like the Bushes and I'm attack. Where am I at DUmmie headquarters. The Bushes are pale in comparison to Reagan so get over it.

[GOP_1900AD]

He's not really even truly socially conservative. He talks that game but does not really walk that walk.