Bush Backs Brother Jeb for White House

I'm willing to entertain the thought enough to have an informed opinion on the subject.

Great! What is it?

;-)

Yeah. Think it through. Word, Steve Watts.

With comments like the ones left on this story I don't think people should be making fun of the President's IQ.

Why Jeb Bush would be bad-

- The country is, in totality, much worse off now than when George W. Bush stepped into office. Anyone can try to make any argument that they want as to why, but that statement is true.

- Jeb helped the election fraud that allowed George Walker Bush to defeat Al Gore.

- Jeb employed Katherine Harris, an extremely shady politician who has a history of sabotaging the democratic process, to help in the election fraud that helped George W. Bush get in office

- The Florida Republican Party, of which Jeb is the most powerful member, states the following:

I am a Republican because...I believe that Americans value and should preserve their feeling of national strength and pride, and at the same time share with people everywhere a desire for peace and freedom and the extension of human rights throughout the world."

I don't know how a feeling of strength an pride or sharing a desire for peace and freedom stack up in political policies, but it sounds like a load of hooey. It's feel-good generalism like "Support Our Troops" that is targeted towards those who don't really think about the issues. Sure I want to support the troops, but I don't want more invasions of countries that aren't attacking us with lots of debt and American lives lost.

- Just like George Bush Sr. and George Walker Bush, Jeb has stong ties to the oil companies and defense contractors that lord over our country. That price per gallon and increased defense debt spending (even though no one is battling us, just resisting our invasions) are hurting our country.

- Jeb Bush's regime in Florida has had lots of shake-ups with his own administration. Some of his top people have resigned ( Lottery Director David Griffin and Management Services Secretary Cynthia Henderson ).

- Lots of Floridians are angry at his involvement with development that may be destroying the coastal areas of the Florida pan handle .

- Just like his brother and father, Jeb Bush owes lots of people that helped put him in office. This means lots of political favors that are usually quite bad for the country / Florida.

Brad: Considering my entire point was about waiting out information and not jumping to predetermined conclusions based on irrelevant information (i.e. "George is bad ergo his brother is bad"), it would be pretty hypocritical of me to make a conclusion, wouldn't it? Like I said, I'm not supporting Jeb. I just got a little tired of scrolling through the tsunami of comments shrieking in terror while knowing nothing about the man. I don't know anything about him either, but I'm smart enough to keep my mouth shut on things I don't know. ;-)

Daniel: Your above definition "oxymoron" shows it as two contradictory words, and your above definition of "informed" says "(of a decision or judgment) based on an understanding of the facts of the situation." To quote The Princess Bride, "I'm not sure that word means what you think it means." :-P

gnoleb: Thanks for bringing the count up to 2. 2/33 is better than 1/29. Keep spreading the word and maybe the informed will break the 50% barrier. ;-)

Jeb helped the election fraud that allowed George Walker Bush to defeat Al Gore.

The Supreme Court doesn't see it that way.

it sounds like a load of hooey. It's feel-good generalism like "Support Our Troops" that is targeted towards those who don't really think about the issues. Sure I want to support the troops, but I don't want more invasions of countries that aren't attacking us with lots of debt and American lives lost.

Your feelings don't really stack up to much more than a hunch. As for the debt and lives lost, it beats being taken over by hostile powers that would see us lose our strategic position in the world.

Jeb has stong ties to the oil companies and defense contractors that lord over our country

If we didn't make friends with the oil and defence industries, someone else would.

Lots of Floridians are angry at his involvement with development that may be destroying the coastal areas of the Florida pan handle .

It's spring time outside. Maybe you should also protest the new plants that are destroying the old ones with their "will to power." Some things in this closed system must go so that new things can be born. Also, new development means new jobs and better economy.

Just like his brother and father, Jeb Bush owes lots of people that helped put him in office. This means lots of political favors that are usually quite bad for the country / Florida.

Every politician has to make friends in the community. Sponsorship is a part of the deal. You could also say that he owes the voters and the fact that they keep voting for him seems to indicate he's doing an alright job.

