Harry Reid: Bush Easier to Defeat

[bobloblaw]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/harry-reid-jeb-bush-would-be-easiest-opponent-for-hillary-clinton-to-beat-2015-04-02

I mostly agree. Though I think Cruz would be easier still. The toughest candidates would be Rubio and then Walker.

[King]

Yes, take advice from the Democrat who couldn't pass anything with a 59-41 majority in the Senate on how to defeat Republicans.

[bobloblaw]

"Harry Reid: Bush Easiest To Defeat" --> So Bush will be the most difficult for Hillary to beat...

what? Read the article. Or are you a completely delusional Bush supporter?

[bobloblaw]

Yes, take advice from the Democrat who couldn't pass anything with a 59-41 majority in the Senate on how to defeat Republicans.

So his points about Bush baggage are not correct?

[Ebsy]

Yes, take advice from the Democrat who couldn't pass anything with a 59-41 majority in the Senate on how to defeat Republicans.

Are you serious?

[heatmaster]

Harry Reid, who is that guy, obviously he fears that Bush will be the nominee & in reality he would actually prefer Cruz or some other Republican which will make Hillary's life easy. Funny feeling Republicans are not going to cooperate with Reid😊

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

How could Bush possibly be hard to defeat?  He shares Hillary's weaknesses.

[bobloblaw]

Harry Reid, who is that guy, obviously he fears that Bush will be the nominee & in reality he would actually prefer Cruz or some other Republican which will make Hillary's life easy. Funny feeling Republicans are not going to cooperate with Reid😊

No I think he is telling the truth. No MOST Dems including one here say Bush is the toughest to beat because the want Bush and he would be easier to defeat.


Rubio is probably the hardest to defeat because Team Clinton I dont think knows how to handle him. They know exactly how to handle Bush and even Walker their campaign would be he is anti-union. But Rubio would be harder to define and go after and vilify.

[King]

Reid is probably right in this case, but I am just saying it's best not listen to him on anything.

I think all Republican candidates will be easy to beat this cycle.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Harry Reid, who is that guy, obviously he fears that Bush will be the nominee & in reality he would actually prefer Cruz or some other Republican which will make Hillary's life easy. Funny feeling Republicans are not going to cooperate with Reid😊

Rubio is probably the hardest to defeat because Team Clinton I dont think knows how to handle him. They know exactly how to handle Bush and even Walker their campaign would be he is anti-union. But Rubio would be harder to define and go after and vilify.

How?? And regarding Rubio: They would portray him as a far-right, hypocritical, neoliberal hawk. He would be a better VP pick IMO.

They'd also attack Rubio on his flip-flop on immigration. I actually used to like Rubio, but that incident made me realize he's little more than a tea partier.

[bobloblaw]

Harry Reid, who is that guy, obviously he fears that Bush will be the nominee & in reality he would actually prefer Cruz or some other Republican which will make Hillary's life easy. Funny feeling Republicans are not going to cooperate with Reid😊

Rubio is probably the hardest to defeat because Team Clinton I dont think knows how to handle him. They know exactly how to handle Bush and even Walker their campaign would be he is anti-union. But Rubio would be harder to define and go after and vilify.

How?? And regarding Rubio: They would portray him as a far-right, hypocritical, neoliberal hawk. He would be a better VP pick IMO.

Hard for Hillary to portray anyone as a hawk. Also by 2016, we might need a hawk

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Somehow, I think Donald Trump would be easier to defeat.

[WalterMitty]

the same guy he declared on the senate floor that the iraq war was 'lost.'

mr. irrelevant.

[bobloblaw]

the same guy he declared on the senate floor that the iraq war was 'lost.'

mr. irrelevant.

Well Obama did lose it.

[WalterMitty]

the same guy he declared on the senate floor that the iraq war was 'lost.'

mr. irrelevant.

Well Obama did lose it.

he did cut and run.  good point.

[Sumner 1868]

the same guy he declared on the senate floor that the iraq war was 'lost.'

mr. irrelevant.

Well Obama did lose it.

he did cut and run.  good point.

How dare he ruin everything!

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

the same guy he declared on the senate floor that the iraq war was 'lost.'

mr. irrelevant.

Well Obama did lose it.

he did cut and run.  good point.

How dare he ruin everything!

I rarely defend Obama, but in this case, it was mostly Bush's fault.

[WVdemocrat]

the same guy he declared on the senate floor that the iraq war was 'lost.'

mr. irrelevant.

Well Obama did lose it.

he did cut and run.  good point.

How dare he ruin everything!

I rarely defend Obama, but in this case, it was mostly Bush's fault.

I rarely defend Bush, but in this case, Obama did cut and run. It was Bush's fault for getting us into Iraq in the first place, nobody is disputing that (nobody sane at least), but there is a lesson Obama is learning right now with Iraq, which is that there will be an immense power vacuum in these Middle Eastern countries if you remove a strong central government. Obama should have kept troops there until the Iraqis were ready to take over for themselves. I don't care how unpopular a position that is, it's true. And now, we as a nation and as an international community are learning that lesson with ISIL. That's why we are committing more troops than planned to Afghanistan - to avoid a repeat of Iraq. Iraq was a complete disaster on all fronts, neither administration knew how to deal with it and now the Middle East is the mess it is today.

