Why Do You Think Bush Is Strongest?

[Mechaman]

Conservatives will vote for Bush, you're forgetting how much they hate Hilary.

There seems to be a lot of revisionism regarding Bush. Ted Cruz and his ilk like to pretend that Bush is a RINO and that he's awful when in fact he's pretty damn conservative-he's anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun, pro-business and was a 'severely conservative governor'

Of course!  It is standard practice for "real Republicans" to disown failed presidents by labeling them "RINOs", regardless of their actual ideology!

See examples:

George W Bush
George HW Bush
Richard M Nixon
Herbert Hoover

It is quite consistent really.  That way, if said presidents were failures they can always pin it down to them not being "conservative" enough or being a "true" Republican even if they pretty much followed the party philosophy hook, line, and sinker and based most of their decisions out of being political hacks (note, this is not strictly limited to what their policy positions were).

[bobloblaw]

He may not be stronger than Kasich or Paul, but he is DEFINITELY stronger than Walker, Rubio, Cruz, Carson, Snyder, ...

Reasons:
1.) He's a great debater. Better than Clinton.
2.) He can appeal to Hispanics and maybe Asian Americans (but not because of muh Hispanic wife!)
3.) He has enough money.
4.) He can defeat Clinton.
5.) He would be an establishment candidate.
6.) He's smarter than Romney and wouldn't let Hillary define him as "pure dynasty evil".

1. Bush hasnt debated anyone since 2002
2. Any votes he gets from hispancs will be offset by losing 2x more white votes
3. People overestimate $$. You need $$ to run a good campaign, but after that additional $$ doesnt get you much.
4. He cant defeat Clinton
5. Establishment candidates without conservative appeal havent won since 1972
6. Wouldnt let anyone define him as "pure evil dynasty" That is like saying a duck wont left you define them as a duck.

[heatmaster]

Ted Cruz pretty much calls every one a RHINO,  if you don't agree with his world view.

[bobloblaw]

He may not be stronger than Kasich or Paul, but he is DEFINITELY stronger than Walker, Rubio, Cruz, Carson, Snyder, ...

Reasons:
1.) He's a great debater. Better than Clinton.
2.) He can appeal to Hispanics and maybe Asian Americans (but not because of muh Hispanic wife!)
3.) He has enough money.
4.) He can defeat Clinton.
5.) He would be an establishment candidate.
6.) He's smarter than Romney and wouldn't let Hillary define him as "pure dynasty evil".

1. Bush hasnt debated anyone since 2002
2. Any votes he gets from hispancs will be offset by losing 2x more white votes
3. People overestimate $$. You need $$ to run a good campaign, but after that additional $$ doesnt get you much.
4. He cant defeat Clinton
5. Establishment candidates without conservative appeal havent won since 1972
6. Wouldnt let anyone define him as "pure evil dynasty" That is like saying a duck wont left you define them as a duck.

1. So what? Listen to his interviews. He will be a great debater in the GOP primary...
2. Could be, but I seriously doubt it. I mean... why should he lose so many Whites? In fact, he would probably do better among women voters than Romney.
3. Sure. But he needs it to win the primary.
4. ...
5. What makes you think Bush has NO conservative appeal?
6. That is right, my mistake. What I mean is that he wouldn't let anyone define him like Obama did with Romney.

Don't get me wrong: I am no Bush supporter but I still think he would be a great GOP candidate.

1. Interviews arent debates.
2. Why lose so many whites? Pandering to hispanics is the reason. Sean Trende covers this well. Coalitions are fluid. You cant go after one without losing another.
3. Cash is overrated. You cant have none, but having a 2 billion for the primary wont get you a single vote beyond one billion whih wont get you a single vote beyond $500m. The media is obsessed with money.
4. He cant defeat Clinton
5. Pay attention. He is despised. I for one would prefer a Hillary to a Jeb presidency and I am not alone.
6. He is already defined.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I'm so sick of the threat from conservatives.  Conservatives, in general, vote in very high numbers and are quite loyal to the GOP.  They were not responsible for big victories like 1984 (Reagan won so handily because he won over independents and even many Democrats), and they were not the reason McCain or Romney lost either (look at what states we won and which states we didn't win).  The GOP needs to expand its voting base, not become even more ridiculously conservative than it already is.  There's absolutely no reason that a college educated, upper-middle class Black family living in the suburbs shouldn't be voting Republican, yet hardly any of them do.  That shows we have a CLEAR image problem on cultural issues.  Getting more conservative makes that worse.