They don't really contradict, since one says not necessarily based on fact, and the other says that "informed" when in the context of "decision or judgment" means "based on... facts." In other words, the definition of opinion doesn't necessitate fact, but the words "informed opinion" (or just "informed") does in fact allow for the presence of an opinion.

And now that I've beaten the daylights out of your humor, I kind of feel bad. (Take that, you lousy light-heartedness! You have no place in politics!) :-P

Steve: I see, you're waiting until you get a bunch of great information here before you just start posting a bunch of comments that don't express your (newly formed and informed) opinion. I get it. Makes a lot of sense.

And now you're making predeterminations about me too. Nasty habit, you know. ;-)

My comments weren't to stifle those who dislike Jeb or don't want him to run for office. Adam, for example, made some very insightful comments based on first-hand knowledge of Jeb's policies, but still stands against his bid for President. If you'll notice, I complimented him. My comment was directed at those whose entire argument boiled down to "it's another Bush!"

My grandfather is in prison. My other grandfather was a tad crazy. My sister and brother and mother and father are all very unlike me. It's idiotic to base judgments on people based on their family, in politics or any other area of life. The vast majority of people here weren't commenting with any real knowledge of Jeb Bush, his policies, what he stands for, what he agrees and disagrees with the President on, or what he may or may not do in office.

Resort to strawmen and predeterminations all you want, but the simple fact remains that the arguments presented by about 90% of the liberals here are expressing fear towards someone other than the subject matter of the article. It's like knowing a tiger is dangerous and therefore forbidding a housecat from getting near you. They're in the same family, so a tabby will obviously rip out your lungs at its first chance. :-P

simple fact remains that the arguments presented by about 90% of the liberals here

Steve, did you know that about 90% of statistics are made up on the spot?

ba-da-boom

But seriously, I've seen this comment thread today as being raucous - I think a lot of people are having fun, making a play on words, kidding around. I know, this time conservatives seem to be the butt of the jokes, but come on - haven't you seen a few threads around here where the liberals take a big bashing? I sure have. To me, it seems less mean spirited here than some of those other threads, but hey, I'm a liberal - my point of view might be skewed on that. I speak for nobody but myself, but let me just reiterate that, although I have strong and serious feelings about the administration, about some Republican ideas, and about some conservatives, the kidding I'm doing here today is just a matter of blowing off steam. I suspect that you're taking it that way, but just in case, let me make it clear that no offense is intended.

Brad: I think it's funny how you make a post about how it's all kidding and in good fun, and then Sam comments sounding dead-serious. ;-) At any rate, yes, I know you're not the type to ruffle feathers on purpose, and I know some of this is blowing off steam. And while we're at it, yes, there are plenty of threads that go around where Republicans blow off the same steam.

The problem, as I saw it, was that this one was going unabated with any call to logic or reason or consideration of the man's possible ideas. He has the Bush name, so people instantly tuned him out. The closest idea to this thread I can think of that comes from the other side is the one insanely suggesting that Hilary not be allowed to run for President. It only garnered 28 responses, and a quick perusal of the top-level responses shows that most of them call it a very silly idea. (Mine included. I'm nothing if not consistant).

So what's the difference? In both threads, people who agreed with the "family name" banning claimed worry of dynasties or too much "continued terms." And which one, percentage-wise, was more scoffed at? At the time of my initial reply, I was the only person telling people to wait a minute, to not judge people by their last name, to get to know the man's ideas. If we're going to call it ridiculous when someone suggests it for Hilary, we have to call it just the same when someone suggests it for Jeb.

I'm not saying you're being mean-spirited, Brad. I'm just saying fair is fair, and hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Argue against Jeb on his merits (or lack thereof), or don't argue at all. Argue for Hilary and Jeb's right to run, or against their combined right to run. This selective "your brother/husband stinks like doodoo!" argument is childish and unbecoming of intelligent people on either side of the political spectrum.

The problem, as I saw it, was that this one was going unabated with any call to logic or reason or consideration of the man's possible ideas.

Yes, Steve, I see now. I've been pretty much looking at this as a big jokefest, while you've been trying to see it as an intelligent discussion. I think you're probably correct if you think that we should mostly confine ourselves to serious discussion on news items. I've mostly stayed out of it (well, except when I've gotten into it), but I can see how it could be frustrating.