[heatmaster]

CELTICEMPIRE well we know who you will be supporting😊

[bobloblaw]

the same guy he declared on the senate floor that the iraq war was 'lost.'

mr. irrelevant.

Well Obama did lose it.

he did cut and run.  good point.

How dare he ruin everything!

I rarely defend Obama, but in this case, it was mostly Bush's fault.

The war was Bush's fault. The outcome is Obama's fault

[Sumner 1868]

the same guy he declared on the senate floor that the iraq war was 'lost.'

mr. irrelevant.

Well Obama did lose it.

he did cut and run.  good point.

How dare he ruin everything!

I rarely defend Obama, but in this case, it was mostly Bush's fault.

I rarely defend Bush, but in this case, Obama did cut and run. It was Bush's fault for getting us into Iraq in the first place, nobody is disputing that (nobody sane at least), but there is a lesson Obama is learning right now with Iraq, which is that there will be an immense power vacuum in these Middle Eastern countries if you remove a strong central government. Obama should have kept troops there until the Iraqis were ready to take over for themselves. I don't care how unpopular a position that is, it's true. And now, we as a nation and as an international community are learning that lesson with ISIL. That's why we are committing more troops than planned to Afghanistan - to avoid a repeat of Iraq. Iraq was a complete disaster on all fronts, neither administration knew how to deal with it and now the Middle East is the mess it is today.

A "mess" was inevitable in some form. Leaving was correct; I just wish those cowards Pelosi and Reid had pushed to defund the war in 2007 after Democrats regained Congress.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

the same guy he declared on the senate floor that the iraq war was 'lost.'

mr. irrelevant.

Well Obama did lose it.

he did cut and run.  good point.

How dare he ruin everything!

I rarely defend Obama, but in this case, it was mostly Bush's fault.

I rarely defend Bush, but in this case, Obama did cut and run. It was Bush's fault for getting us into Iraq in the first place, nobody is disputing that (nobody sane at least), but there is a lesson Obama is learning right now with Iraq, which is that there will be an immense power vacuum in these Middle Eastern countries if you remove a strong central government. Obama should have kept troops there until the Iraqis were ready to take over for themselves. I don't care how unpopular a position that is, it's true. And now, we as a nation and as an international community are learning that lesson with ISIL. That's why we are committing more troops than planned to Afghanistan - to avoid a repeat of Iraq. Iraq was a complete disaster on all fronts, neither administration knew how to deal with it and now the Middle East is the mess it is today.

A "mess" was inevitable in some form. Leaving was correct; I just wish those cowards Pelosi and Reid had pushed to defund the war in 2007 after Democrats regained Congress.

They tried their hardest to do that in '07 and '08, but it's pretty much impossible when you have only 51 senators and need 67 votes to get past GWB's veto pen, and GWB would rather die than defined the war.

[Sumner 1868]

the same guy he declared on the senate floor that the iraq war was 'lost.'

mr. irrelevant.

Well Obama did lose it.

he did cut and run.  good point.

How dare he ruin everything!

I rarely defend Obama, but in this case, it was mostly Bush's fault.

I rarely defend Bush, but in this case, Obama did cut and run. It was Bush's fault for getting us into Iraq in the first place, nobody is disputing that (nobody sane at least), but there is a lesson Obama is learning right now with Iraq, which is that there will be an immense power vacuum in these Middle Eastern countries if you remove a strong central government. Obama should have kept troops there until the Iraqis were ready to take over for themselves. I don't care how unpopular a position that is, it's true. And now, we as a nation and as an international community are learning that lesson with ISIL. That's why we are committing more troops than planned to Afghanistan - to avoid a repeat of Iraq. Iraq was a complete disaster on all fronts, neither administration knew how to deal with it and now the Middle East is the mess it is today.

A "mess" was inevitable in some form. Leaving was correct; I just wish those cowards Pelosi and Reid had pushed to defund the war in 2007 after Democrats regained Congress.

They tried their hardest to do that in '07 and '08, but it's pretty much impossible when you have only 51 senators and need 67 votes to get past GWB's veto pen, and GWB would rather die than defined the war.

What I meant is they should have rejected the May 2007 bill to fund the war. They should have told Bush to set a timetable for withdrawal or else they vote against funding. When he likely says no, they could have killed the war funding measure in the House, and George would have to bring troops home whether he liked it or not.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

the same guy he declared on the senate floor that the iraq war was 'lost.'

mr. irrelevant.

Well Obama did lose it.

he did cut and run.  good point.

How dare he ruin everything!

I rarely defend Obama, but in this case, it was mostly Bush's fault.