[bobloblaw]

I'm so sick of the threat from conservatives.  Conservatives, in general, vote in very high numbers and are quite loyal to the GOP.  They were not responsible for big victories like 1984 (Reagan won so handily because he won over independents and even many Democrats), and they were not the reason McCain or Romney lost either (look at what states we won and which states we didn't win).  The GOP needs to expand its voting base, not become even more ridiculously conservative than it already is.  There's absolutely no reason that a college educated, upper-middle class Black family living in the suburbs shouldn't be voting Republican, yet hardly any of them do.  That shows we have a CLEAR image problem on cultural issues.  Getting more conservative makes that worse.

There is no room for you in the party anymore Rocky.

Youre absolutely wrong about upper middle class blacks voting GOP. Lower class blacks vote more GOP than middle or upper middle class. Upper middle class blacks owe their position to affirmative action and government jobs. They actually become MORE liberal the more they move up the income ladder.

[bobloblaw]

I'm so sick of the threat from conservatives.  Conservatives, in general, vote in very high numbers and are quite loyal to the GOP.  They were not responsible for big victories like 1984 (Reagan won so handily because he won over independents and even many Democrats), and they were not the reason McCain or Romney lost either (look at what states we won and which states we didn't win).  The GOP needs to expand its voting base, not become even more ridiculously conservative than it already is.  There's absolutely no reason that a college educated, upper-middle class Black family living in the suburbs shouldn't be voting Republican, yet hardly any of them do.  That shows we have a CLEAR image problem on cultural issues.  Getting more conservative makes that worse.

I am not a party-man. I am not in favor of winning for the sake of winning.

[WVdemocrat]

I'm so sick of the threat from conservatives.  Conservatives, in general, vote in very high numbers and are quite loyal to the GOP.  They were not responsible for big victories like 1984 (Reagan won so handily because he won over independents and even many Democrats), and they were not the reason McCain or Romney lost either (look at what states we won and which states we didn't win).  The GOP needs to expand its voting base, not become even more ridiculously conservative than it already is.  There's absolutely no reason that a college educated, upper-middle class Black family living in the suburbs shouldn't be voting Republican, yet hardly any of them do.  That shows we have a CLEAR image problem on cultural issues.  Getting more conservative makes that worse.

Great post, man. This is possibly the best post I've seen all day. By going further to the right, and pandering to the religious right even more is not going to help Republicans. If you got hard right conservative God-fearing Republicans out to vote 100%, that wouldn't matter in states like Michigan, in states like Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin. All of the states Republicans hope to win in. There are not nearly enough extremist conservatives in this country to elect a president without support from any other ideological lean or demographic. Republicans can't keep blaming the reason they lose on " those far left liberal socialist communist hippies like McCain and Romney" because that's not why they lose.

The Democratic Party has successfully branded itself as the party of inclusiveness. "Everyone is welcome here." That's their mantra. Republicans need to end their xenophobia and open their tent to other Republicans who may not be as conservative as them and may not look exactly like them. Up until now, they haven't done that. They've relied on white men to help them get past 270, and it's not working. They've relied on ancient backwards policies like opposition to marriage equality and breaking up and deporting loving families who, for all intents and purposes, are Americans. IT'S. NOT. WORKING.

There is no room for you in the party anymore Rocky.

Youre absolutely wrong about upper middle class blacks voting GOP. Lower class blacks vote more GOP than middle or upper middle class. Upper middle class blacks owe their position to affirmative action and government jobs. They actually become MORE liberal the more they move up the income ladder.

First of all, that's racist. Just because a black person is successful doesn't mean it's due to preferential treatment on job applications or government helping them up.

And Jeb Bush, for all his faults (he's still a**-backwards on marriage equality), wants to expand the Republican tent and include true Republicans who may not look like your traditional idea of a Republican, and who may not talk your traditional idea of a Republican, but are Republican. Because, bobloblaw, you can't elect a president relying solely on the support of hardcore conservatives while alienating the rest of the country, including other Republicans. George W. Bush (his brother, I should remind you) appealed to conservatives while not alienating moderate and independent voters.