To tell you the truth, I honestly can't imagine how this could have made the news, or how anyone could take it seriously. It's not like speculating that Hillary Clinton will run - everybody knows she's going to run. It's more like speculating about whether or not Jesse Jackson will run. Of course Jeb Bush has a nationally recognized name, and of course he might make a run at the nomination, but his name hasn't come up in any serious way before this, and here you have the President, at the nadir of his popularity out there starting rumors, followed by the press lapping it up and making an actual news story out of it. Laughable, right?

So, that's how I really feel about it. I don't know if Jeb Bush would make a good President, hell, I don't even care at this point. I'd be interested in talking about whether Bill Frist would make a good President, or Tom Delay, or Joe Lieberman, but right now I see the idea of Jeb Bush running for President to be so far-fetched as to be not worth spending time on.

...and yet, here I've spent 15 minutes composing this thing.

Doh...

Fair enough assessment, Brad. Though I would say that that this wasn't really his name being brought up in a "serious" way. Not from the President, at least. I think the AP's headline and leadin sort of misled in that respect, considering all the quotes from Dubya himself basically say that he'd like Jeb to run, that he thinks he'd be good, but that Jeb hasn't said word one about it. :-P The phrase "backing" someone sort of implies that the person is stepping forward in the first place.

Because everything is predictable. Besides what did you expect George to say "Jeb is my dorky little brother who I gave wedgies when he tattled on me to mom and dad, and he'd make a lousy president"

My question is really - why is the story the top news and have a 106+ comments. Is it really that slow of a news day?

That's what everybody said during the last election. Didn't turn out that way though, did it?
Canada isn't too supportive of ex-patriots, these days and everyone else is either with us or against us.

If we have another Bush elected to the Presidency, I'll move!

Have fun. I'll be relaxing on a beach, earning 20%. Thanks, capital gains tax cuts!

That's what everybody said during the last election. Didn't turn out that way though, did it?

Actually, I know of two people from work moving because they can't stand the political climate and how America as a country is just oblivious to everything. One is moving to Japan, the other to England.

I know of a few more that would like to, but you have to have employment sponsorship and people aren't super keen on taking Americans in the industry I am in.

I can't pull it off just yet, but I'm looking to move to Spain.

If we have another Bush elected to the Presidency, I'll move!

Would you rather be in the country that everyone hates, or the country that is being nuked by the country that everyone hates. ;)

(By the way, I'm kidding, I don't actually think the Bushes are going to go nuke crazy)

Do you actually have any support ting evidence that Jeb is Just another bad apple from the same stupid tree. Do you even know any of his policies, how he has managed Florida?

I don't care how he runs Florida. Its the corruption taking place in Florida that I'm worried about. People have to vote for the president that's going to do the least amount of damage and another bush in office certainly isn't that president. That's all we need is Katherine Harris as Secretary of the state. You think we've been bent over now. Just wait for the reaming we could potentially get.

Either far more people than usual are using hyperbole, or far fewer people than I would've thought have a strong grasp on what the word "monarchy" actually means.

These are the people who are fighting hardest to lead our country. They have been consistent in implimenting a long, thought-out plan that will keep America strong in the years to come.

I don't think our economy could stomach another 4 years of Neo-cons.

We'll all have to do our part. It's not easy or pretty but its an increasingly dangerous world and we have to remain steadfast, lest we lose all that we've gained in the last century.

Isn't it an increasingly dangerous world because the U.S. has it's fingers all over it? The Neo-con idea of America getting into everything is not going to make us any safer.

I don't think our economy could stomach another 4 years of Neo-cons.

Why not? Employment is as high as it has ever been. The DOW is almost as high as it has ever been. Almost every economic indicator out there ((home ownership up, consumer confidence up, sales up, etc) is where you want it to be in a strong economy. Are you suggesting we should put neo-libs in to change things around?

We'll all have to do our part. It's not easy or pretty but its an increasingly dangerous world and we have to remain steadfast, lest we lose all that we've gained in the last century.

