George W. endorsing brother Jeb: would it help Jeb or hurt him?

[dudeabides]

I can't wait for the Donald to point out what a sh**tty President he was.

I have had it with people being critical of President George W. Bush without looking at the entire picture. Also, Trump is such an idiot no one will take his criticisms seriously but his supporters who are generally angry people anyway.

Yes, Bush doubled the size of the Department of Education, increased the national debt by $5 trillion in eight years, continued to support Bill Clinton's policies of having the government promote home ownership, and he had awful Federal Reserve chairmen during his tenure.

However, President Bush's policies kept Americans safe, and we even saw some modest economic growth during 6 of his 8 years. Thanks to policies he implemented, such as the Patriot Act, 60 terrorist plots were prevented since 2001. Thanks to his doubling of agents at our southern border, illegal border crossings are down. In 2002, President Bush was given intelligence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Hussein had lied to weapons inspectors for years, and he kicked out inspectors in 1998. While it is true we shared some of the same enemies as Saddam, he also hated the U.S. The fact of the matter is, Saddam Hussein might have sent some of his weapons into Syria. He definitely had the capacity to produce such weapons. He was responsible for 2 million murders and the imprisonment of thousands and millions of innocent Iraqis. When we went into Iraq, we did so for our security and to promote freedom in a part of the world where it is all to rare. We made some strategic errors, but by 2007, Iraq was a functioning young Democracy that faced challenge, but most people were better off in 2007 in Iraq than under Saddam. Unfortunately, Iraq has made a turn for the worst since, but that is not Bush's fault contrary to popular belief. Bush's actions in Iraq also led to Libya abandoning their weapons program all together. The President toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan, that not only made us more safe, but it was a victory for human rights. The President's policies also weakened Iran's ability to go nuclear. The bottom line: President Bush made some mistakes, but he kept this country safe and made the world just a little bit more free.

Even on economic policy, where Bush has a rather mixed record, he still did far better than our current President. The financial collapse and recession were caused by a housing bubble, federal tax policy, and Federal Reserve policy. President Bush tried to increase regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both created by Bill Clinton. This was in 2005, three years before the financial crisis. Congress didn't allow Bush to make any changes. In 2001, the U.S. entered into a recession after seven years of healthy and robust economic growth, but also during a time in which we had an internet bubble. However, thanks to the President's tax relief programs, the recession was the shallowest in U.S. history. In the three years following the recession, GDP growth averaged around 4%, and worker productivity rose 16.6% between 2000 and 2005. Under President Obama, we have not had such consistent and robust economic growth. Americans saw six years of modest growth, where as under President Obama, we've had three years of a worsening recession and three years of consistent stagnation. Some of the economic challenges we face today were present under Bush. Since 2000, we've seen falling median incomes. But we also saw a slow growth in wages during the mid-1990s.

President Bush also can point to a record of sending vaccines to third world countries, banning partial-birth abortion, and appointing strict-constructionist judges.

Let me take a moment here and do something I rarely do: defend President Barack Obama. I disagree with Obama on 99.999% of the issues, but I am willing to give him credit where credit is do. Obama kept in place many of Bush's homeland security policies, he was right to have the surge in Afghanistan, and he is right to push for trade promotion authority. Despite my strong opposition to virtually all of Obama's other policies, I am going to stick to the issues. Obama was born in the United States, period, end of subject. For Donald Trump to have to accuse Obama of being born elsewhere proves he doesn't know what he's talking about, he's delusional, he doesn't care about issues, and he is really isn't very bright.

The point is, Donald Trump doesn't know how to attack anyone. He has been critical of President Bush for being tough on terrorism. He has been critical of President Obama for not being born in the U.S. because Trump can't stand a black man as President. He has been critical of John McCain because McCain was captured in Vietnam, McCain is a hero and Trump is a loser. He has been critical of Marco Rubio for taking a water break during a speech, and has referred to him as "over rated" because Trump is clueless about issues or Rubio's backround. He has said that Rick Perry is wearing glasses to look smart, well mission accomplished Perry is smarter than Trump. Trump has said Bush has no energy, if that's the worst he can come up with, then Bush will be the 45th President, no problem. He's attacked Walker for poor finances in Wisconsin when Trump has been bankrupt four times. He gave out Lindsey Graham's phone number, which is just lame.

