Should George W. Bush endorse Joe Biden?

[cp]

I know a lot of progressives who would withdraw any support for Biden if Bush, the worst President in modern history, endorsed him. I would hope that Biden would reject Bush's endorsement if it came.

I don't understand this behavior honestly.  They would rather have Trump for four more years, a SCOTUS with one maybe two more, young conservative justices, etc.  --  all because someone they hate endorsed Biden?   

They're operating under a Kantian ethical philosophy, not a utilitarian one.

It doesn't matter how bad the impacts of a Trump presidency would be. They'd view voting for Biden at that point, the very act of voting, as being wrong. It's not about the consequences, it's about the action - or more specifically, feeling good.

They'd rather feel good than do good.

That's rather ungenerous. A straw man argument, even.

For such a voter (I'd classify myself as one but I'm not eligible to vote), Biden is an improvement on Trump only insofar as he represents a genuine shift away from the sorts of policies and behaviours Trump does. The behavioural stuff - the insults, pettiness, twitter nonsense - would certainly improve, but that's not really very important in the grand scheme. To use your formulation: it would *feel* good, but it wouldn't *do* much good.

As for actual policies, Biden has only the most minimal commitment to policies I think are a genuine improvement. Meanwhile, he's embraced a lot of ideas and policies I see as functionally equivalent in terms of the good they do (read: harm they cause) to those of Trump. More broadly, Biden represents a continuation, even a restoration, of decades of policies under Clinton/Bush/Obama (or Blair/Cameron/May/Johnson in my local case) that have been so obviously ruinous.

For Bush - one of the most prominent architects of this failed system - to endorse Biden would remove the last shred of cognitive dissonance I'd have about believing Biden might actually improve things. It would be an endorsement that confirmed everything rotten I suspected about Biden and validate every suspicion I ever carried about what 'good' centrist politics can offer.

Even a marginal improvement is better than nothing.

My point is that with a Bush endorsement, it would be clear that Biden would not even provide a marginal improvement. It would be as bad and possibly worse.

Why are you assuming a Bush endorsement would impact Biden's policy?

It's more that it would reveal how alike and compatible Bush's despicable politics are to Biden's plans. Also, it would have the knock-on effect of giving cover to Biden to allow Bush acolytes reentry into positions of power, diluting the influence of mainstream Democrats and further marginalizing the ascendant leftwing.

To be honest I think this is a ridiculous conclusion.

Bush’s endorsement would just mean “yeah I don’t agree with his policies but Trump is literally insane and hates democracy”

That'd be a pretty p*ss poor endorsement if it was phrased like that. If Bush is going to go to the trouble of mentioning Biden at all, as opposed to just saying Trump is bad, then he'd have to say something substantive about why. And as soon as that happens, the fig leaf of plausibility that Biden is somehow going to offer any meaningful departure from the catastrophes of the past two decades evaporates.

[Ferguson97]

I know a lot of progressives who would withdraw any support for Biden if Bush, the worst President in modern history, endorsed him. I would hope that Biden would reject Bush's endorsement if it came.

I don't understand this behavior honestly.  They would rather have Trump for four more years, a SCOTUS with one maybe two more, young conservative justices, etc.  --  all because someone they hate endorsed Biden?   

They're operating under a Kantian ethical philosophy, not a utilitarian one.

It doesn't matter how bad the impacts of a Trump presidency would be. They'd view voting for Biden at that point, the very act of voting, as being wrong. It's not about the consequences, it's about the action - or more specifically, feeling good.

They'd rather feel good than do good.

That's rather ungenerous. A straw man argument, even.

For such a voter (I'd classify myself as one but I'm not eligible to vote), Biden is an improvement on Trump only insofar as he represents a genuine shift away from the sorts of policies and behaviours Trump does. The behavioural stuff - the insults, pettiness, twitter nonsense - would certainly improve, but that's not really very important in the grand scheme. To use your formulation: it would *feel* good, but it wouldn't *do* much good.

As for actual policies, Biden has only the most minimal commitment to policies I think are a genuine improvement. Meanwhile, he's embraced a lot of ideas and policies I see as functionally equivalent in terms of the good they do (read: harm they cause) to those of Trump. More broadly, Biden represents a continuation, even a restoration, of decades of policies under Clinton/Bush/Obama (or Blair/Cameron/May/Johnson in my local case) that have been so obviously ruinous.