I'm not saying they need to abandon their conservative principles, but they can't keep relying on pandering to close-minded hardcore right-wingers to win. There are not enough in the world to elect an American president with support from no other ideological sect. It's just not mathematically possible. What I am saying is that they can still fight for conservative principles of limited government, low taxes, a strong foreign policy, and an unfettered economy, but to rely on these xenophobic backwards principles in desperate attempts to appease the hard right is not a winning strategy. I know conservatives are anal about ideological purity, but relying on xenophobic losing arguments is untenable.

[WalterMitty]

because he was a successful governor of a large state,

[bobloblaw]

I'm so sick of the threat from conservatives.  Conservatives, in general, vote in very high numbers and are quite loyal to the GOP.  They were not responsible for big victories like 1984 (Reagan won so handily because he won over independents and even many Democrats), and they were not the reason McCain or Romney lost either (look at what states we won and which states we didn't win).  The GOP needs to expand its voting base, not become even more ridiculously conservative than it already is.  There's absolutely no reason that a college educated, upper-middle class Black family living in the suburbs shouldn't be voting Republican, yet hardly any of them do.  That shows we have a CLEAR image problem on cultural issues.  Getting more conservative makes that worse.

Great post, man. This is possibly the best post I've seen all day. By going further to the right, and pandering to the religious right even more is not going to help Republicans. If you got hard right conservative God-fearing Republicans out to vote 100%, that wouldn't matter in states like Michigan, in states like Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin. All of the states Republicans hope to win in. There are not nearly enough extremist conservatives in this country to elect a president without support from any other ideological lean or demographic. Republicans can't keep blaming the reason they lose on " those far left liberal socialist communist hippies like McCain and Romney" because that's not why they lose.

The Democratic Party has successfully branded itself as the party of inclusiveness. "Everyone is welcome here." That's their mantra. Republicans need to end their xenophobia and open their tent to other Republicans who may not be as conservative as them and may not look exactly like them. Up until now, they haven't done that. They've relied on white men to help them get past 270, and it's not working. They've relied on ancient backwards policies like opposition to marriage equality and breaking up and deporting loving families who, for all intents and purposes, are Americans. IT'S. NOT. WORKING.

There is no room for you in the party anymore Rocky.

Youre absolutely wrong about upper middle class blacks voting GOP. Lower class blacks vote more GOP than middle or upper middle class. Upper middle class blacks owe their position to affirmative action and government jobs. They actually become MORE liberal the more they move up the income ladder.

First of all, that's racist. Just because a black person is successful doesn't mean it's due to preferential treatment on job applications or government helping them up.

And Jeb Bush, for all his faults (he's still a**-backwards on marriage equality), wants to expand the Republican tent and include true Republicans who may not look like your traditional idea of a Republican, and who may not talk your traditional idea of a Republican, but are Republican. Because, bobloblaw, you can't elect a president relying solely on the support of hardcore conservatives while alienating the rest of the country, including other Republicans. George W. Bush (his brother, I should remind you) appealed to conservatives while not alienating moderate and independent voters.

I'm not saying they need to abandon their conservative principles, but they can't keep relying on pandering to close-minded hardcore right-wingers to win. There are not enough in the world to elect an American president with support from no other ideological sect. It's just not mathematically possible. What I am saying is that they can still fight for conservative principles of limited government, low taxes, a strong foreign policy, and an unfettered economy, but to rely on these xenophobic backwards principles in desperate attempts to appease the hard right is not a winning strategy. I know conservatives are anal about ideological purity, but relying on xenophobic losing arguments is untenable.

And yet for all the exclusionary actions, the GOP is the majority party in the US.

What the left desperately wants is for elections to not matter. Where the GOP candidate is the same as the Dem candidate. Where there is near 100% agreement on all major issues. Immigration, Climate Change, Social Issues.

You win by running a campaign on conservative issues and not shying away from your ideas. Cruz isnt the one, but Walker and Rubio would do much better than Bush.

[bobloblaw]

Blacks get into the middle class via government jobs. I am not saying that Jesse Jackson says that. The reason Jackson opposes any shrinking of the USPO for that very reason

[bobloblaw]

I'm so sick of the threat from conservatives.  Conservatives, in general, vote in very high numbers and are quite loyal to the GOP.  They were not responsible for big victories like 1984 (Reagan won so handily because he won over independents and even many Democrats), and they were not the reason McCain or Romney lost either (look at what states we won and which states we didn't win).  The GOP needs to expand its voting base, not become even more ridiculously conservative than it already is.  There's absolutely no reason that a college educated, upper-middle class Black family living in the suburbs shouldn't be voting Republican, yet hardly any of them do.  That shows we have a CLEAR image problem on cultural issues.  Getting more conservative makes that worse.

