Wow, Jeb Bush Is Awful by Gail Collins | nytimes.com | May 14, 2015 Excerpts: "Let's discuss Jeb Bush's terrible week. I'm really troubled by his awful performances, and I'm generally a person who takes bad news about politicians pretty well. For instance, a friend just sent me a story about the Texas agriculture commissioner's vow to bring deep-fried foods back to school cafeterias. ("It's not about French fries; it's about freedom.") I would classify this as interesting, yet somehow not a shocking surprise. But today we're talking about Jeb Bush. As a presidential hopeful, Bush's most attractive feature was an aura of competence. An apparent ability to get through the day without demonstrating truly scary ineptitude." Then, about a week ago, The Washington Post reported that during a private meeting with rich Manhattan financiers, Bush announced that his most influential adviser on Middle Eastern matters was his brother George. Also, he had begun his all-but-announced campaign for the presidency with an "I'm my own man" sales pitch. Now he was saying, in effect, "Well, I can always ask my brother." Then, on Monday, Fox News aired an interview in which host Megyn Kelly asked Jeb whether "knowing what we know now" he would have authorized the invasion of Iraq. "I would have, and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody," Bush replied." ...... "Now no one, including Hillary Clinton's worst enemy in the entire world, thinks that if she could go back in time to 2002, knowing that the invasion of Iraq was going to be a total disaster and that she would lose the presidential nomination in 2008 to a guy who ran on that very issue, she would still have voted to authorize the use of force. So, obviously, Bush misheard the question, right? Apparently not. He then went on: "I mean, so just for the news flash to the world if they're trying to find places where there's big space between me and my brother, this might not be one of those." We had now learned that: 1)Jeb Bush still thinks invading Iraq was a good idea; and 2)he has inherited more of the family syntax issues than we knew. Fast-forward one day: "I interpreted the question wrong, I guess," Bush told Sean Hannity in a radio interview. "I was talking about given what people knew then, would you have done it, rather than knowing what we know now. And knowing what we know now, you know, clearly there were mistakes." He still didn't claim that he"d have done anything different than his brother had done. ("That's a hypothetical.") Then Bush was off to Nevada, campaigning in his own special way. ("I'm running for president in 2016, and the focus is going to be about how we, if I run, how do you create high sustained economic growth.") read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/o...531&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=MAYAUDDEV&_r=0 ..... IMO: Gail Collins is the greatest satirist living in an otherwise non-satirist age. Her clever repartee' puts the lid on everything she discusses, and in the funniest way. When Jeb speaks of hypotheticals, Collins has her rebuttal: "If the version of Jeb Bush we've been seeing lately is the one we're going to be stuck with, then one of the other Republican contenders is going to win. Maybe the guy who thinks Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery. Or the guy who once linked vaccines to children with mental disorders. The guy who used to peddle a "Diabetes Solution Kit." The guy with the bridge traffic jam! Right now, you know, it's all hypothetical." Talking eloquently on the Jeb Bush progress so far, she says: "The bottom line is that so far he seems to be a terrible candidate. He couldn't keep his "I'm-my-own-man" mantra going through the spring. He over-babbled at a private gathering. He didn't know how to answer the Iraq question, which should have been the first thing he tackled on the first day he ever considered that he might someday think for even a minute about running for president." It feels so good to be able to laugh about the goonery of Jeb Bush, otherwise he would be frightfully embarrassing to many people...who are not even republicans.
To be honest there isn't a good presidential candidate in either party at the moment. This election is shaping up or looking like one will have to once again vote for the least worst candidate. What is it with the two major parties that none of them can at least offer a decent presidential candidate. I suppose when they have a monopoly on our political system, one must expect them to behave and perform and act just like the monopoly they are.
If Jeb Bush is "awful" Hillary Clinton is hideous. Everything in that article pales in comparison to Hillary's deeds. No wonder she refuses to talk about it.
So true. The left wing media will bash whoever the leading republican is while ignoring Hillary's refusal to even speak to the press. But both parties do a lousy job of producing people who can actually run the country. This is the result of having a political ruling class of career politicians.
A political ruling class of career politicians, yep, that explains it. It was envisioned by the founding fathers that a man would leave his job and go to Washington to represent the people for a term or two and then return home to his daily life. Career politicians is a vice, evil even that they did not foresee.