Donald Trump knows nothing about economics, he's made that clear with all of his positions on a 14% wealth tax, protectionist trade policies, socialized medicine etc. He knows nothing about managing money because he's gone bankrupt and ran a sporting league into the ground. He knows nothing about foreign policy, and he's for abortion.

The typical Trump supporter is a 62 year old white male who is angry because his manufacturing job went to China or Mexico. He doesn't want to go to a 3 month program at his local community college so he can take one of the 500,000 manufacturing jobs sitting there that require newer skills. He is angry at the immigrants moving into his neighborhood because they look different and he therefore feels threatened, but without full time work he can't afford to move. He watches Jeb Bush talk about growing the economy at 4%, Bush is not pissed off and that makes this guy mad. Hillary Clinton is too busy talking about social issues. He then sees Trump as angry as he is, blaming immigrants and globalization for all of America's problems, and suddenly this 62 year old white male says "yeah, he makes sense."

[dudeabides]

I'm not gonna bother to read your entire essay there but the economic growth during W was all a bubble. Jeb hasn't even been hit on this yet by anyone. The GOP doesn't realize how badly the Dems will absolutely destroy Jeb Bush on this. The idea that he's using the same economic team that got us into this mess is pretty much a point blank shot for the Clinton's. Of course the GOP could always have a Kasich or Rubio who could take advantage of Hillary's issues but that would be too smart of them.

Jeb Bush didn't create the housing bubble and even without the housing bubble, economic growth in Florida still would have been greater than the nation as a whole.

I can't wait for the Donald to point out what a sh**tty President he was.

Bush made many mistakes

1. He should have focused on Afghanistan and maybe given the ultimatum to Pakistan to let us send troops into that country or we will invade  as they supported terrorism more then Iraq did. There was no need to invade Iraq.

2. He inherited a 200 billion surplus and when he left there was a 1.2 trillion dollar defict

3. After ousting Suddam bush made a massive mistake of disbanding the Republican Guard which turned into the insurgency who we fought for 8 years which eventually transformed into ISIS.

4. He should have started the surge in like june of  2003 so we could have defeated the insurgency when they were in their infancy instead we started in 2007 when they were far more organized and many more islamic militants had joined them which let them turn into ISIS  when we left

5. He did nothing of the economic downturn until September of 2008 when it was too late

I actually agree with you on #3, partially on #4, and he passed a $700 billion stimulus which failed just like Obama's $787 billion stimulus.

I can't wait for the Donald to point out what a sh**tty President he was.

dudeabides thinks that displaced workers are lazy.  In truth, the 62 year old displaced worker may well not have a job locally due to NAFTA.  Ask the employees of Meridian Electric in Jackson, OH, who lost their jobs in such a fashion in the 2000s.  Oh, of course, people are portable; they can just sell their house (assuming someone will buy it) and move hundreds of miles away for their next job.  Assuming that the 62 year old displaced worker overcomes the reality of age discrimination in the workplace ("You sure you can handle this gig, Pops?"), it's just fine that he would have to move, so he can be used as an example of how our society has become more transient, etc.

Most people think George W. Bush was a lousy President who lied to them to get this country into a war that was motivated by personal Bush motivations.  No, he didn't lie to folks about who he was sleeping with; he lied to them about the need to go to war.  Kind of a scumbag thing to do, eh?  

People KNOW George W. Bush supports Jeb; it's assumed.  Bringing W on the campaign trail isn't going to help, however.  Conservatives don't like W for one set of reasons, and liberals don't like him for other reasons, but he's not popular.  In truth, if dudeabides didn't exist, who'd be saying anything positive about W?  His endorsement would be sort of like LBJ's endorsement of McGovern in 1972; it's better than none at all, but campaigning on the candidate's behalf isn't going to help.

Nice try, I didn't say displaced workers are lazy. I was describing a typical Trump supporter. The vast majority of displaced workers are hard working, patriotic Americans.

None of the blue avatars are willing to explain why more jobs were created under eight years of Bill Clinton than under eight years of George W. Bush. Or why Obama surpassed Bush's job creation record barely halfway through his time in office.