I rarely defend Bush, but in this case, Obama did cut and run. It was Bush's fault for getting us into Iraq in the first place, nobody is disputing that (nobody sane at least), but there is a lesson Obama is learning right now with Iraq, which is that there will be an immense power vacuum in these Middle Eastern countries if you remove a strong central government. Obama should have kept troops there until the Iraqis were ready to take over for themselves. I don't care how unpopular a position that is, it's true. And now, we as a nation and as an international community are learning that lesson with ISIL. That's why we are committing more troops than planned to Afghanistan - to avoid a repeat of Iraq. Iraq was a complete disaster on all fronts, neither administration knew how to deal with it and now the Middle East is the mess it is today.

A "mess" was inevitable in some form. Leaving was correct; I just wish those cowards Pelosi and Reid had pushed to defund the war in 2007 after Democrats regained Congress.

They tried their hardest to do that in '07 and '08, but it's pretty much impossible when you have only 51 senators and need 67 votes to get past GWB's veto pen, and GWB would rather die than defined the war.

What I meant is they should have rejected the May 2007 bill to fund the war. They should have told Bush to set a timetable for withdrawal or else they vote against funding. When he likely says no, they could have killed the war funding measure in the House, and George would have to bring troops home whether he liked it or not.

Two problems with that approach:

1) It would have made independent voters see the democratic party as anti-soldier, when the image the dems. wanted was merely anti-Iraq war. Keep in mind that at this point in the cycle, the 2008 election was seen as likely to be a referendum on Iraq and the Bush Tax Cuts, the economic crisis hadn't really reared its ugly head yet.

2) GWB would probably be so bitter about the whole incident that he would probably just pretend to go along with a timetable of a couple years or so, but then, the first opportunity he got, threaten to permantely shut down the federal govt. or permantely refuse to raise the debt ceiling until the democrats agreed to withdraw the timetable. I know that may sound a bit far-fetched, but that's just how much GWB and most of the republican party (which at this point was more or less equally divided between the Mitt Romney position (we'll get out sometime in the next few years, but don't tell our enemies when by passing any sort of fixed timetable!) and the John McCain position (we're prepared to be there another 100 years!)) were deeply, deeply against any sort of timetable.

[Sumner 1868]

the same guy he declared on the senate floor that the iraq war was 'lost.'

mr. irrelevant.

Well Obama did lose it.

he did cut and run.  good point.

How dare he ruin everything!

I rarely defend Obama, but in this case, it was mostly Bush's fault.

I rarely defend Bush, but in this case, Obama did cut and run. It was Bush's fault for getting us into Iraq in the first place, nobody is disputing that (nobody sane at least), but there is a lesson Obama is learning right now with Iraq, which is that there will be an immense power vacuum in these Middle Eastern countries if you remove a strong central government. Obama should have kept troops there until the Iraqis were ready to take over for themselves. I don't care how unpopular a position that is, it's true. And now, we as a nation and as an international community are learning that lesson with ISIL. That's why we are committing more troops than planned to Afghanistan - to avoid a repeat of Iraq. Iraq was a complete disaster on all fronts, neither administration knew how to deal with it and now the Middle East is the mess it is today.

A "mess" was inevitable in some form. Leaving was correct; I just wish those cowards Pelosi and Reid had pushed to defund the war in 2007 after Democrats regained Congress.

They tried their hardest to do that in '07 and '08, but it's pretty much impossible when you have only 51 senators and need 67 votes to get past GWB's veto pen, and GWB would rather die than defined the war.

What I meant is they should have rejected the May 2007 bill to fund the war. They should have told Bush to set a timetable for withdrawal or else they vote against funding. When he likely says no, they could have killed the war funding measure in the House, and George would have to bring troops home whether he liked it or not.

Two problems with that approach:

1) It would have made independent voters see the democratic party as anti-soldier, when the image the dems. wanted was merely anti-Iraq war. Keep in mind that at this point in the cycle, the 2008 election was seen as likely to be a referendum on Iraq and the Bush Tax Cuts, the economic crisis hadn't really reared its ugly head yet.

2) GWB would probably be so bitter about the whole incident that he would probably just pretend to go along with a timetable of a couple years or so, but then, the first opportunity he got, threaten to permantely shut down the federal govt. or permantely refuse to raise the debt ceiling until the democrats agreed to withdraw the timetable. I know that may sound a bit far-fetched, but that's just how much GWB and most of the republican party (which at this point was more or less equally divided between the Mitt Romney position (we'll get out sometime in the next few years, but don't tell our enemies when by passing any sort of fixed timetable!) and the John McCain position (we're prepared to be there another 100 years!)) were deeply, deeply against any sort of timetable.

The first issue you raise is probably the reason this never occurred. However, I don't think it would have actually hurt Democrats. Recall the Vietnam cutoff did not stop Carter from winning 1976, and the people who believe "anti-solider" are probably going to vote Republican no matter what. I do see Bush/Cheney in an enraged denial attempt to sneak around a cutoff, but threatening federal shutdown would expose Bush to his biggest supporters and polarize to the point that impeachment becomes a real possibility.