For Bush - one of the most prominent architects of this failed system - to endorse Biden would remove the last shred of cognitive dissonance I'd have about believing Biden might actually improve things. It would be an endorsement that confirmed everything rotten I suspected about Biden and validate every suspicion I ever carried about what 'good' centrist politics can offer.

Even a marginal improvement is better than nothing.

My point is that with a Bush endorsement, it would be clear that Biden would not even provide a marginal improvement. It would be as bad and possibly worse.

Why are you assuming a Bush endorsement would impact Biden's policy?

It's more that it would reveal how alike and compatible Bush's despicable politics are to Biden's plans. Also, it would have the knock-on effect of giving cover to Biden to allow Bush acolytes reentry into positions of power, diluting the influence of mainstream Democrats and further marginalizing the ascendant leftwing.

To be honest I think this is a ridiculous conclusion.

Bush’s endorsement would just mean “yeah I don’t agree with his policies but Trump is literally insane and hates democracy”

That'd be a pretty p*ss poor endorsement if it was phrased like that. If Bush is going to go to the trouble of mentioning Biden at all, as opposed to just saying Trump is bad, then he'd have to say something substantive about why. And as soon as that happens, the fig leaf of plausibility that Biden is somehow going to offer any meaningful departure from the catastrophes of the past two decades evaporates.

You still haven't provided a meaningful explanation as to WHY a Bush endorsement would mean Biden is suddenly going to take pointers from the Bush Administration.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Howie Hawkins hopes the Republicrat who got the Patriot Act passed endorses the Republicrat who bragged about writing the Patriot Act.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

I would hope the most unpopular President alive endorses Biden.

[cp]

I know a lot of progressives who would withdraw any support for Biden if Bush, the worst President in modern history, endorsed him. I would hope that Biden would reject Bush's endorsement if it came.

I don't understand this behavior honestly.  They would rather have Trump for four more years, a SCOTUS with one maybe two more, young conservative justices, etc.  --  all because someone they hate endorsed Biden?   

They're operating under a Kantian ethical philosophy, not a utilitarian one.

It doesn't matter how bad the impacts of a Trump presidency would be. They'd view voting for Biden at that point, the very act of voting, as being wrong. It's not about the consequences, it's about the action - or more specifically, feeling good.

They'd rather feel good than do good.

That's rather ungenerous. A straw man argument, even.

For such a voter (I'd classify myself as one but I'm not eligible to vote), Biden is an improvement on Trump only insofar as he represents a genuine shift away from the sorts of policies and behaviours Trump does. The behavioural stuff - the insults, pettiness, twitter nonsense - would certainly improve, but that's not really very important in the grand scheme. To use your formulation: it would *feel* good, but it wouldn't *do* much good.

As for actual policies, Biden has only the most minimal commitment to policies I think are a genuine improvement. Meanwhile, he's embraced a lot of ideas and policies I see as functionally equivalent in terms of the good they do (read: harm they cause) to those of Trump. More broadly, Biden represents a continuation, even a restoration, of decades of policies under Clinton/Bush/Obama (or Blair/Cameron/May/Johnson in my local case) that have been so obviously ruinous.

For Bush - one of the most prominent architects of this failed system - to endorse Biden would remove the last shred of cognitive dissonance I'd have about believing Biden might actually improve things. It would be an endorsement that confirmed everything rotten I suspected about Biden and validate every suspicion I ever carried about what 'good' centrist politics can offer.

Even a marginal improvement is better than nothing.

My point is that with a Bush endorsement, it would be clear that Biden would not even provide a marginal improvement. It would be as bad and possibly worse.

Why are you assuming a Bush endorsement would impact Biden's policy?

It's more that it would reveal how alike and compatible Bush's despicable politics are to Biden's plans. Also, it would have the knock-on effect of giving cover to Biden to allow Bush acolytes reentry into positions of power, diluting the influence of mainstream Democrats and further marginalizing the ascendant leftwing.

To be honest I think this is a ridiculous conclusion.

Bush’s endorsement would just mean “yeah I don’t agree with his policies but Trump is literally insane and hates democracy”

That'd be a pretty p*ss poor endorsement if it was phrased like that. If Bush is going to go to the trouble of mentioning Biden at all, as opposed to just saying Trump is bad, then he'd have to say something substantive about why. And as soon as that happens, the fig leaf of plausibility that Biden is somehow going to offer any meaningful departure from the catastrophes of the past two decades evaporates.