To say nothing of the fact that a higher percentage of Americans lacked health insurance when Bush left office than they did when he took office.

dudeabides, Saddam sent weapons into Syria to hide them? You really are even stupider than your avatar would automatically suggest. Syria and Iraq hated each other for decades. Syria participated in the coalition that attacked Saddam during the Gulf War. Syria backed Iran during the Iran-Iraq War. You think Saddam would let the Assads keep his weapons safe for him? You are just retarded. You are an idiot, pure and simple. People like you are the reason Fox News stays on the air when half the stuff their commentators say can be disproven in five minutes on Wikipedia.

Your insults are completely meaningless to me because clearly, you have been brainwashed. Don't take my word for it, take the world of one of Saddam's top military people:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/01/26/exclusive-former-top-military-aide-to-saddam-reveals-dictator-secret-plans.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[dudeabides]

Here's an idea pbrower2a,  Republicans will remind how lousy a President Barack Obama is, particularly at the Republican convention,  and pound on this theme right through election day. Trust me! There is a lot of fodder on which to work on. Every statement, every policy, every statement and every promise Obama has made will be scrutinized and examined. All our party has to say, is "Had enough? ...then help is on the way", Hillary is now in a place where Republicans are very comfortable,  no bragging rights as far as Secretary of State goes. Yep plenty of negatives about Obama-Hillary, so go on pound on George W. Bush, but in case you forgot, what was good in 2008, ain't relevant in the 2016 cycle. Blaming Dubya only works for a limited period, think the well is empty. But Obama is a perfect target, he's the incumbent, not Dubya LOL😀😀

Very well said my friend.

When Mitt Romney made his "47%" gaffe, he did so by exaggerating numbers.

The vast majority of people on public assistance are hard working people who are victims of a bad economy. They don't want to rely on government, but they are forced to.

That being said, there are always going to be those who want to rely on government. The Democrats offer free cell phones, food stamps, and free health care via medicaid. So, Romney was not wrong when he said some will vote Democrat no matter what.

However, for the vast majority of Americans, these are tough economic times. But I refuse to believe that the vast majority of those who are poor want to remain poor, I refuse to believe the vast majority on food stamps want to be on food stamps, and I know people want rising incomes again.

The choice in this election will be clear. If you believe that government regulation of the economy is a good thing, that we should be willing to accept record poverty and food stamp use, if you believe that we shouldn't grow at more than 2%, if you believe that increasing our national debt by $8 trillion in 6 years and 7 months is acceptable, if you believe small businesses should not open or expand, and if you believe in record low labor participation, then Hillary Clinton would love to have your vote.

But, if you think we can grow at 4% with the right policies and that we should work to reform our entitlement programs and tax code to reduce our national debt, than the Republican candidate - so long as it's not Donald Trump - is how you should vote.

 

[dudeabides]

I can't wait for the Donald to point out what a sh**tty President he was.

The Donald is going to mop the floor with Jeb at the debate, and it will be glorious to watch.

Donald Trump will mop the floor with Jeb only amongst his half literate base, everyone else will be laughing at Donald Dump.

[dudeabides]

Donald Trump will mop the floor with Jeb only amongst his half literate base, everyone else will be laughing at Donald Dump.

Dude, you’ve been taking a Donald Dump sized sh**t in your pants every day for the past month.  Pretending you aren't being beaten isn't going to magically make Trump’s rhetoric less damaging and effective.  Before you go on with blah blah blah he supported socialized medicine blah blah abortion stop for a second and realize none of that matters; the last guy who got the nomination created the prototype for Obamacare for Christ sake.  What matters most in a presidential primary is perceived strength and rhetoric.  As long as Donald keeps steamrolling over this entire field and not apologizing for anything no one is going to look stronger and no one can match his rhetorical skills.  Did you see him completely emasculate Scott Walker in Iowa the other day?  Even if he eventually flames out the damage Trump will do to Bush and his brand at these debates will be massive. 

First of all, Donald Trump is not going to be the debate winner, I can tell you that. When it comes to economics and foreign policy, he knows nothing. He's a terrible public speaker and he doesn't know how to answer questions.

