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

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.
You are right on the money dudeabides,  good for you, as for you Devils30,  what planet are you on? An observation, you are so stuck in the Democratic bubble. You think the echo chamber you inhabit, is the real world, well the question which begs to be asked, is according to whom? The U.S.A. has, under Obama's stewardship, doubled the national debt, and all due to Obama's social engineering and his half-assed liberal agenda, and then you assert that Democrats will slaughter Jeb Bush, how? All I see is common sense approaches to significant problems which need addressing. Hillary is no more equipped to address these problems, than Donald Trump is. I sincerely doubt your theories will work out as you imagined, but as dudeabides said, Trump is an idiot and delusional,  and so are you my friend😑 As for Donald Trump, his inconsistencies on a whole swath of issues, are way off the beam, when it comes to the grassroots and these inconsistencies will be Trump's undoing as they become more evident.

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 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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

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?"

[Fuzzy Bear]

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. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Using George W. Bush, would be a distraction and the objective of Jeb's campaign is about change and making the idea of a Jeb Bush Presidency as appealing and attractive as possible,  Jeb I would consider a shrewd and deliberate man and no way is he going to allow Democrats to use George W. Bush as a tar baby. On the other hand, Hillary is a sitting target and she doesn't come across as likeable, toughness and strengths, two traits she has going for her, are not going to be enough for her to win, the odour of dishonesty and untrustworthiness is too strong to overcome.  I can see her having to defend herself against incompetence. What is happening to her is weirdly similar to what happened to Dukakis in 1988, all his positives, such as competence were inverted and his negatives skyrocketed. He never stood a chance.  Hillary is not as smart as Bill is and she has a tendency of saying things that come back to haunt her later on. Her handicaps are overshadowing the qualities that she had expected to use to her advantage (e.g. her period as Secretary of State). Her vulnerabilities are far more problematic in the final analysis. She will have her work cut out for her, trying to tackle Jeb Bush.

I think of a lot of Hillary's "untrustworthiness" is wishful thinking on the part of the GOP, who have a number of questionable souls in their own stable.  

On the other hand, Hillary is NOT likable.  This is an overwhelming feature of her personality; a combination of arrogance and coldness.  Sarah Palin is brash and brassy and has her enemies, but she also has friends that would go of a cliff for her like lemmings.  Hillary doesn't have anyone that fits into that category.  No one likes her, and her accomplishments in public life aren't so overwhelming as to cause people to allow that to negate what they don't like.  If Biden enters the race and starts out close to Hillary in the polls, just watch folks jump ship.  People like Hillary because she's a winner; they won't fight with her if she's an underdog.

What makes Hillary so unlikable?  It's her victimstance-based assertiveness that arouses a combination of male chauvinism in some quarters (and, yes, even in some liberal quarters), coupled with her inner belief that she is OWED the Presidency, a belief that she oozes, no matter how she tries to hide it.  And that debt, of course, has been incurred all because she is a woman who had to suffer playing a secondary role to her husband in public life.  And she's been passive-aggressive in forcing Bill to up her public profile, often with negative results.  She campaigned for Bill's re-election in 1980 using her maiden name, deliberately.  That didn't go over well with Arkansans, who dished a re-election defeat to first-term Gov. Bill Clinton that well may have ended his political career then and there.  She pushed Bill Clinton to appoint her (with Ira Magaziner) to head up the development of Clinton's National Healthcare Plan, but her presence there became a political lightning rod that didn't help Bill Clinton accomplish the passing of a plan.  (Indeed, the main criticism of Clinton's Healthcare plan is that it didn't pass; voters took THAT fact out on Bill Clinton in 1994 as much as anything else.)  Where she HAS helped Bill is in defending him when his philandering came to light, and I'm sure that this has (rightfully) galled her, but that resentment also bleeds through in her life, and people sense it, and it (rightly or wrongly) puts people off.

Hillary's resume isn't terrible.  Any number of current candidates have less to show.  Less time in the Senate.  Less government experience.  Less meaningful appointments.  She was Secretary of State, like Henry Clay; not Secretary of HUD like Julian Castro.  But there is the reality that if she weren't married to who she was married to, she'd be nobody in public life; just another lawyer.  For all the criticism Michelle Obama has received, she is more likable than Hillary Clinton, and perhaps it's a good time for Hillary to think about why this is so.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.