Evilgrin 72
Distributor of Pain
I wish the search function worked so I could find the post I made just about the day after the '12 election where I called Rubio v. Clinton in 2016. Boy, would that be keen.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Official 2016 GOP thread: Is it really going to be Donald Trump?? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
A very quality political and electoral analyst, Sean Trende over at Real Clear Politics (who is pretty conservative politically), was pretty much predicting a Clinton win in 2016 back in March. If you read between the lines, it was like he was conceding defeat. It's not just the candidates, it's the electoral college that looks inevitable.
Evilgrin 72
Distributor of Pain
How the hell did you find that? I think there was another more detailed post in another thread, but that will do.
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
Paulymaggs
Footballguy
My Final 8 once the Primary debates begin:
Bush
Rand
Rubio
Fiorina
Cruz
Ryan
Jindal
Huck
I think Walker is going to realize his time isn't here yet.
Christie is going to realize he's totally unelectable.
I think Paul Ryan will realize that he won't have a better opportunity in 4 or 8 years than he would in 2016.
Bush
Rand
Rubio
Fiorina
Cruz
Ryan
Jindal
Huck
I think Walker is going to realize his time isn't here yet.
Christie is going to realize he's totally unelectable.
I think Paul Ryan will realize that he won't have a better opportunity in 4 or 8 years than he would in 2016.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Why do all the candidates have to appear on stage at the same time? If there are 18 candidates, just have the first three debates include six candidates a piece. Divide it in alphabetical order.
timschochet
Footballguy
That would make sense but Priebus doesn't want that. From his perspective, he thinks the candidate will be Bush, Rubio, Walker, or maybe Christie, and he needs it to be Bush or Rubio. Everybody else is just noise. Bush and Rubio, therefore, need to be in every debate.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
I think you've got this backwards, as usual. Hillary met Bill when he was a poor, broke Law student. Fiorina divorced her college sweetheart when she was a young management trainee at AT&T for an AT&T executive.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Good point, you do well to bring it up and I did not know that.
But Hillary goes to interview at Rose law firm as the wife of the state Attorney General. She could have gone to East Fayetteville Community College pre-law program and they would have hired her.
And later the scam they ran then is the scam they run now, she brought in clients doing business with the state and lobbying the governor's office, except now he is the one that takes in the dollars and she has been the one in the chair.
Last edited by a moderator:
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
Ryan isn't gonna jump in this mess. If he wanted it he'd need to have kept running after '12.
Walker is already in the front row of this clown car - why in the hell would he back out?
Christie won't realize anything - only if the $ dry up which they very well could. He's polling 3% in NH now so he could be in it and still not make the 8.
-QG
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
There would be snits about which group of 6 each was in. And if one of the groups had, say, Bush, Rubio, and Walker the others would just be considered loser groups and disregarded.
It is a heckuva problem - 8 is too damn many for a debate to really be productive, but in a situation where the "frontrunner" in New Hampshire - Bush - is polling at only 15% it's gonna be a helluva trick to not have it opened up beyond 8 of them.
Hell, juries have only 12 people
-QG
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
That's interesting. No matter how you do the math the GOP has to win somewhere in the midwest, like MI, WI, IA and obviously OH if they want to win. MI seems like the toughest.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
But Hillary isn't an East Fayetteville Community College pre-law grad. She was president of her class at Wellesley, then graduated with honors from one of the top 4 law schools in the world. She also worked on campaigns/committees for McGovern, Mondale, and Jimmy Carter, as well as serving as an advisor to the Judcisry Committee for the House during the Waterfate hearings. All before joining Rose. In sum, Hillary was a superstar that any law firm in the country would have hired at the drop of a hat.SaintsInDome2006 said:
You should really read up on this stuff if you are going to spend the next 2 years slinging mud and making wild accusations. I am not a Hillary supporter, but your posts come off as wildly uninformed when you're trying to paint Hillary an entitled housewife. Her bonafides dwarf Carla's.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
That's an easy strawman, I said from the outset that she has earned her place since leaving the WH and that she is more than qualified for the WH. All the above was known to me. I also know she was a law prof at Univ. of Arkansas. Sorry, she could have gone places on her own, she could have broken the glass ceiling, absolutely, but she didn't, she moved to Arkansas and made her way off political influence and she and her husband profited from that influence. That's just the facts, that's how it happened. She didn't stay in DC or MA, she didn't make it through the corporate world all on her lonesome, she made her way as the wife of the state AG, then governor, then president.
