Redstate

Unfortunately, I don't think we could even get Reggie Bush elected President in 2008. With a Bush of one name or another having been in the White House 12 of the last 20 years, I don't see another being elected, not right away at least.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Jeb needs a gap. But, on the other hand, the issue will be raised whenever he runs. Surely the best time for him is when his opponent is called Clinton.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

country is pretty much Bushed out.

Jeb could probably win a senate seat, but I just don't see people getting behind another Bush at this point.

But just imagine if one 41's of grandkids married Chelsea

Thanks to the Terri Schindler-Schiavo controversy, Jeb's national aspirations are dead on arrival. "Moderate" (read: liberal) Republicans will only remember how he tried to "interfere" in her death, and true pro-lifers will only remember that he had the power to save her and refused to do so. And then they'll remember that he campaigned hard this year to re-elect the liberal Republican state Senator who was almost single-handedly responsible for stopping the legislation that could have saved Terri's life.

I was there. And I can tell you this, as a truly conservative pro-lifer: I would NEVER support Jeb Bush for ANYTHING. Ever. And I will do everything in my power to make sure he's stopped if he tries to run for office, I don't care if it's dogcatcher.

with No Script? You need to allow Blogsforbush.com (I had the same thought)

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

I type fast. Doesn't take as much time as it might look, heh.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

I only listed two as acceptable. Hey, they didn't have Ben Stein listed, after all :-)

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Mine were Gingrich, Romney (first choice), and Thompson.

I wish that were Fred Thompson by the way. If he could speak as well on the stump and in debates as he does on television, then he'd do great I bet.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

Until I get a crystal clear explanation of the quotes Leon put on the front page today, Romney's off my list, too.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

of the Republican Party. I have no doubt that there are So Cons going "SAY WHAT" over this.

Until she runs for office, and we find out what her positions on issues are, a poll with her on it asks voters to make an uninformed choice.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

are worth warm spit.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

I believe the politically correct term is "babes," not "chicks." Get with the times, man! :-)

My first choice is Giuliani, followed by Gingrich...and that's about it for now. Romney was right up there, but I've been growing more uncertain about him lately.

Just curious....

What's made you grow wary of Mitt Romney lately?

because he seems wishy-washy on some issues (i.e. abortion, gay rights, Reaganism, etc). To be completely honest, I do have libertarian leanings (I favor civil unions for homosexual couples, legalisation of marijuana, etc), so it isn't necessarily that I disagree with Romney on the issues (or maybe I do?) - it's more that I don't really know where he stands because his past pronouncements are inconsistent with his current rhetoric. If he is able to answer those questions frankly and we are to get an accurate assessment of his actual beliefs, then I will feel more comfortable with him as a potential candidate. Right now, however, he's all over the map.

First, Romney is still an unknown. From what I've seen of him, I think he'll appeal to people quite a bit as they become familiar with him. He's a sharp, confident, well-spoken, attractive guy who probably has a Q-factor through the roof.

He hasn't gone anywhere yet without making a positive impression. He's Obama without the media hype and with an actual set of ideas and positions.

Second, I don't look at Gingrich as a plausible candidate in terms of winning the nomination. But I love the thought of him being in the race and may well donate to him. He's an ideas guy first and foremost -- probably the best one the Republicans have.

I think electability will take care of itself, personally. I'll likely support whoever the Republican candidate turns out to be. But I'd never vote for somebody in a primary simply because I think they have the best chance to win the general. That's how the Dems ended up with the stiff Kerry.

For me, I'm really intrigued by the candidacies of Romney and Giuliani. And I like both of their chances in a general election against HRC or Obama.

In 1976 Reagan lost the primary on the same perceived inelectability, too. Oops.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

He said in 1980 he was desperately hoping Reagan would win the GOP nomination because he was plainly unelectable. Since then he has decided to ignore Republican primaries.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

And, if you think Cary culd beet anybudy, ur just stooped.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?