Great post, man. This is possibly the best post I've seen all day. By going further to the right, and pandering to the religious right even more is not going to help Republicans. If you got hard right conservative God-fearing Republicans out to vote 100%, that wouldn't matter in states like Michigan, in states like Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin. All of the states Republicans hope to win in. There are not nearly enough extremist conservatives in this country to elect a president without support from any other ideological lean or demographic. Republicans can't keep blaming the reason they lose on " those far left liberal socialist communist hippies like McCain and Romney" because that's not why they lose.

The Democratic Party has successfully branded itself as the party of inclusiveness. "Everyone is welcome here." That's their mantra. Republicans need to end their xenophobia and open their tent to other Republicans who may not be as conservative as them and may not look exactly like them. Up until now, they haven't done that. They've relied on white men to help them get past 270, and it's not working. They've relied on ancient backwards policies like opposition to marriage equality and breaking up and deporting loving families who, for all intents and purposes, are Americans. IT'S. NOT. WORKING.

There is no room for you in the party anymore Rocky.

Youre absolutely wrong about upper middle class blacks voting GOP. Lower class blacks vote more GOP than middle or upper middle class. Upper middle class blacks owe their position to affirmative action and government jobs. They actually become MORE liberal the more they move up the income ladder.

First of all, that's racist. Just because a black person is successful doesn't mean it's due to preferential treatment on job applications or government helping them up.

And Jeb Bush, for all his faults (he's still a**-backwards on marriage equality), wants to expand the Republican tent and include true Republicans who may not look like your traditional idea of a Republican, and who may not talk your traditional idea of a Republican, but are Republican. Because, bobloblaw, you can't elect a president relying solely on the support of hardcore conservatives while alienating the rest of the country, including other Republicans. George W. Bush (his brother, I should remind you) appealed to conservatives while not alienating moderate and independent voters.

I'm not saying they need to abandon their conservative principles, but they can't keep relying on pandering to close-minded hardcore right-wingers to win. There are not enough in the world to elect an American president with support from no other ideological sect. It's just not mathematically possible. What I am saying is that they can still fight for conservative principles of limited government, low taxes, a strong foreign policy, and an unfettered economy, but to rely on these xenophobic backwards principles in desperate attempts to appease the hard right is not a winning strategy. I know conservatives are anal about ideological purity, but relying on xenophobic losing arguments is untenable.

I am not going to take political advice from a WV Dem. Youve gone from the most Dem state in 1980 and 1988 to one of the least. You certainly dont know about how to adapt.

[WVdemocrat]

I am not going to take political advice from a WV Dem. Youve gone from the most Dem state in 1980 and 1988 to one of the least. You certainly dont know about how to adapt.

Let me say for the record now, I am a Maryland Democrat. I just happen to be living in West Virginia right now. I was born in Maryland, I was raised in Maryland, I lived in Maryland all my life up until a few years ago. My state (Maryland) is consistently liberal, and before you say it the reason they just elected a GOP governor is because of a piss poor campaign by Anthony Brown and low turnout. And to be fair, dissatisfaction with O'Malley's tax hikes.

And yet for all the exclusionary actions, the GOP is the majority party in the US.

What the left desperately wants is for elections to not matter. Where the GOP candidate is the same as the Dem candidate. Where there is near 100% agreement on all major issues. Immigration, Climate Change, Social Issues.

You win by running a campaign on conservative issues and not shying away from your ideas. Cruz isnt the one, but Walker and Rubio would do much better than Bush.

What I desperately want is a Republican Party that isn't completely insane.

But you're right, Bush fatigue is real. I think Walker would be a great candidate (not one I would vote for, but electable), Rubio would less great. I just don't see what he brings to the table, electorally speaking.

Blacks get into the middle class via government jobs. I am not saying that Jesse Jackson says that. The reason Jackson opposes any shrinking of the USPO for that very reason

Jesse Jackson is not the ultimate authority on this. Not all black people who are successful have government jobs or got their job because of affirmative action.

[bobloblaw]

I am not going to take political advice from a WV Dem. Youve gone from the most Dem state in 1980 and 1988 to one of the least. You certainly dont know about how to adapt.

