In other words, that's a deal breaker. It should be.
And, for that matter, Jeb is not someone who I am convinced can.
A lot of establishment pundits are saying that Hillary's inevitability works in Jeb's favor. I think the opposite is true. If Hillary is the DNC nominee, I see a lot of voters throwing up their hands in disgust -but only if Jeb isn't on the other side of the ticket.
No. The criteria should be ‘Is this the best person for America?
Winning with trash gets us more trash.
In other words, you are reacting defensively from the earliest stages. You are basing your choice on your expectations of the opposition. You allow yourself to be manipulated by how the left spins its way through a left-dominated media. HELLO???????
MY criteria start with: "Am I willing to be accountable for what happens if the guy I'm voting for wins?
THAT should be the "deal breaker." The identity of the opposition has zero relevance to what I am willing to vote FOR.
"Hillary" -- that's what worried Republicans were wailing in 2008, "anybody who can beat Hillary." Meanwhile, the Democrats nominated Obama right out from under their expectations.
You can vote "against" and "anybody-but" all you want. You're chasing unicorns when you do. Worse, it's "heads they win, tails we lose." It's a sucker's bet.