Secondly, my fear is actually not Donald Trump's ability to win the primaries. Be it Herman Cain in 2012, Fred Thompson in 2008, Elizabeth Dole in 2000, or Phil Gramm in 1996, history shows us that challengers to the establishment favorite lose. My fear is that Donald Trump is lowering the level of dialogue in our country and making Republicans look dumb. He is exploiting people who are scared, angry, and many who aren't very smart. Of course, the Donald isn't very smart either so I doubt it's intentional.

Funny, Donald Trump is doing favors for some of the others running. He makes Jeb Bush look even more electable than he already is, Rick Perry look presidential, Lindsey Graham look like a strong leader, and he's making Scott Walker look like the common sense conservative in the race. Sorry my friend, the guy is a socialist, there is no way around it.

[dudeabides]

Donald Trump will mop the floor with Jeb only amongst his half literate base, everyone else will be laughing at Donald Dump.

Dude, you’ve been taking a Donald Dump sized sh**t in your pants every day for the past month.  Pretending you aren't being beaten isn't going to magically make Trump’s rhetoric less damaging and effective.  Before you go on with blah blah blah he supported socialized medicine blah blah abortion stop for a second and realize none of that matters; the last guy who got the nomination created the prototype for Obamacare for Christ sake.  What matters most in a presidential primary is perceived strength and rhetoric.  As long as Donald keeps steamrolling over this entire field and not apologizing for anything no one is going to look stronger and no one can match his rhetorical skills.  Did you see him completely emasculate Scott Walker in Iowa the other day?  Even if he eventually flames out the damage Trump will do to Bush and his brand at these debates will be massive.  

First of all, Donald Trump is not going to be the debate winner, I can tell you that. When it comes to economics and foreign policy, he knows nothing. He's a terrible public speaker and he doesn't know how to answer questions.

Secondly, my fear is actually not Donald Trump's ability to win the primaries. Be it Herman Cain in 2012, Fred Thompson in 2008, Elizabeth Dole in 2000, or Phil Gramm in 1996, history shows us that challengers to the establishment favorite lose. My fear is that Donald Trump is lowering the level of dialogue in our country and making Republicans look dumb. He is exploiting people who are scared, angry, and many who aren't very smart. Of course, the Donald isn't very smart either so I doubt it's intentional.

Funny, Donald Trump is doing favors for some of the others running. He makes Jeb Bush look even more electable than he already is, Rick Perry look presidential, Lindsey Graham look like a strong leader, and he's making Scott Walker look like the common sense conservative in the race. Sorry my friend, the guy is a socialist, there is no way around it.

Dude, you come off as a shill for the Bush Family; a family who, singlehandedly, lowered the level of dialogue in politics.  What was Willie Horton about?  Oh, I know, it was Bush 41's late flunky, Lee Atwater, injecting a racially inflammatory (but irrelevant) issue into a Presidential campaign.  Let's get a bit real here.

You're right about one thing.  Donald Trump may be able to win the debate amongst those who are scared, angry, and just smart enough to know they've been screwed.  The problem for Jeb Jeb is that the number of such people who vote in GOP primaries is greater than you think.  

But let's put Donald Trump aside:  Why Jeb Bush?  Is he REALLY the smartest?  Is he REALLY the most experienced?  Is he REALLY the most electable?

As for the smartest, who knows?  Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have high IQs and that hasn't impressed you.  What keen insight does Jeb Bush have that other Republican candidates don't have?  I'd really like to know this.  He can talk the Bush Establishment line, but that line, arguably, hasn't been a line that's been good for America, at least in the eyes of Americans who have to endure the consequences of Bushism.

As for the most experience, where does Jeb come off as having more experience than George Pataki?  He's not served in the military, whereas Lindsey Graham has 21 years experience in the Congress and extensive service as a military officer.  He doesn't come near to the experience of John Kasich in government, and he has not succeeded in business to the degree of Carly Fiorina.  I would be hard-pressed to say that Jeb Bush has any more relevant "experience" for the Presidency than, say, Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum.  And he's been out of public office since January, 2007.  If he weren't a Bush, we wouldn't be talking about him as viable, and that's the bottom line here.  The only candidates that are less experienced are Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Rand Paul.

As to electable:  He's a Bush, and Bush Fatigue is real.  Americans have had one Clinton, and they were OK with the last one when he left office.  Americans have had two (2) Bushes, and were happy with neither.  Jeb looks better than his brother.  That's setting the bar low, IMO.