You likely have a point about Fiorina, I know far less about her. All I know is she was a CEO at HP. Now if she made it through the influence of men like her husband at AT&T that's worth noting, so go right ahead, I'm listening.
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
No, your posts insinuated that from 2000 on, Hillary earned her keep, but prior to that she simply road Bill's coattails, including the nonsense suggesting she got the job at Rose due to Bill being AG.
Insinuating evil motives is your gig, not mine. I have no idea if Fiorina benefitted from her husband being an executive in the company that she worked at. I just pointed it out to show how you were being inconsistent, and that your "Fiorina earned it, Hillary didn't" narrative is not only silly, but it doesn't hold up based on a reasonable reading of each candidate's bio.
Insinuating evil motives is your gig, not mine. I have no idea if Fiorina benefitted from her husband being an executive in the company that she worked at. I just pointed it out to show how you were being inconsistent, and that your "Fiorina earned it, Hillary didn't" narrative is not only silly, but it doesn't hold up based on a reasonable reading of each candidate's bio.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I agree on the first point, that is what I said, although you said more than me. The second half of that is true, it's a fact.
And I don't think it's "evil" if Hillary advanced that way, that's the way of politics in places like LA and Arkansas, it's how the game is played. I think I'm admittedly weak on knowing Fiorina's bio, I thought she had risen through the corporate ranks to become a female CEO of a major US corporation.
My original point was "Fiorina has much more bona fides on the issue of being a modern American woman btw." - Yeah, maybe that's too strong, I just meant in terms of having a career, on her own. But you're right, Hillary definitely did have a career as a modern American woman as an attorney while also being first lady of AR. As First Lady she was prohibited from doing that. I suppose I delved into a totally different point. Still even leaving out how they got there being a major corporate CEO is a much bigger deal than being a partner at a Little Rock law firm IMO. But again you're right, Hillary definitely has bona fides as a modern American woman.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I like both Hillary and Carly! I'd be happy with either one as President. Carly's quite the long shot, though.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
I was not overly impressed with Carly as CEO. Not sure why I would be impressed of her as the President.
As opposed to the current Democratic President, I suspect I would be happier with Hillary.
The only reason we are comparing the two is because they are both women and that is silly.
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm not really comparing them. When I wrote that I like Carly, it's not based on her CEO record; it's based on when I listen to her. She's a smart lady.
However, to be fair, she is the one making the comparison. She's essentially said several times now, "If you're looking for someone to break the glass ceiling, how about me?"
timschochet
Footballguy
So here is a question that Republicans should be asking themselves: which potential GOP candidate would Hillary Clinton least want to face?
IMO, the answer is Marco Rubio. Young, energetic, new. Puts Florida into play, puts some Latinos into play. Good speaker, no extremist, yet possibly able to unite all the GOP factions if conservatives will overlook his immigration position.
Bush is next because he also puts Florida into play.
Christie was probably feared more 4 years ago, probably less now, but still a potential risk because he is a colorful, good speaker and independents like him.
Walker and Kasich could unify the party but I doubt the Clintons fear them too much because neither guy can win Florida and that's the ballgame.
And everyone else- whether it's Cruz or Paul or Huckabee- Hillary would love that. She knows against one of them she wins in a landslide.
So that's how I think she sees it. Rubio the biggest fear, then Bush. Anybody disagree with this?
IMO, the answer is Marco Rubio. Young, energetic, new. Puts Florida into play, puts some Latinos into play. Good speaker, no extremist, yet possibly able to unite all the GOP factions if conservatives will overlook his immigration position.
Bush is next because he also puts Florida into play.
Christie was probably feared more 4 years ago, probably less now, but still a potential risk because he is a colorful, good speaker and independents like him.
Walker and Kasich could unify the party but I doubt the Clintons fear them too much because neither guy can win Florida and that's the ballgame.
And everyone else- whether it's Cruz or Paul or Huckabee- Hillary would love that. She knows against one of them she wins in a landslide.
So that's how I think she sees it. Rubio the biggest fear, then Bush. Anybody disagree with this?