You mean in the first half of the last century. We've already been dragged back to around 1950 or so. We'll be lucky if this country doesn't look like 1936 before the next two years are over.

Isn't it an increasingly dangerous world because the U.S. has it's fingers all over it?

The US involvement has grown simultaneously with the gathering threats from a variety of fronts including the arms displacement following the dissolution of the USSR and a global realization of resource limitations.

We've already been dragged back to around 1950 or so.

Not that I agree, but people seemed relatively content in the 50's.

Some people, for sure.

Not the gay ones, or the ones who wanted to have an abortion, or the women who wanted to make as much money as men, or the biracial couples who wanted to live a normal life, or the men who wanted to grow their hair, or the tattooed people, or any of a number of groups whose behavior was outlawed, ridiculed, or censored.

Yeah, some people were relatively content. Some people won't be content again until we return to those "good old days."

True. It was better in the 50's than the 30's or 40's and has just gotten better since then.

Yeeaahh. People seemed relatively content in the 50's. On t.v. reruns. And then the 60's were the reaction. And, of course, that's not including all the folks who got turned in by their neighbors for being commies. And then, of course, there's PNAC. They do have a long-term plan, which is much more than I can say for most of their opposition. Probably has something to do with why they have managed to implement it so well. Of course, the flaw in said plan is that it requires constant military action for the forseeable future. While this may do wonderful things for the military-industrial complex, it does not do great things for the national debt. Nor does it accomdate the increasing war-weariness of the citizenry of this country. These effects do not make our nation strong. In fact, if drawn out over a long period of time, they make us very, very weak.

Interesting. I got some sure-fire responses to the inference of relative contentment in the 50's. I guess I can be glad that at least Celestina has something of substance to add.
And on that note:
I don't believe said plan involves constant military action so much as constant vigilance and a certain state of readiness. Some military action is regretably necessary but should pay off economically by means of greater access to resources and trade with allies, new and old.

Readiness? You mean like... the response to Hurricane Katrina, or the big hole in NYC?

George has fought Democracy? Quite possibly.

Yeah I agree! The economy is so stable right now you could take all the oil away that it's based on and nothing would happen!
And Bush did indeed fight Democracy. Through not listening to 50% of the population (I believe it's around 60% now!) he has turned the country into a downright de-mockary! George is a good man, my Gut tells me this, and everyone knows to go with your gut.

Sorry, I meant terrorism

Oops! A Freudian slip if I ever saw one.

The supreme court never had anything to do with it. They ruled on an entirely different matter altogether. You see, the supreme court doesn't rule on common criminal cases, which is what election fraud would be.

OK. That's true. There never was any official proof of election fraud was there?

It is pretty clear that paragraph says absolutely nothing. If it inspires you to vote republican, then you are one of the people that I am talking about.

It's fine if you don't think Jeb's philosophy is as good or legitimate as yours but it makes for a crappy debate point.

That sounds like perfect rationalization for the Bush family's crooked politics.

Again, not a sound point of contention. Which crooked politics are you talking about? Show me something of substance. The defence and oil industries are businesses. Their responsibility is to the shareholders. The government's responsibility is to the citizens. Citizens want gas and we need certain tools in order to maintain a strong defensive capability and assert our interests in the world at large.

That is fine if you don't agree, but your suggestion is demeaning. I should protest you.

You are absolutely correct. It was demeaning and I withdraw it. Sorry. I got a little carried away there. I was too lazy to come up with a suitable argument for the pro-development side. Ya got me!

Jeb Bush owes lots of people that helped put him in office. This means lots of political favors that are usually quite bad for the country / Florida.

Pork has been instrumental in getting many many politicians re-elected because it does bring a lot of money back to the represented constituency. That's politics.

Thank you for your thoughtful argument.

Blech! You call that beer?!

Confucius once said that anyone you see in your daily life could be a teacher. The American Government is a model worldwide - people aspire to the foundations of the American Governmental Institutions because it has a legacy of checks-and-balances that 'does' work. The tyranny of the majority protects civil liberties by hearing the major voice. I believe that what George W. Bush achieved has deceived many countries in the way that U.S. Politics usually worked. The nominations by the President have proved that ideology is a weapon for centralization - could this be nepotism?