I'm sure your a nice guy, but you come off as completely brainwashed by Donald Trump.

First of all, the Willie Horton ad campaign was not about race, but nice try. It was about crime. Michael Dukakis, Governor of Massachusetts and Democratic Presidential Nominee, was always soft on crime and that was the point the Bush/Quayle campaign was trying to illustrate.

Donald Trump is not winning any debates. Frankly, he relies on people not reading, not learning, and being scared and angry in a corner for support. The vast majority of Americans are smarter than Trump's supporters and the Donald himself, which is why he will lose the debates and the GOP nomination.

Conservatives like me went out and cast our ballots for Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum during the 2012 primaries, I supported Gingrich. But when Mitt Romney was nominated, we realized he was the better candidate than Barack Obama. This time, I am breaking with my fellow conservatives in support of Jeb Bush, who is conservative but his tone is more moderate. The point is, Donald Trump's views are out of line with the vast majority of Republicans, and most Republicans aren't bigots who rely on government to get ahead.

George Pataki is a career politician. He's been in elected office since the 1980s. John Kasich has been in elected office for 26 years. Lindsey Graham has been in office for two decades. Rick Santorum was in politics for years. All have fine experience, but Jeb Bush has experience as a businessman in real estate, as Florida's Secretary of Commerce, as the founder of a charter school, and as Governor of one of America's largest and most diverse states.

Even if Jeb's last name was Smith, he'd still have a record of reducing taxes by $18 billion, increasing reserves by $8 billion, vetoing $2 billion in increased spending, reducing the size of state government and privatizing services, enacting medicaid reform that was patient centered, enacting medical liability reform, enacting worker's compensation reform, signing Stand Your Ground into law, being tough on crime, enacting historic school choice while ending social promotion in 3rd grade, and protecting the Everglades.

As far as Bush fatigue is concerned, this isn't 2012. George W. Bush was elected President of the United States after his father had lost re-election and left office with a 56% disapproval rating.

Frankly, I find it ironic that someone who is supporting a low-life like Donald Trump for President would say the Bush's are setting the bar low. I'll just come out and say it: I believe, on top of being a socialist, an egomaniac, and just plain stupid, Donald Trump is a low-life. I don't care how much money he has, the man is dysfunctional. He's white trash. No thanks.

I have no reason to dislike you personally and while I respect your right to your opinion, I have to say that the cult of Donald Trump is just something I'm not willing to join.

[dudeabides]

Donald Trump will mop the floor with Jeb only amongst his half literate base, everyone else will be laughing at Donald Dump.

Dude, you’ve been taking a Donald Dump sized sh**t in your pants every day for the past month.  Pretending you aren't being beaten isn't going to magically make Trump’s rhetoric less damaging and effective.  Before you go on with blah blah blah he supported socialized medicine blah blah abortion stop for a second and realize none of that matters; the last guy who got the nomination created the prototype for Obamacare for Christ sake.  What matters most in a presidential primary is perceived strength and rhetoric.  As long as Donald keeps steamrolling over this entire field and not apologizing for anything no one is going to look stronger and no one can match his rhetorical skills.  Did you see him completely emasculate Scott Walker in Iowa the other day?  Even if he eventually flames out the damage Trump will do to Bush and his brand at these debates will be massive.  

The Willie Horton ad was ALL about race:

1.  The ad was about a prisoner (a lifer) committing a serious new offense (a rape) while on a furlough.  Yes, Dukakis was Governor when this happened, but the furlough program (since discontinued for certain violent classes of offenders) was NOT a Dukakis creation; it was something in place when he took over the Massachusetts Governorship in 1975.

2.  William Horton was never known as "Willie" Horton until Lee Atwater's ad.  Atwater deliberately referred to Horton as "Willie" to raise the specter of race into this issue. 

The issue, truthfully, had relatively little to do with how Dukakis would have managed the office of the Presidency, but it did inspire the kind of emotional reasoning amongst low information voters that you, dudeabides, are constantly chiding Trump for.  If so, perhaps Trump has learned something from the Bushes after all.  If you were one of the Bushes crying to Trump about how he's a demagogue, Trump's answer would be "I know you are, but what am I?"