Let me say for the record now, I am a Maryland Democrat. I just happen to be living in West Virginia right now. I was born in Maryland, I was raised in Maryland, I lived in Maryland all my life up until a few years ago. My state (Maryland) is consistently liberal, and before you say it the reason they just elected a GOP governor is because of a piss poor campaign by Anthony Brown and low turnout. And to be fair, dissatisfaction with O'Malley's tax hikes.

And yet for all the exclusionary actions, the GOP is the majority party in the US.

What the left desperately wants is for elections to not matter. Where the GOP candidate is the same as the Dem candidate. Where there is near 100% agreement on all major issues. Immigration, Climate Change, Social Issues.

You win by running a campaign on conservative issues and not shying away from your ideas. Cruz isnt the one, but Walker and Rubio would do much better than Bush.

What I desperately want is a Republican Party that isn't a crazy party. I want to be able to have the choice, even if I usually go for the Democratic candidate. If there's an election where you have a Michael Dukakis or a Walter Mondale running, I want to be able to vote for a Republican that is not completely insane. But you're right, Bush fatigue is real. I think Walker would be a great candidate (not one I would vote for, but electable), Rubio would less great. I just don't see what he brings to the table, electorally speaking.

Blacks get into the middle class via government jobs. I am not saying that Jesse Jackson says that. The reason Jackson opposes any shrinking of the USPO for that very reason

Jesse Jackson is not the ultimate authority on this. Not all black people who are successful have government jobs or got their job because of affirmative action (which I oppose, by the way).

The GOP isnt a crazy party. Crazy parties arent the majority. The Dem party arguably is crazy party out of touch with the voters. You have one institution, the WH and its occupant has a 46% approval rating.

[Sumner 1868]

I am not going to take political advice from a WV Dem. Youve gone from the most Dem state in 1980 and 1988 to one of the least. You certainly dont know about how to adapt.

Let me say for the record now, I am a Maryland Democrat. I just happen to be living in West Virginia right now. I was born in Maryland, I was raised in Maryland, I lived in Maryland all my life up until a few years ago. My state (Maryland) is consistently liberal, and before you say it the reason they just elected a GOP governor is because of a piss poor campaign by Anthony Brown and low turnout. And to be fair, dissatisfaction with O'Malley's tax hikes.

And yet for all the exclusionary actions, the GOP is the majority party in the US.

What the left desperately wants is for elections to not matter. Where the GOP candidate is the same as the Dem candidate. Where there is near 100% agreement on all major issues. Immigration, Climate Change, Social Issues.

You win by running a campaign on conservative issues and not shying away from your ideas. Cruz isnt the one, but Walker and Rubio would do much better than Bush.

What I desperately want is a Republican Party that isn't a crazy party. I want to be able to have the choice, even if I usually go for the Democratic candidate. If there's an election where you have a Michael Dukakis or a Walter Mondale running, I want to be able to vote for a Republican that is not completely insane. But you're right, Bush fatigue is real. I think Walker would be a great candidate (not one I would vote for, but electable), Rubio would less great. I just don't see what he brings to the table, electorally speaking.

Blacks get into the middle class via government jobs. I am not saying that Jesse Jackson says that. The reason Jackson opposes any shrinking of the USPO for that very reason

Jesse Jackson is not the ultimate authority on this. Not all black people who are successful have government jobs or got their job because of affirmative action (which I oppose, by the way).

The GOP isnt a crazy party. Crazy parties arent the majority. The Dem party arguably is crazy party out of touch with the voters. You have one institution, the WH and its occupant has a 46% approval rating.

The favorability rating for the GOP is below that of the Democratic Party, which outnumbers the GOP in registration and has since the Depression.

[Mechaman]

The key thing to take away from bobolaws posts is that despite all of the craziness and offensiveness to everyone who is not a white evangelical the GOP is still managing to get 47% in presidential elections and hold majorities in Congress.  Now imagine how well they would be doing if they did things "right".

Of course I believe Bush is mad overrated and that self-iding moderates are some of the most irritating people in history, but sometimes even they occasionally make good points.  Becoming a party of politically correct socially liberal businessmen and lawyers is not a winning strategy, but neither is what they are doing now.  Surely there is a middle between the two.

[Devils30]

I think many Republicans think the name thing is equal with Bush and Clinton, it isn't. The stain of W is going to sink Jeb, he's hired W's old economic team for what reason I have no clue. His favorables with indies, the same indies that Romney beat Obama with is a joke.