You still haven't provided a meaningful explanation as to WHY a Bush endorsement would mean Biden is suddenly going to take pointers from the Bush Administration.

I think I have, but you're just not acknowledging it. It's not a cause and effect relationship I'm worried about, it's what it would indicate about Biden's perspective on, and judgment about, decision making.

 If Bush is comfortable enough with Biden to endorse him, and Biden is comfortable enough with Bush to accept it, then these men share far too much in terms of values, outlook, judgment, and priorities for me to honestly believe a Biden presidency will result in policy changes of any meaningful improvement.

If Bush isn't so far beyond the pale for Biden that his endorsement is not just unwelcome but actively rejected, then there's every likelihood Biden will indulge the same kind of thinking that made Bush and his ilk the malignant force that they were. There's pretty clear evidence to suggest this is likely already ...

Howie Hawkins hopes the Republicrat who got the Patriot Act passed endorses the Republicrat who bragged about writing the Patriot Act.

... Bush's endorsement would be the final confirmation. And the last straw.

[Ferguson97]

I know a lot of progressives who would withdraw any support for Biden if Bush, the worst President in modern history, endorsed him. I would hope that Biden would reject Bush's endorsement if it came.

I don't understand this behavior honestly.  They would rather have Trump for four more years, a SCOTUS with one maybe two more, young conservative justices, etc.  --  all because someone they hate endorsed Biden?   

They're operating under a Kantian ethical philosophy, not a utilitarian one.

It doesn't matter how bad the impacts of a Trump presidency would be. They'd view voting for Biden at that point, the very act of voting, as being wrong. It's not about the consequences, it's about the action - or more specifically, feeling good.

They'd rather feel good than do good.

That's rather ungenerous. A straw man argument, even.

For such a voter (I'd classify myself as one but I'm not eligible to vote), Biden is an improvement on Trump only insofar as he represents a genuine shift away from the sorts of policies and behaviours Trump does. The behavioural stuff - the insults, pettiness, twitter nonsense - would certainly improve, but that's not really very important in the grand scheme. To use your formulation: it would *feel* good, but it wouldn't *do* much good.

As for actual policies, Biden has only the most minimal commitment to policies I think are a genuine improvement. Meanwhile, he's embraced a lot of ideas and policies I see as functionally equivalent in terms of the good they do (read: harm they cause) to those of Trump. More broadly, Biden represents a continuation, even a restoration, of decades of policies under Clinton/Bush/Obama (or Blair/Cameron/May/Johnson in my local case) that have been so obviously ruinous.

For Bush - one of the most prominent architects of this failed system - to endorse Biden would remove the last shred of cognitive dissonance I'd have about believing Biden might actually improve things. It would be an endorsement that confirmed everything rotten I suspected about Biden and validate every suspicion I ever carried about what 'good' centrist politics can offer.

Even a marginal improvement is better than nothing.

My point is that with a Bush endorsement, it would be clear that Biden would not even provide a marginal improvement. It would be as bad and possibly worse.

Why are you assuming a Bush endorsement would impact Biden's policy?

It's more that it would reveal how alike and compatible Bush's despicable politics are to Biden's plans. Also, it would have the knock-on effect of giving cover to Biden to allow Bush acolytes reentry into positions of power, diluting the influence of mainstream Democrats and further marginalizing the ascendant leftwing.

To be honest I think this is a ridiculous conclusion.

Bush’s endorsement would just mean “yeah I don’t agree with his policies but Trump is literally insane and hates democracy”

That'd be a pretty p*ss poor endorsement if it was phrased like that. If Bush is going to go to the trouble of mentioning Biden at all, as opposed to just saying Trump is bad, then he'd have to say something substantive about why. And as soon as that happens, the fig leaf of plausibility that Biden is somehow going to offer any meaningful departure from the catastrophes of the past two decades evaporates.

You still haven't provided a meaningful explanation as to WHY a Bush endorsement would mean Biden is suddenly going to take pointers from the Bush Administration.

I think I have, but you're just not acknowledging it. It's not a cause and effect relationship I'm worried about, it's what it would indicate about Biden's perspective on, and judgment about, decision making.