No, Michael Dukakis did not create the furlough program. But, Dukakis continued the program and ran as an anti-capital punishment candidate in 1988. He supported the program. Dukakis was soft on crime, and that was the issue. The Willie Horton ads had absolutely nothing to do with race. It had everything to do with crime. Criminals are black and white, victims are black and white.

I completely disagree with you in terms of the Willie Horton ad being unfair to Michael Dukakis. Dukakis being soft on crime was an issue because the President must face enemies who are as bad as characters like Horton. The way to judge Dukakis on foreign policy, since he was never in a position where he dealt with foreign affairs, was through his record on crime. Additionally, there are federal crimes that require a tough attorney general and strict federal law.

Frankly, I actually don't know if the Willie Horton ad campaign was necessary. George Bush could have made an economic case for his election as President and still won by the margin he did. Contrary to what you believe, I am not a spokesperson for the Bush family. I think George Bush was a great public servant and person, I think he was a good President, but not great. I think George W. Bush was a good but not great President. I think Jeb Bush was a great Governor and based on his resume and not his last name, I believe he'd be a great President.

Donald Trump has not learned anything from the Bush family. George Bush served our country in uniform, Donald Trump has made it clear he dislikes our veterans. George W. Bush took positions and stuck with them regardless of polls, Donald Trump has not done that. Jeb Bush is running a campaign that seeks to appeal to people's hopes, Donald Trump is appealing to people's fears.

[dudeabides]

Donald Trump will mop the floor with Jeb only amongst his half literate base, everyone else will be laughing at Donald Dump.

I've said this recently - look at the 2012 Debates. What "won" them wasn't the person who knew their stuff, it was the person who could land the zingers and act like the biggest a**hole. Considering the GOP seems like to belligerence... Trump is a master at it.

In my mind, one of the reasons why Trump is a legitimate threat and why the GOP should be worried, is to me, he's basically Newt Gingrich but gaffe-proof, with a bigger ego and with Independent wealth.

Newt Gingrich accomplished things as House Speaker. He fought for a capital gains tax cut, welfare reform, more police on our streets, and the first balanced budget in a generation. Gingrich came from nowhere and rose to become a successful member of congress and later, advocate for the causes he believes in. When Newt Gingrich ran for President in 2012, he appealed to people's hopes and not their fears. He talked about issues, he didn't just use rhetoric. Trump is nothing at all like Gingrich.

A Gingrich supporter who thinks Trump is "stupid, dysfunctional, egomaniacal, low-life white trash?" Now I've seen it all.

All of those adjectives to describe Trump, absolutely.

Well said dudeabides,  there are a few on this thread, who refuse to understand your well presented arguments. They seem to assume based on his past statements, that Trump will "mop the floor with Jeb". My response to that, is what premise do you go by to support your arguments. I and many others contributing to this thread would like to understand how you reached your conclusions. I for one, have only seen Donald the blow-hard in action, all we hear is "I" and "me" and an awful lot of bragging and little else. What will happen and I hope and believe this, Trump will self-destruct, he is unable to articulate positions on issues, because he has none. His positions if he has any, will likely reveal inconsistencies and bye-bye Trumpster the Dumpster☺

Thank you my friend, you also make great arguments. Unfortunately, those who are part of the cult of Donald Trump won't agree.

[dudeabides]

Here's an idea pbrower2a,  Republicans will remind how lousy a President Barack Obama is, particularly at the Republican convention,  and pound on this theme right through election day. Trust me! There is a lot of fodder on which to work on. Every statement, every policy, every statement and every promise Obama has made will be scrutinized and examined. All our party has to say, is "Had enough? ...then help is on the way", Hillary is now in a place where Republicans are very comfortable,  no bragging rights as far as Secretary of State goes. Yep plenty of negatives about Obama-Hillary, so go on pound on George W. Bush, but in case you forgot, what was good in 2008, ain't relevant in the 2016 cycle. Blaming Dubya only works for a limited period, think the well is empty. But Obama is a perfect target, he's the incumbent, not Dubya LOL😀😀

Very well said my friend.

When Mitt Romney made his "47%" gaffe, he did so by exaggerating numbers.

The vast majority of people on public assistance are hard working people who are victims of a bad economy. They don't want to rely on government, but they are forced to.

That being said, there are always going to be those who want to rely on government. The Democrats offer free cell phones, food stamps, and free health care via medicaid. So, Romney was not wrong when he said some will vote Democrat no matter what.