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
And this is why you are one of my favorite posters on this board, even though I think you are a crazy conspiracy theorist - you're also level headed at times and obviousky a nice guy.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Jack White
Footballguy
How do Republicans tell all these warmongers apart?
I mean, couldn't you just pull a name out of hat?
I mean, couldn't you just pull a name out of hat?
timschochet
Footballguy
Here's a good article on the trap Hillary has set for her Republican rivals on immigration (I'm putting this article in this thread because it's really more about them than it is about her):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-clintons-immigration-speech-left-many-republican-rivals-speechless/2015/05/06/846bc592-f423-11e4-b2f3-af5479e6bbdd_story.html?hpid=z2
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s fighting words on immigration this week, designed in part to provoke Republicans into a reactionary counterattack, instead drew an unusual early response from several top-tier GOP presidential candidates: silence.
Two days after Clinton vowed to expand on President Obama’s executive actions to shield up to 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker was one of the only leading Republican 2016 contenders to strike back, calling it a “full embrace of amnesty” that is “unfair to hard-working Americans.”'
By contrast, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie did not weigh in publicly on the remarks Clinton made Tuesday at a campaign stop in Las Vegas. Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), one of Obama’s most vocal critics on immigration, waited until Wednesday evening to respond on Facebook, writing that Clinton wants to “continue and expand President Obama’s illegal amnesty” and “continue the lawlessness that is dividing our country.”
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee told MSNBC on Wednesday that Clinton was wrong, saying the country needs to focus on border security first.
The relatively subdued GOP reaction illustrated a dilemma for a Republican Party still wrestling with the hot-button issue of immigration three years after Obama routed Mitt Romney behind overwhelming support from Latinos and Asian Americans.
Although virtually all of the Republican hopefuls have denounced Obama’s executive actions, which are wildly unpopular with the GOP’s conservative base, they recognize that staking out a hard-line immigration position probably would harm their status with two of the fastest-growing subsets of the electorate. In 2012, Romney advocated “self-deportation” for illegal immigrants, earning him scorn from Latino groups.
“The waters are treacherous, which explains the muted response,” said William J. Bennett, education secretary under President Ronald Reagan and now a talk-radio host. “Not one of the campaigns, with the exception of Jeb Bush, have full clarity on where they want to go, and people are doing a lot of moving.”
Fergus Cullen, a former chairman of the Republican Party in New Hampshire, home to the first-in-the-nation primary, was even blunter, blaming his compatriots for not putting the issue of immigration reform behind them. House Republicans last summer refused to vote on a bipartisan border control bill, approved by the Senate, that included a 13-year path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
“Republicans’ intransigence has created an obvious opportunity for Hillary to rip off our arms and beat us with the bloody ends,” Cullen said. “She’s expertly exploiting our party’s internal problems.”
Last year, Obama delayed his executive actions until after the midterm elections at the behest of jittery Senate Democrats, only to see the party lose control of the chamber anyway. Now, Clinton’s enthusiastic embrace of Obama’s immigration actions so early in the election cycle has been an unequivocal sign that Democrats, once wary of an issue former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has called the “third rail of American politics,” may believe that immigration is a golden ticket to electoral-college success.
During her appearance in Las Vegas — where a growing Latino population helped power Obama to a 2012 victory in Nevada — Clinton again backed a path to citizenship and said she would potentially go further than the president to protect immigrants from deportation until Congress reforms border control laws. She goaded Republicans, saying they are supporting “second-class status” for illegal immigrants.
Her pitch to the left was so emphatic that White House aides, who had said Obama’s executive actions in November represented the limit of his legal authority, were compelled to defend him Wednesday for not going further.
“The president’s views have not changed,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said during his daily briefing when asked whether Obama believed he could do more in light of Clinton’s announcement. Asked whether her pledge to expand the deportation relief would hold up legally, Earnest added, “That’s something for a future president and future courts to decide.”
Public polling has shown split views on Obama’s immigration actions. In a Washington Post-ABC News poll in January, 41 percent said the actions should go forward and 56 percent said they should be blocked. But support among Hispanics for the president’s initiatives was 80 percent, compared with 28 percent among whites.
Other surveys have showed higher levels of overall support for allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the country and work and to eventually apply for citizenship.
That has presented difficulties for Republican contenders who have struggled to articulate a clear vision on immigration reform.