If Bush is comfortable enough with Biden to endorse him, and Biden is comfortable enough with Bush to accept it, then these men share far too much in terms of values, outlook, judgment, and priorities for me to honestly believe a Biden presidency will result in policy changes of any meaningful improvement.

If Bush isn't so far beyond the pale for Biden that his endorsement is not just unwelcome but actively rejected, then there's every likelihood Biden will indulge the same kind of thinking that made Bush and his ilk the malignant force that they were. There's pretty clear evidence to suggest this is likely already ...

Howie Hawkins hopes the Republicrat who got the Patriot Act passed endorses the Republicrat who bragged about writing the Patriot Act.

... Bush's endorsement would be the final confirmation. And the last straw.

I reject this premise. Why is it so hard for you to understand that not every endorsement is ideological? Bush can oppose everything the Biden administration does because Trump literally opposes democracy.

[cp]

I know a lot of progressives who would withdraw any support for Biden if Bush, the worst President in modern history, endorsed him. I would hope that Biden would reject Bush's endorsement if it came.

I don't understand this behavior honestly.  They would rather have Trump for four more years, a SCOTUS with one maybe two more, young conservative justices, etc.  --  all because someone they hate endorsed Biden?   

They're operating under a Kantian ethical philosophy, not a utilitarian one.

It doesn't matter how bad the impacts of a Trump presidency would be. They'd view voting for Biden at that point, the very act of voting, as being wrong. It's not about the consequences, it's about the action - or more specifically, feeling good.

They'd rather feel good than do good.

That's rather ungenerous. A straw man argument, even.

For such a voter (I'd classify myself as one but I'm not eligible to vote), Biden is an improvement on Trump only insofar as he represents a genuine shift away from the sorts of policies and behaviours Trump does. The behavioural stuff - the insults, pettiness, twitter nonsense - would certainly improve, but that's not really very important in the grand scheme. To use your formulation: it would *feel* good, but it wouldn't *do* much good.

As for actual policies, Biden has only the most minimal commitment to policies I think are a genuine improvement. Meanwhile, he's embraced a lot of ideas and policies I see as functionally equivalent in terms of the good they do (read: harm they cause) to those of Trump. More broadly, Biden represents a continuation, even a restoration, of decades of policies under Clinton/Bush/Obama (or Blair/Cameron/May/Johnson in my local case) that have been so obviously ruinous.

For Bush - one of the most prominent architects of this failed system - to endorse Biden would remove the last shred of cognitive dissonance I'd have about believing Biden might actually improve things. It would be an endorsement that confirmed everything rotten I suspected about Biden and validate every suspicion I ever carried about what 'good' centrist politics can offer.

Even a marginal improvement is better than nothing.

My point is that with a Bush endorsement, it would be clear that Biden would not even provide a marginal improvement. It would be as bad and possibly worse.

Why are you assuming a Bush endorsement would impact Biden's policy?

It's more that it would reveal how alike and compatible Bush's despicable politics are to Biden's plans. Also, it would have the knock-on effect of giving cover to Biden to allow Bush acolytes reentry into positions of power, diluting the influence of mainstream Democrats and further marginalizing the ascendant leftwing.

To be honest I think this is a ridiculous conclusion.

Bush’s endorsement would just mean “yeah I don’t agree with his policies but Trump is literally insane and hates democracy”

That'd be a pretty p*ss poor endorsement if it was phrased like that. If Bush is going to go to the trouble of mentioning Biden at all, as opposed to just saying Trump is bad, then he'd have to say something substantive about why. And as soon as that happens, the fig leaf of plausibility that Biden is somehow going to offer any meaningful departure from the catastrophes of the past two decades evaporates.

You still haven't provided a meaningful explanation as to WHY a Bush endorsement would mean Biden is suddenly going to take pointers from the Bush Administration.

I think I have, but you're just not acknowledging it. It's not a cause and effect relationship I'm worried about, it's what it would indicate about Biden's perspective on, and judgment about, decision making.

If Bush is comfortable enough with Biden to endorse him, and Biden is comfortable enough with Bush to accept it, then these men share far too much in terms of values, outlook, judgment, and priorities for me to honestly believe a Biden presidency will result in policy changes of any meaningful improvement.

If Bush isn't so far beyond the pale for Biden that his endorsement is not just unwelcome but actively rejected, then there's every likelihood Biden will indulge the same kind of thinking that made Bush and his ilk the malignant force that they were. There's pretty clear evidence to suggest this is likely already ...

