Comments

1
Clinton v Bush what a fucking nightmare.
2
Time to list Jeb's positive points . . .


He should have an in with the hardcore druggie crowd --- no, not because his daughter has been in drug rehab most of her life --- but because he was affiliated with the drug smuggler, financed by Meyer Lansky (this was some time back), that dood who invented or designed the cigarette boat (great for high-speed smuggling).

His great-grandfather was the first president, and a founding member, of the most virulently anti-worker, anti-union organization in existence, the National Association of Manufacturers.

His son was a professional stalker and vandal.

His grandfather, Geo. H.W. Bush, invaded Panama and killed several thousand citizens there --- and what exactly was the official reason?

His sister is Mrs. Koch.

He's not Hillary Clinton.

He's a draft dodger.

3
A known draft dodger and druggie?

There were reasons he never ran before
4
He will do well with the angry white guys and the women who hate other women. But they are outnumbered if the normal people show up and vote. But that's a big if.
6
Never remember? He looks like any other Bush, but with deader eyes.
7
I don't know that I would vote for Hillary over Bush.
8
@1 - In '92 the Clinton won and in '16 the Bush will probably win.
9
He also has a much doughier and wattle-ier face than in his governor portrait, well over halfway to Mitch McConnell.

As the little sign on that desk suggests— President Jeb Bush? My blue dingus!
10
Keep an eye on Brian Sandoval, either this time around or next, possibly as veep.
11
Have two grandparents been on the same Presidential ballot before?
12
President Bush? What could possibly go wrong?
13
I guess it represents a particular facet of Our American Dream where someone can jump from poverty to power in a single generation, but to include the Bush and Clinton families in the same sweep as 'two arms of American aristocracy' is just a very interesting degree of compression, especially when the Clinton in question wasn't born into either of these families.
14
If he can convince the (unfortunately way too credible) electorate that he's more like Poppy than W, he's got a good chance of winning against Hillary Clinton. As someone who thought the elder Bush was bad enough, I'm really depressed by that thought.
15
Er, credulous, I mean. The electorate is NOT very credible, but it is credulous.
16
@8,

We gonna have a "Gay Dude for Bush" posting here?

That'll be pretty neat...
17
He's more plausible than Rand Paul, that's for sure.
18
Doomed. We're doomed.

Remember, Jeb Bush's granddad started the OSS, which became the CIA, and was also found guilty of supporting the Hitler regime. Jeb Bush's daddy was the head of the CIA. And we all know what the CIA likes to do.

Talk about a political dynasty, christ. The 'founding fathers' would be horrified, I would imagine.
19
If you guys want war (all Busch presidents have invented a war) you should vote for this guy!
20
He has a great chance of winning if only White people were voting but thankfully, that's not the case.
21
If Hillary campaigns as another center right lackey of the corporate sector/MIC, she'll lose much or all of the left base to the greens.



The voting public for the most part has a short memory and pays attention to personality rather than wonky policy, and if Jeb turns up the personality a bit like his brother W, he'll be successful.



The GOP may be farther right, but wants power and hates the democratic party above all, so they will coalesce around Jeb in spite of disagreements over immigration and education. As a matter of fact, Jeb as W did, will talk moderation on the campaign trail, but once elected, will govern from the hard right.



If the election is close, the GOP has an in with the voting machine companies and they will ensure that the math is counted correctly for Jeb.
22
Warren '16 (I'm gonna keep insisting till election night, I don't care what she says!)
23
The only factor that could stop him is that we're about to convulse through two years of apocalyptic RepubliKKKan "governance," in which case no one but the usual far-white neo-fascist nutjobs will be voting Bush III, assuming the country hasn't totally collapsed, of course.
24
If this election really does turn out to be a marketing battle between the Clinton brand and the Bush brand, I could see Americans tuning out of the election process in droves. Nothing will make people feel sicker about participating in politics than the sense that they're pawns in a battle between two wealthy arms of American aristocracy.