“One of the biggest challenges we’ve had with Hispanic voters is that we’re defined by what we’re against rather than what we’re for,” said Kevin Madden, a former Romney adviser. “We created a lot of problems for ourselves in 2012 when we had an immigration platform that was defined by ‘self-deportation’ and expected to win their support.”
Bush, who is the former governor of a state with a large Hispanic population and whose wife is Mexican American, has endorsed a path to legal status for the undocumented, but he has pledged to overturn Obama’s executive actions.
Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, helped negotiate the Senate’s immigration bill last year but backed away after House conservatives killed it. And Walker has said his views on immigration have changed since he previously voiced support for a citizenship plan.
In a statement, Walker said Wednesday that Clinton’s position “is unfair to hardworking Americans and all immigrants who followed the law to achieve the rights and privileges afforded to U.S. citizens. And by supporting the president’s lawless executive action, Hillary Clinton once again believes she’s above the law.”
Immigration advocates have delighted in Clinton’s proactive move, noting that it was perhaps most vexing for Bush, who has sought to position himself as slightly more moderate among the GOP field on immigration.
“He has been going on two years of going back and forth on the question of citizenship: What’s doable? What’s viable in his party?” said Marshall Fitz, vice president of immigration policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. “But he hasn’t formally stuck to his guns on what is the right thing to do, and she called him out on it.”
Republican political strategists, trying to look for an upside, suggested that as Clinton shifts to the left, her candidacy risks seeming emblematic of a third Obama term.
“She’s boxing them in a little, but she’s also linking herself more significantly to Obama,” said Ed Rollins, a veteran Republican consultant. “If his approval ratings are above 50 percent next year, it’s smart. If they’re below 50 percent, she won’t do well.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-clintons-immigration-speech-left-many-republican-rivals-speechless/2015/05/06/846bc592-f423-11e4-b2f3-af5479e6bbdd_story.html?hpid=z2
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s fighting words on immigration this week, designed in part to provoke Republicans into a reactionary counterattack, instead drew an unusual early response from several top-tier GOP presidential candidates: silence.
Two days after Clinton vowed to expand on President Obama’s executive actions to shield up to 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker was one of the only leading Republican 2016 contenders to strike back, calling it a “full embrace of amnesty” that is “unfair to hard-working Americans.”'
By contrast, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie did not weigh in publicly on the remarks Clinton made Tuesday at a campaign stop in Las Vegas. Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), one of Obama’s most vocal critics on immigration, waited until Wednesday evening to respond on Facebook, writing that Clinton wants to “continue and expand President Obama’s illegal amnesty” and “continue the lawlessness that is dividing our country.”
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee told MSNBC on Wednesday that Clinton was wrong, saying the country needs to focus on border security first.
The relatively subdued GOP reaction illustrated a dilemma for a Republican Party still wrestling with the hot-button issue of immigration three years after Obama routed Mitt Romney behind overwhelming support from Latinos and Asian Americans.
Although virtually all of the Republican hopefuls have denounced Obama’s executive actions, which are wildly unpopular with the GOP’s conservative base, they recognize that staking out a hard-line immigration position probably would harm their status with two of the fastest-growing subsets of the electorate. In 2012, Romney advocated “self-deportation” for illegal immigrants, earning him scorn from Latino groups.
“The waters are treacherous, which explains the muted response,” said William J. Bennett, education secretary under President Ronald Reagan and now a talk-radio host. “Not one of the campaigns, with the exception of Jeb Bush, have full clarity on where they want to go, and people are doing a lot of moving.”
Fergus Cullen, a former chairman of the Republican Party in New Hampshire, home to the first-in-the-nation primary, was even blunter, blaming his compatriots for not putting the issue of immigration reform behind them. House Republicans last summer refused to vote on a bipartisan border control bill, approved by the Senate, that included a 13-year path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
“Republicans’ intransigence has created an obvious opportunity for Hillary to rip off our arms and beat us with the bloody ends,” Cullen said. “She’s expertly exploiting our party’s internal problems.”
Last year, Obama delayed his executive actions until after the midterm elections at the behest of jittery Senate Democrats, only to see the party lose control of the chamber anyway. Now, Clinton’s enthusiastic embrace of Obama’s immigration actions so early in the election cycle has been an unequivocal sign that Democrats, once wary of an issue former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has called the “third rail of American politics,” may believe that immigration is a golden ticket to electoral-college success.