Howie Hawkins hopes the Republicrat who got the Patriot Act passed endorses the Republicrat who bragged about writing the Patriot Act.

... Bush's endorsement would be the final confirmation. And the last straw.

I reject this premise. Why is it so hard for you to understand that not every endorsement is ideological? Bush can oppose everything the Biden administration does because Trump literally opposes democracy.

The premise stands regardless of whether you accept it or not.

It's supremely naive to think Bush rejects everything a Biden administration would do; they are already far more alike to one another than Biden is to Bernie. Equally, it's supremely naive to think Bush's opposition to Trump is based solely off the latter's 'opposition to democracy'*. Do you not think it serves Bush's ideological (not to mention partisan) purposes to see a likeminded, moderate, centrist Democrat take office?

Every endorsement *is* ideological insofar as there is a litmus test every endorser/endorsee applies when deciding what to endorse/accept. If Bush is comfortable endorsing Biden, it means Biden is not so ideologically different from Bush deep down. If Biden is comfortable accepting such an endorsement, he is not nearly as ethically clear-headed as he ought to be for a position of such power.

And, to return to your formulation from earlier: if Bush really is ideologically opposed to Biden, and believes his policies are actively bad for the country, but endorses him anyway, then he's just as guilty of prioritizing *feeling* good over *doing* good as you claim the Biden skeptics are.

*Let's not forget that the 'anti-democratic' policies of Trump are a direct extension of what Bush devised and championed in office. A latter day conversion to being a civil rights crusader is the flimsiest possible basis for believing Bush is endorsing Biden for non-ideological reasons.

[Ferguson97]

I know a lot of progressives who would withdraw any support for Biden if Bush, the worst President in modern history, endorsed him. I would hope that Biden would reject Bush's endorsement if it came.

I don't understand this behavior honestly.  They would rather have Trump for four more years, a SCOTUS with one maybe two more, young conservative justices, etc.  --  all because someone they hate endorsed Biden?   

They're operating under a Kantian ethical philosophy, not a utilitarian one.

It doesn't matter how bad the impacts of a Trump presidency would be. They'd view voting for Biden at that point, the very act of voting, as being wrong. It's not about the consequences, it's about the action - or more specifically, feeling good.

They'd rather feel good than do good.

That's rather ungenerous. A straw man argument, even.

For such a voter (I'd classify myself as one but I'm not eligible to vote), Biden is an improvement on Trump only insofar as he represents a genuine shift away from the sorts of policies and behaviours Trump does. The behavioural stuff - the insults, pettiness, twitter nonsense - would certainly improve, but that's not really very important in the grand scheme. To use your formulation: it would *feel* good, but it wouldn't *do* much good.

As for actual policies, Biden has only the most minimal commitment to policies I think are a genuine improvement. Meanwhile, he's embraced a lot of ideas and policies I see as functionally equivalent in terms of the good they do (read: harm they cause) to those of Trump. More broadly, Biden represents a continuation, even a restoration, of decades of policies under Clinton/Bush/Obama (or Blair/Cameron/May/Johnson in my local case) that have been so obviously ruinous.

For Bush - one of the most prominent architects of this failed system - to endorse Biden would remove the last shred of cognitive dissonance I'd have about believing Biden might actually improve things. It would be an endorsement that confirmed everything rotten I suspected about Biden and validate every suspicion I ever carried about what 'good' centrist politics can offer.

Even a marginal improvement is better than nothing.

My point is that with a Bush endorsement, it would be clear that Biden would not even provide a marginal improvement. It would be as bad and possibly worse.

Why are you assuming a Bush endorsement would impact Biden's policy?

It's more that it would reveal how alike and compatible Bush's despicable politics are to Biden's plans. Also, it would have the knock-on effect of giving cover to Biden to allow Bush acolytes reentry into positions of power, diluting the influence of mainstream Democrats and further marginalizing the ascendant leftwing.

To be honest I think this is a ridiculous conclusion.

Bush’s endorsement would just mean “yeah I don’t agree with his policies but Trump is literally insane and hates democracy”

That'd be a pretty p*ss poor endorsement if it was phrased like that. If Bush is going to go to the trouble of mentioning Biden at all, as opposed to just saying Trump is bad, then he'd have to say something substantive about why. And as soon as that happens, the fig leaf of plausibility that Biden is somehow going to offer any meaningful departure from the catastrophes of the past two decades evaporates.