However, for the vast majority of Americans, these are tough economic times. But I refuse to believe that the vast majority of those who are poor want to remain poor, I refuse to believe the vast majority on food stamps want to be on food stamps, and I know people want rising incomes again.

The choice in this election will be clear. If you believe that government regulation of the economy is a good thing, that we should be willing to accept record poverty and food stamp use, if you believe that we shouldn't grow at more than 2%, if you believe that increasing our national debt by $8 trillion in 6 years and 7 months is acceptable, if you believe small businesses should not open or expand, and if you believe in record low labor participation, then Hillary Clinton would love to have your vote.

But, if you think we can grow at 4% with the right policies and that we should work to reform our entitlement programs and tax code to reduce our national debt, than the Republican candidate - so long as it's not Donald Trump - is how you should vote.

 

That wasn't a "gaffe" by Romney; it was an unintended window into his soul. 

Romney's elitist contempt for the less fortunate came through loud and clear, and that's why, in the end, he lost an election he should have won. 

Mitt Romney has donated large sums of money to charity, though he never bragged about it because he's a good man.

You seem to dislike competent and smart people.

[dudeabides]

Fuzzy bear, you are so entrenched in this idea of "political correctness" and Romney's unfortunate gaffe about the "47 percent" was exactly that, a gaffe. Folks getting bent out of shape, for other people telling it like it is, is precisely why America is where it is. No one can say exactly what is on there mind for fear of being pounded on. If it is a gaffe which Romney committed,  I agree with his sentiments,  you have shift less layabouts,  who prefer the government to take care of there needs. All because they are takers and naturally vote Democrat, because "Mommy" takes care of everything. "Daddy" who represents the Republicans doesn't want to deny the less fortunate those supports they need. But what we do take great exception to, is those layabout waste of spaces, most of whom make up the 47 percent is to get off their collective a#$%! for a change, and contribute to society,  instead of being moronic parasites. Maybe "Fuzzybear" thinks things are okay and we shouldn't make the hard choices, maybe you Secretly are a Democrat parading as an Independent, maybe you are not offended with the idea that Donald Trump should be President, if so, could you please explain to me, what has that blow-hard ever contributed to society? he would be better served running as a Democrat,  he shares every position that most Democrats advocate.  As for this idea he should have the right to participate in a important debate, why? Because he is polling at 18% in most polls? Because he is a moronic loud - mouth who hasn't a clue on any of the issues? He's good for one thing,  mouthing off  tasteless smart ass zingers, he should be running for comedian-in-chief, not commander-in-chief, he has been unable to behave in a responsible manner,  it shows in his choice of a wife, does this country need a manipulative bimbo as first lady? Please give us a break Fuzzy bear and other's who secretly & publicly support the dumpster😑

[dudeabides]

W endorsing Jeb would have minimal effect.  W on the campaign trail wouldn't necessarily be game over for Jeb, but it would certainly cost Jeb a couple of winnable states.

My advice to Jeb: Use Rudy Giuliani. Use Susana Martinez. Use Marco Rubio. Use Laura Bush even. But do not use George W. Bush as a surrogate, he can attend fundraisers if he wishes.

[dudeabides]

There's an awful lot above that I don't see her as having to have a long hard look at herself. Maybe some people need to look at themselves.

It's pretty simple, she's the most politically active First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt - making yourself a political figure NOT a traditional spouse like Michelle Obama, comes with risks. She does have a knack to have people believe the worst about her. That's obviously a problem, she's not a natural wholesale politician like Bill. She's essentially a technocrat.

A lot of these critisicms don't seem to be based on anything other than groupthink. Now, she might be the hosebeast so many think she is, but I don't know her. But saying she'd never have been where she is without her husband? Sure his name carries weight but who the hell actually knows?

I sound like bloody  dudeabides but there it is...

I will agree that some of the criticism of HRC's lack of likability is unfair, and some folks don't like her just because she's a Democrat and they're not.