This is a classic pundit's fallacy; substituting one's own views, attitudes, or preferences for those a much larger group. People like you (and me!) aren't particularly enthusiastic about HRC's coming run. But we're not exactly typical. If the disdain you feel for aristocratic families were as widely shared as you presume it is, we wouldn't consider Clinton a likely shoe-in and Bush a strong contender for their party's respective nominations. There's no logical reason such a distaste would manifest itself in voters who don't participate in the primaries. You also underestimate the extent to which she'll generate enthusiasm simply by virtue of the possibility of our first woman president.
25
@3: oh, will, IOKIYAR. never forget that my son!
26
@24 I agree. HRC isn't my ideal president, not at all. But... the Clinton years were good ones, which gives the Clinton brand a positive spin. The Bush years were horrible, so those who are more left or center are likely to lean Clinton. And while I might prefer a different woman be our first woman president, having a first woman president is long overdue. It's quite frankly embarrassing to be an American in one of the few countries that has never had a woman as its leader. It makes the country look incredibly backwards. So, it'd be good to fix that. And it'll be easier to fix that with a more centrist candidate. So, I think a lot of people will consider that sufficient to override the downsides, especially as I don't think she'd be a horrible president. She's just not as in-line with my politics as I'd like. But at least those of my generation learned their lesson about not voting third party in 2000. So, it'll be a while before there's a huge push for a third party candidate again. We'll vote for the better of the two options and we'll do our best to be happy if it works out that way. Maybe if we keep getting the better option, then we'll start seeing competitions between two better candidates than the current choices tend to be.
27
Have two grandparents been on the same Presidential ballot before?

Reagan/Carter. I think Reagan/Mondale, but I'm not sure.
28
So we have a Bush or a Goldwater Girl. Yeah, it's going to be low low turnout but it will be interesting watching the corporate Democrats push for Hillary because of the Supreme Court. Here's a factoid: if the only thing your candidate has going for him/her is SCOTUS you don't have a candidate worth voting for.



And what was so great about Clinton? NAFTA? DADT? Defense of Marriage Act? Killing Glass Steagall? Deregulation of the media? Welfare "reform"? The ongoing offshoring of jobs that started in the 80's didn't stop with Clinton. The growth during the Clinton years was the first time economic growth was experienced by a significantly smaller portion of the population: a trait that Bush and Obama have also experienced during their economic "boom" periods.
29
"If this election really does turn out to be a marketing battle between the Clinton brand and the Bush brand, I could see Americans tuning out of the election process in droves. "







I"m sorry, but you're a moron. This will be fucking WWE times NASCAR with a little bit of Monday NIght Football thrown in. Clinton v. Bush will be the biggest orgasm of political spending of the century. Every single American will be so bombarded with marketing on every social, media, and cable network that they will be forced to take sides. Turnout will be the highest ever, and Hillary Clinton will win in a landslide. Mark my words. I mean, nostalgia for the Clinton era or the Bush era. You seriously think that's even a contest?
30
You don't stand behind a podium, you stand on one. You do, though, stand behind a lectern.
31
"If this election really does turn out to be a marketing battle between the Clinton brand and the Bush brand, I could see Americans tuning out of the election process in droves. "

I"m sorry, but you're a moron. This will be fucking WWE times NASCAR with a little bit of Monday NIght Football thrown in. Clinton v. Bush will be the biggest orgasm of political spending of the century. Every single American will be so bombarded with marketing on every social, media, and cable network that they will be forced to take sides. Turnout will be the highest ever, and Hillary Clinton will win in a landslide. Mark my words. I mean, nostalgia for the Clinton era or the Bush era. You seriously think that's even a contest?
32
Don't make the mistake that the election is right now. We still have to go through two years of what's going to be one of the most toxic political shit storms in American history. You think people are disgusted now? Just wait. They're going to be so pissed off they're going to stampede the polls. The turnout will help the Democratic candidate and hurt the Republican. Knowing that, the Republicans should play nice. Will they? Are you friggin' nuts? By summer of 2016 the Republicans will be howling and spitting like Tasmanian devils off their meds throwing their ripped out intestines at each other. And Hillary Clinton will seem like a nice calm pool of crystal clear spring water. I know. Seems impossible now. But just you wait.
33
It's like the parties are trying to drive turnout down.