In the end, given the way that politics can be so overshadowed at times, the lies can come from anywhere. Since the 1970's, the U.S. has asserted that it would not attack a non-nuclear state. In 2002, then Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton claimed that the U.S. had such a prerogative. This was later denied by the Foggy Bottom. To err is human, but to err in such a way I believe is unacceptable. Imagine Nuclear Deterrence loosing its significance when other countries gain the 'First-Strike' possibility... I wouldn't risk voting for Jeb.

..Jeb is as good as any out there..he`s staying quite...and that's a step in the right direction !! And if I may be so bold after 9/11 the risks were to great to take the chance..the extremist now know there is someone in the White House that will hunt them down and kill them..and frankly I don't give a d...... what rest of the world thinks..with the latest revelations they are not what I call friends anyway..if it means 3$ gas from here on ..so be it...in the long run it`ll be better anyway..oil will go the way of the horse..it`ll hurt but it will be soooo worth it...

Rob_NC:
frankly I don't give a d...... what rest of the world thinks..with the latest revelations they are not what I call friends anyway

Just a suggestion, Rob_NC - you might not want to run for President. I have a feeling your diplomatic skills may not be up to it.

;-)

..a popularity contest or contestant is not what the US needs.Bubba was the smoochest pres. we ever had and how well did that work...friends like those,frankly were just two faced s**`s,so pussyfooting around a problem ain't my forte`,put it on the table straight to the point and work out a solution...so ya got me there ,a diplomat would not be a career I`m suited for..

Nowadays, International Politics is all about making friends overseas. We have to care about what others think of us. I am not saying we should simply drop our sporadic 'unilateralism' from one day to the other, but befriending others is an obligation from anything to getting treaties ratified to controlling oil prices.

Obviously you can't be everybody's friend.

Just as being a bully is not an effective means of conducting interpersonal relations, a nation attempting to impose its will on weaker nations while thumbing its nose at onlookers is not likely to be successful in the long run. Just as surely as the schoolyard bully eventually gets repaid once he or she has angered enough schoolmates, nations will likely eventually tire of standing by while the United States pummels its opponents into submission. With any luck, we will adopt a more reasonable and effective foreign policy before that day comes, but it would seem that the current administration has pretty much adopted Rob_NC's general approach to foreign affairs.

..hey Brad are you completely oblivious to history..pummelling Bosnia was your side,Somala..how many do you need... your characterizations are a opinion of complete a stranger..you make accusations of my temperament without knowing a dang thing about me, you imply that I`m a bully.. if being a bully is calling a liar a liar then so be it...your brand of diplomacy is that of Neville Chamberlain..look it up...it has its place ...but not here...strenth is the only answer...I value your opinion but careful sir in the name calling is childish and immature..you have view of pacification,I of strength..again you don't have to like it but you will respect it...

Aw, Rob_NC, I'm sorry. Try not to take this stuff so personally. You're right, of course, I don't know you and if I came off sounding like I'm getting personal, I'm sorry. I don't think we have a "side" when it comes to international affairs - I don't think it was "my side" that was responsible for Bosnia, and I don't think it's "your side" that's screwing up our reputation around the world today. As much as we might prefer it, neither you nor I are running the show. If I say something about United States diplomacy, I'm not referring to you. If I say that I believe that the United States is following your general approach to foreign affairs, it is not because I know you, it is because I have read what you wrote in the last few comments (including, by the way, the part where you said "a diplomat would not be a career I`m suited for..").

As you point out, we don't know each other. You don't know what my "brand of diplomacy" is anymore than I know yours. As in everything else, though, there are no absolutes. You may believe that you understand the workings of international affairs, and I may think I know something about it as well. I'm not going to presume that I know what you think. I'm not going to tell you that you don't understand how the world works. I'll thank you to return the favor. You've played pretty fast and loose with the insults all through this thread to get offended all of a sudden. Again, I apologize if I've said something that has hurt your feelings, and I would ask you to have another look at what you've been writing here and in other threads and think about whether you really need to insult people to make your point. So, let's just lighten up here, lay off the insults, and enjoy learning what other people think about the topic at hand.