If I had to chose one republican out of them all it'd probably be rand paul, simply because he's walked the walk rather then just talking the talk about real freedom, but I still think he doesn't quite have his head on straight. As someone who mostly votes blue, I really hope Hilary isn't the only democrat. We're not going to just bring back the 90s, as the 90s prosperity had little to do with Clinton and more to do with Intel, Apple, and Microsoft. Not only that but shed probably just recycle the same ideas. Some worked, some didn't.
You're right, some ideas work and some don't. The economy is like the weather, it is going to have it ups and downs and nothing man or government does can control it. As a third party guy, I don't know if I like any of the candidates much. Jim Webb has piqued my interest some on the Democratic side, John Kasich on the Republican one. But in reality I do not give either much of a chance.
Hillary Clinton would be the worse person we could elect to the Presidency. Democrats need to find a moderate candidate or they will lose the election. And, if you want an ever more Socialist/leaning Communist President vote for Big Mouth Sanders; he IMO is a Joke. A multi-millionaire speaking out against the 10% a group he belongs to. A career Politician that has been a member of Congress far too long.
Jeb Bush is equally as awful as any of the people you mentioned. Specifically, Jeb Bush is equally as awful as Hillary. I will not vote for Jeb Bush "no matter what". And I will not vote for Hillary "no matter what". If the two parties give us another Bush vs Clinton election, I predict two things: 1. a very low voter turnout, and 2. the largest ever combined vote for third parties In fact, if there is another Ross Perot out there, this would probably be the perfect time to run.
Jeb Bush not as awful as Hillary Clinton, a liar and crook. She travels the Country with that fake smile on her face while she blatantly lies. She claims to be for women's rights. Really? She pays her female staff less, she stayed with a cheating husband for her own personal gain. She thinks she was "poor", really, she has no clue what the average woman is subjected to. She is the biggest hypocrite IMO. Even my Democrat women friends say they refuse to vote for her. Only the stupid, uninformed voters that fall for her big talk and smiles will vote for her. It is up to the rest of us to try to inform these voters of her reality. It won't be easy, but we need to try. If the Democrats put up a moderate Candidate I would consider them for the Presidency. But, no more far left progressives and for that matter no more far right conservatives.
Why are the Democrats so obsessed with Jeb Bush when they know that not even Republican voters like him? And... He's not even officially running.
We need to invade Iran so we need a Bush in office to do it. They are the only ones with the balls to take a stand.
They are about to become a hegemon in the region with control over a huge part of the worlds oil supply. That is a risk to our national security.
Yes, I know. Bush the Idiot installed the Shi'a (meaning the Iranians) in Iraq too. Now the Sunnis are fighting to get it back. However the Saudis don't much like the Iranians and I suggest we kick back and let those two fight it out. We should be focusing on technology, not wars. Horsepucky.
Yeah but more often than not (since we're using the weather as an analogy) republicans are the type of people (already neoconservatives) who will refuse to fix or replace a faulty dam, justifying it by saying it's okay because the ground will eventually absorb the water and the sun will evaporate it if we leave it alone. Doesn't matter there's a whole city wiped out.
I get your point, but also remember we had a 800 billion dollar stimulus designed to stimulate the economy that went to states and cities for a whole lot of infrastructure repair that ended up being spent by cities and states on other things such as balancing budgets and other programs. Somewhere along the line government and I refer to both parties when I say government. They need to prioritize a laundry list of things. Everything in both domestic and foreign arenas and cut what is not needed or can be delayed and concentrate on what needs to be done now. But in the polarized Washington, that will never happen. It is my opinion our elected officials are too busy being Republicans and Democrats instead of Americans where as they should be Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats. I have no solutions to this problem.
I mean I've got a solution but it's not legal. Lock them in a small room and tell them they can't come out until they've done their jobs and fixed the problems. If they attempt to leave shoot them. No food. No water. No medicine. No bathroom breaks. No windows. But you know that's reallllllllly illegal currently so you're right there's no solution.
Or they'd all perish from lack of water or getting shot trying to escape or from not taking their pills. Which would allow us to get a fresh crop in...... ah. I see what you did there.
It didn't work very well because it was spread too thin instead of concentrating it into only one or two things. It was a good idea with a bad plan. It should have just been concentrated fully into transportation or things with immediate impact. Dumping it into clean energy wasn't smart because there wasn't enough money to actually create full self sustaining operations, most of those things are still incomplete, meaning they're not really making much impact economically.
And I've noticed when that hideous, nasty Hillary doesn't want to answer the question, her response is, "I'll let the voters decide." It's her mantra.
Man if only. I like democrats and republicans even though I lean more left but I HATE both parties currently.