@31- You're asserting that increased spending and divisiveness drives up turnout when all the evidence of the last several decades indicates exactly the opposite.
34
@ 28, I hope the fact that you kept your voting purity is some comfort when the SCOTUS upholds same sex marriage bans. And how are you enjoying Citizens United, a direct consequence of the 2000 election?
35
@28 I disagree. If all you can get is a better Supreme Court, then that is absolutely worth voting for. As Matt from Denver says in 34, that matters. And we suffer from bad Supreme Court justices for a very long time.

And while you are right that Clinton did a lot of bad things (although I'm still not sure Don't Ask Don't Tell was wrong. I'm not sure it wasn't a stage society needed to go through before acceptance, It was intended as an improvement on what came before it, and I think it might have been one), he also did the usual democrat President things... that is, fiscal responsibility (at least relative to a Republican president), encouraging progress (as opposed to President George W. Bush's war on science), peace and good relations with the rest of the world. Statistically, the country and the economy does better with Democrats and Clinton was no exception. President Obama also has a long list of horrible things attached to his name (and also a list of fantastic accomplishments... he's very mixed), and it's still the case that the country thrives with Democratic Presidents, and it starts to suffer with Republican ones. If that isn't enough to get you to vote, then it's hard to respect your point of view. Why let the country suffer more than it has to?
36
Please dear God, not another bush. In the next two years I hope to see a dozen or so republican half-wits throw their hats in the ring. It will be a replay of 2012 when there were so many wannabes (and idiots to boot) that the republicans will self defeat again. Hillary hands down.
37
What about the "Blue Wall" theory that mathematically, any Republican nominee is facing a difficult/unbeatable electoral college scenario?

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
38
Anyone who would vote for anyone from the Bush crime family needs immediate electroshock therapy.
39
Until there is more of a choice than just Brand D and Brand R, it won't matter who wins - it's just more of the same. The same cross-aisle fighting, the same lack of cooperation, the same dysfunction. The. Whole. System. Is. Broken.
40
Sperifera dear, blanket statements are so passé. If we had had President McCain or Romney, where would marriage equality be? Where would the Supreme Court be? Where would renewable energy be? Would the justice department be overseeing police departments, or doubling down?



I agree that the system is broken, but it's the system we have. Sweeping grandiose statements about how the parties are exactly alike just benefits the corporate interests that broke the system in the first place.



And until third parties grow up and start actually doing something other than showing up every four years to be a moral scold during the Presidential elections, they are part of the broken system.


41
@39 Yeah, the party that is far worse loves to make the argument that both parties suck enough that it's not worth bothering to pick the better one. It's not true, of course, but it is an argument some people love to make. If your best contribution is to try to demoralize people and tell them that making things a little bit better isn't worth doing if you can't make things a whole lot better, then why are you even bothering to comment? Your whole argument seems to be: don't try. And yet you are trying to spread that. Why?
42
This country is nuts. The grampa helped finance Uncle Adolf, and was likely involved in the aborted coup attempt to oust the Commie FDR. Bush I, a CIA spook appears to have been in Dallas when JFK was gunned down, and has all kinds of weird connections to the players in that matter. He sent US troops in against Saddam, afer we more or less gave him a go ahead to invade Kuwait. We fought that war so the Kuwaiti sheiks could continue to drive their Bentleys, rape their Phillipino slaves, and hire $1000 an hour French whores. The son, a military deserter and former cocaine abuser follows his advisors who planned the second Iraq invasion back in 1998 and ends up bankrupting the US government with his ill advised war. Oh, and he is buds with the Saudis including the bin Ladin family........Despite the fact that 9/11 was largely a Saudi operation, he holds hands with the Saudis. So we need another Bush????

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.