[heatmaster]

Devils30 you desperately cling to the idea that Jeb Bush is going to be tarred with the same brush that his brother was tarred with, you do this, to compensate for the notion that Democrats know but won't publicly admit, that Jeb Bush is bar far more stronger than any other Republican. For all his apparent faults, he represents a higher standard than Hillary Clinton and if Democrats think the "blame George W. Bush" narrative works, then delusional thinking comes into play and Obama's presidency is the elephant in the room and "Obama fatigue" trumps "Bush fatigue" any day of the week. Hillary's trust barometer will be a factor - you remember emailgate?  Foreign money donations to the Clinton Foundation stinks to high heaven's as well as Benghazi, Democrats dismiss these "issues" as creations of the Republican party or a right wing conspiracy. They are real and if they are creations, then it was Hillary or Obama who caused such a dynamic. The calculus now being offered, is Hillary is orchestrating  the leaks in order to "immunize" her and remove these as issues in advance of her campaign. But If this is the case, there are an awful lot of potential lose ends that remain untied, and these could represent hazards, and like all landmines they have the capacity to explode at the most inopportune times.   So the way I see things, Jeb Bush could be a lot more stronger in the final analysis and Hillary's vulnerabilities offer all sorts of juicy opportunities for Republicans and all those "527's" which are going to crop up. That works for me 😊

[Devils30]

That entire paragraph is what we call right wing bulls*it. I have trouble seeing the 2x Obama voter becoming a Jeb voter, which is exactly what needs to happen for him to win the general election. Most 2x Obama voters who voted even once for W probably voted for Obama because they didn't like W very much. It's tough to see them being drawn back to a guy who has hired W's economic all-star team. You think the name doesn't matter? Most people who don't give a damn about politics have a very negative reaction to the Bush name. Bill Clinton is perceived as having done a good job, that's the difference with Clinton and Bush. Benghazi and foreign money donations, yawn.

[Lincoln Republican]

There's nothing exciting about a 70 year old woman, consumed by ambition, with an entrenched sense of entitlement, who has been a fixture on the American political scene since Barry Goldwater.

[bobloblaw]

That entire paragraph is what we call right wing bulls*it. I have trouble seeing the 2x Obama voter becoming a Jeb voter, which is exactly what needs to happen for him to win the general election. Most 2x Obama voters who voted even once for W probably voted for Obama because they didn't like W very much. It's tough to see them being drawn back to a guy who has hired W's economic all-star team. You think the name doesn't matter? Most people who don't give a damn about politics have a very negative reaction to the Bush name. Bill Clinton is perceived as having done a good job, that's the difference with Clinton and Bush. Benghazi and foreign money donations, yawn.

Correct, Bush is a weak candidate. All of Hillary's glaring weaknesses are erased with Jeb as the nominee

[Gallium]

I think one of the biggest problems for the GOP if Jeb's the nominee is that 2016 will become much more of referendum on Clinton vs. Bush than on Obama. That's not a problem if by election day Obama has high approval ratings and the economy is in great shape (although this would automatically favor Hillary anyway), but it makes him one of the worst candidates to capitalize if things go sour. A fresh face could make the case there needs a change from Democratic policies - tying Hillary to Obama - if that happens, but it'd be much more difficult for Jeb to convincingly argue that going back to another Bush would be the solution.

[Devils30]

I find myself agreeing with the more conservative wing of the GOP that a Walker/Rubio ticket in some way or form is a better bet than Jeb Bush. A fresh face helps. Of course if that fresh face is a whacko like Cruz then it's all out the door.

[heatmaster]

Just because he is a Bush doesn't mean squat, he will use the brand when it suits him, but I think most voters are intelligent enough to be able to distinguish between two brother's,  Jeb is not George W. & George W. is not Jeb. They are equally informed about Hillary and her flagrant disregard for the rules that everyone else is obliged to live. I believe the Clinton's are closet sociopaths and are inately incapable of abiding by the rules set up to govern behaviour. So the idea that Jeb is obliged to respond to any charges made against his brother is so Un American, you heard of the phrase "I'm not my brother's keeper"? It's like if my brother is a psychopath, does that mean I'm one too? So there's no evidence to suggest he is anything remotely like his older brother, not in temperament and certainly not in ideology?

[Devils30]

No, but if you hired the same doctors that misdiagnosed your brother it would raise legitimate questions. Why Glen Hubbard and Paul Wolfowitz are advising Jeb is beyond me. They should be completely disgraced by the events of the past decade.