You still haven't provided a meaningful explanation as to WHY a Bush endorsement would mean Biden is suddenly going to take pointers from the Bush Administration.

I think I have, but you're just not acknowledging it. It's not a cause and effect relationship I'm worried about, it's what it would indicate about Biden's perspective on, and judgment about, decision making.

If Bush is comfortable enough with Biden to endorse him, and Biden is comfortable enough with Bush to accept it, then these men share far too much in terms of values, outlook, judgment, and priorities for me to honestly believe a Biden presidency will result in policy changes of any meaningful improvement.

If Bush isn't so far beyond the pale for Biden that his endorsement is not just unwelcome but actively rejected, then there's every likelihood Biden will indulge the same kind of thinking that made Bush and his ilk the malignant force that they were. There's pretty clear evidence to suggest this is likely already ...

Howie Hawkins hopes the Republicrat who got the Patriot Act passed endorses the Republicrat who bragged about writing the Patriot Act.

... Bush's endorsement would be the final confirmation. And the last straw.

I reject this premise. Why is it so hard for you to understand that not every endorsement is ideological? Bush can oppose everything the Biden administration does because Trump literally opposes democracy.

The premise stands regardless of whether you accept it or not.

It's supremely naive to think Bush rejects everything a Biden administration would do; they are already far more alike to one another than Biden is to Bernie. Equally, it's supremely naive to think Bush's opposition to Trump is based solely off the latter's 'opposition to democracy'*. Do you not think it serves Bush's ideological (not to mention partisan) purposes to see a likeminded, moderate, centrist Democrat take office?

Every endorsement *is* ideological insofar as there is a litmus test every endorser/endorsee applies when deciding what to endorse/accept. If Bush is comfortable endorsing Biden, it means Biden is not so ideologically different from Bush deep down. If Biden is comfortable accepting such an endorsement, he is not nearly as ethically clear-headed as he ought to be for a position of such power.

And, to return to your formulation from earlier: if Bush really is ideologically opposed to Biden, and believes his policies are actively bad for the country, but endorses him anyway, then he's just as guilty of prioritizing *feeling* good over *doing* good as you claim the Biden skeptics are.

*Let's not forget that the 'anti-democratic' policies of Trump are a direct extension of what Bush devised and championed in office. A latter day conversion to being a civil rights crusader is the flimsiest possible basis for believing Bush is endorsing Biden for non-ideological reasons.

This is just nonsensical and misinformed. Please go read about Biden's policy platform.

[Mr. Morden]

If Bush is comfortable endorsing Biden, it means Biden is not so ideologically different from Bush deep down.

I understand why low information voters would take queues like this based on who endorses whom, but if you're actively following politics, then why wouldn't you just use your own judgment about where Biden stands ideologically, based on his own record, independent of who's endorsing him?  Or, to put it another way, why do you think Bush knows more about Biden's "true" ideology than you do?

[cp]

The premise stands regardless of whether you accept it or not.

It's supremely naive to think Bush rejects everything a Biden administration would do; they are already far more alike to one another than Biden is to Bernie. Equally, it's supremely naive to think Bush's opposition to Trump is based solely off the latter's 'opposition to democracy'*. Do you not think it serves Bush's ideological (not to mention partisan) purposes to see a likeminded, moderate, centrist Democrat take office?

Every endorsement *is* ideological insofar as there is a litmus test every endorser/endorsee applies when deciding what to endorse/accept. If Bush is comfortable endorsing Biden, it means Biden is not so ideologically different from Bush deep down. If Biden is comfortable accepting such an endorsement, he is not nearly as ethically clear-headed as he ought to be for a position of such power.

And, to return to your formulation from earlier: if Bush really is ideologically opposed to Biden, and believes his policies are actively bad for the country, but endorses him anyway, then he's just as guilty of prioritizing *feeling* good over *doing* good as you claim the Biden skeptics are.

*Let's not forget that the 'anti-democratic' policies of Trump are a direct extension of what Bush devised and championed in office. A latter day conversion to being a civil rights crusader is the flimsiest possible basis for believing Bush is endorsing Biden for non-ideological reasons.

This is just nonsensical and misinformed. Please go read about Biden's policy platform.

I've read Biden's platform. Twice. Have you?