That being said, the Clinton's are just not as good as being less than candid or playing the victim as the Bushes are.  The Bushes can play both those games and not get caught at them.  Jeb's hardly transparent, but he appears to be.  W appeared honest and folksy, but he lied through his teeth about why we needed to go to war.  Daddy Bush pardoned Cap Weinberger, a man who could have rendered damning testimony against Bush 41 himself regarding Iran-Contra, and it's a forgotten episode, whereas I'm sure Bill Clinton's pardons will be brought up again.  

Hillary would do well to drop the victimstance, but she won't, and I don't believe she can.  And she's borne a LOT of humiliation in public life for things not of her doing.  Lots of fathers would go to their daughter's homes and beat the crap out of their son-in-law if he did their daughter like Bill did Hillary, and she knows that no one did that for her, even in a figurative way.  She also knows that if someone DID do that for her, she'd be a more sympathetic public figure, but a less influential one, and she's chosen the latter.  And having chosen the latter, unfair personal attacks come with that particular turf.  The American people do expect their leaders to not whine about that sort of give and take, because the person in the arena signed up for that.

Bill Clinton actually did a decent job as President of the United States. He worked with Speaker Gingrich and the GOP congress to pass some good policy, and we were better off for it.

But Bill Clinton is a liar and a criminal, there is no doubt. Hillary Clinton is a liar, a criminal, and an incompetent. These two are slimy and have been able to brush off any allegations of wrong doing, portraying stories of corruption as some kind of vast right wing conspiracy. Yet, it was Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA) who exposed Bill Clinton for steering business to his wife's law firm while Governor of Arkansas. It is a known fact that foreign contributors gave to the DNC during the 1996 presidential campaign. Now, we are learning about the corruption and conflict of interest that occurred during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation. It was Former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey, Democrat of Nebraska, who once referred to Bill Clinton as "an unusually good liar." Jerry Brown, when he ran for Governor of California in 2010, said that "none one ever said Bill Clinton told the truth." It is known that the Clintons are liars.

Your'e a bit delusional when it comes to the Bush's, however. George W. Bush told Americans the truth about the mission in Iraq, he didn't lie to the public as President of the United States. Jeb Bush has released more tax returns than any presidential candidate in history, 33 years worth. He released all of his emails while Governor of Florida. He has been transparent. There is no evidence that George Bush took part in a cover-up as it relates to Iran-Contra, none at all.

The difference between the Bushs and the Clintons are that the Bushs are about public service, the Clintons are about power above all else.

I think the Republican nominee for President should attack Hillary Clinton's votes in the U.S. Senate against funding our troops, against tax cuts for all Americans, and I think the GOP nominee for President should attack her incompetence as Secretary of State. Ethical questions are also fair game, but I don't think we should be attacking her personally.

The only person in this race who deserves to be attacked personally is Donald Trump, and that is because he has attacked his opponents personally. He tells people that Jeb Bush's immigration position stems from his wife, who is Mexican-American. Well, Trump married two communists, so perhaps that's where his political philosophy comes from. Trump attacked Marco Rubio for drinking water on television. Well, perhaps we should attack Donald Trump for being ugly, look at his disgusting hair, it's pathetic and he should be ashamed of himself for walking around like that. He attacked Rick Perry for wearing glasses, perhaps Trump wears that silly hat to make himself look more like a common man and less like new money. He attacks Hillary Clinton for not satisfying her husband, perhaps his two ex-wives were unsatisfied by him.

Everything I said in the above paragraph is completely true and yet, it is completely meaningless. This campaign should be about issues, and Donald Trump is a distraction from the issues. The sooner he is forced to end his presidential campaign, the sooner our republic will be strengthened. If he is the GOP nominee for President, I would urge the RNC to only spend money on Republican Congressional and Senatorial candidates. I'd even like to see the RNC give money to the Libertarian candidate if Trump is somehow the GOP nominee. Until Trump ends his campaign, everyone's focus in both parties should be to expose this evil man for the fraud and simpleton he is. If he bullied a kid in 5th grade, I want it to make front page news. Only Donald Trump can make Rand Paul look intelligent, Ted Cruz look electable, Bernie Sanders look moderate, and Hillary Clinton look like she has integrity.

[dudeabides]

Basically: see above to prove my point.

Here is the part where I prove you wrong:

http://www.csmonitor.com/1992/0317/17072.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/trie101098.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/hillarys-campaign-is-built-on-a-shaky-foundation/388324/

You must be logged in to read this quote.