It's jargon laden, mealy-mouthed, cowardly moderation thinly veiled with progressive sounding platitudes. If *you* took the time to read something that wasn't centrist pablum (I suggest Bernie or Warren's policy offerings), you might have a better idea of what a genuine departure would look like - and why Bush and Biden are, in fact, very much alike in outlook and temperament.

If Bush is comfortable endorsing Biden, it means Biden is not so ideologically different from Bush deep down.

I understand why low information voters would take queues like this based on who endorses whom, but if you're actively following politics, then why wouldn't you just use your own judgment about where Biden stands ideologically, based on his own record, independent of who's endorsing him?  Or, to put it another way, why do you think Bush knows more about Biden's "true" ideology than you do?

As above, it's my judgment that Biden and Bush are ideologically fairly close. Not identical, of course, but much more alike than dissimilar. Any argument to the contrary is nonsensical misinformed hackery.

[25 Abril/Aprile Sempre!]

cp sounds like the total nemesis of General MacArthur. It would be interesting if the latter entered this thread.

[cp]

cp sounds like the total nemesis of General MacArthur. It would be interesting if the latter entered this thread.

I don't feed trolls

[Mr. Morden]

If Bush is comfortable endorsing Biden, it means Biden is not so ideologically different from Bush deep down.

I understand why low information voters would take queues like this based on who endorses whom, but if you're actively following politics, then why wouldn't you just use your own judgment about where Biden stands ideologically, based on his own record, independent of who's endorsing him?  Or, to put it another way, why do you think Bush knows more about Biden's "true" ideology than you do?

As above, it's my judgment that Biden and Bush are ideologically fairly close. Not identical, of course, but much more alike than dissimilar. Any argument to the contrary is nonsensical misinformed hackery.

That doesn't address my question above though, which is about what Bush knows about Biden's ideology that you don't already know?  I don't think he does have any special insight there.  Therefore, your opinion of Biden's ideology stands independently of what Bush thinks.

[SenatorCouzens]

Bush is too conservative to endorse Biden. He worked the phones for Kavanaugh. This would be Bush's one chance to pull out a card of this gravity. He's best not to squander credibility with the Republican base, and instead preserve it to help shape the post-Trump GOP in the (likely) event he loses re-election. Or for that matter, if Trump loses and refuses to leave it's possible Bush would have a prominent role in saying he must go.

Plus, while there's an 80% chance such an endorsement would help Biden, there's a 15-20% chance it would somehow revitalize Trump's campaign. These things have an odd way of unfolding... Biden endorsed by a war monger swamp creature etc etc. Biden is a bit of an empty vessel policy wise, and there's risk with someone with the prominence of Bush, still associated with a misguided war, giving him a stamp of approval.

[Storebought]

No, certainly not publicly, but his money and his connections should.

[Sbane]

Yes, this helps Trump massively in rust belt swing states.

Only place this helps Biden is Texas which means more wasted votes for Senile Joe. At best this flips one house seat in Texas.

At least Bush won a majority of the vote and united people, instead of dividing them. Inflaming racial tensions is a winning strategy only for so long. 

[For Trump, everything. For immigrants, the law]

No. If he wants to privately vote for Biden, fine, but I'd rather Biden didn't tout the endorsement of a truly horrible president and vile man (despite what some Democrats with amnesia might claim.) A big tent is one thing, but stretching the tent so far to pull it over W's head is going to cause it to tear open.

[TDAS04]

It probably wouldn't make any difference, and Bush probably doesn't want to get involved.

[Koharu]

I mean, if you really want to drive home that this is the up-to 2016-status-quo party, I guess?

I just don't see any benefit to it.

Bush supporters who have decided to follow Trump will turn on Bush to continue following Trump. It won't change any minds and will only make progressives more grumpy.

[Skunk]

My signature will become true as George Bush will endorse Howie Hawkins as he calls for the abolition of capitalism in a speech highlighting the importance of BIPOC and LGBTQ intersectionality.

[Wiggle Your Yummy Moist Preggers Cake Ben Shapiro]

Now that I think, maybe Texas would have been closer if this happened.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Now that I think, maybe Texas would have been closer if this happened.

Even Kerry did better than Biden in South Texas.

[Wiggle Your Yummy Moist Preggers Cake Ben Shapiro]

Now that I think, maybe Texas would have been closer if this happened.

Even Kerry did better than Biden in South Texas.

What about the rest of Texas?