During her appearance in Las Vegas — where a growing Latino population helped power Obama to a 2012 victory in Nevada — Clinton again backed a path to citizenship and said she would potentially go further than the president to protect immigrants from deportation until Congress reforms border control laws. She goaded Republicans, saying they are supporting “second-class status” for illegal immigrants.
Her pitch to the left was so emphatic that White House aides, who had said Obama’s executive actions in November represented the limit of his legal authority, were compelled to defend him Wednesday for not going further.
“The president’s views have not changed,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said during his daily briefing when asked whether Obama believed he could do more in light of Clinton’s announcement. Asked whether her pledge to expand the deportation relief would hold up legally, Earnest added, “That’s something for a future president and future courts to decide.”
Public polling has shown split views on Obama’s immigration actions. In a Washington Post-ABC News poll in January, 41 percent said the actions should go forward and 56 percent said they should be blocked. But support among Hispanics for the president’s initiatives was 80 percent, compared with 28 percent among whites.
Other surveys have showed higher levels of overall support for allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the country and work and to eventually apply for citizenship.
That has presented difficulties for Republican contenders who have struggled to articulate a clear vision on immigration reform.
“One of the biggest challenges we’ve had with Hispanic voters is that we’re defined by what we’re against rather than what we’re for,” said Kevin Madden, a former Romney adviser. “We created a lot of problems for ourselves in 2012 when we had an immigration platform that was defined by ‘self-deportation’ and expected to win their support.”
Bush, who is the former governor of a state with a large Hispanic population and whose wife is Mexican American, has endorsed a path to legal status for the undocumented, but he has pledged to overturn Obama’s executive actions.
Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, helped negotiate the Senate’s immigration bill last year but backed away after House conservatives killed it. And Walker has said his views on immigration have changed since he previously voiced support for a citizenship plan.
In a statement, Walker said Wednesday that Clinton’s position “is unfair to hardworking Americans and all immigrants who followed the law to achieve the rights and privileges afforded to U.S. citizens. And by supporting the president’s lawless executive action, Hillary Clinton once again believes she’s above the law.”
Immigration advocates have delighted in Clinton’s proactive move, noting that it was perhaps most vexing for Bush, who has sought to position himself as slightly more moderate among the GOP field on immigration.
“He has been going on two years of going back and forth on the question of citizenship: What’s doable? What’s viable in his party?” said Marshall Fitz, vice president of immigration policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. “But he hasn’t formally stuck to his guns on what is the right thing to do, and she called him out on it.”
Republican political strategists, trying to look for an upside, suggested that as Clinton shifts to the left, her candidacy risks seeming emblematic of a third Obama term.
“She’s boxing them in a little, but she’s also linking herself more significantly to Obama,” said Ed Rollins, a veteran Republican consultant. “If his approval ratings are above 50 percent next year, it’s smart. If they’re below 50 percent, she won’t do well.”
Jack White
Footballguy
Chadstroma
Footballguy
Yea, be a shame to have someone proven right in so many ways since your guy took over advising you. Much rather have another 'reset'.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/10/exclusive-jeb-bush-says-hillary-clinton-would-have-backed-iraq-invasion/
Former Florida GOP Gov. Jeb Bush says that he would have authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq but acknowledges that mistakes were made after Saddam Hussein had been removed from power, in an exclusive interview with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly.
“I would have [authorized the invasion], and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody. And so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got,” Bush told Kelly in a wide-ranging interview that will be aired Monday night.
Former Florida GOP Gov. Jeb Bush says that he would have authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq but acknowledges that mistakes were made after Saddam Hussein had been removed from power, in an exclusive interview with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly.
“I would have [authorized the invasion], and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody. And so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got,” Bush told Kelly in a wide-ranging interview that will be aired Monday night.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Actually the most disturbing thing I heard this past week was that Rubio wants Ukraine in Nato.
I think his point on Hillary is a legit one, and she will continue to twist on it, but Jeb once again is the last guy on earth to be raising it.
timschochet
Footballguy
OK, first off, I don't think he understood the question, because Megyn Kelly started off with the caveat "Knowing what we know now". And in Jeb's answer, he said so would Hillary Clinton, and "so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got", which indicates that Jeb thought she meant knowing what they knew THEN. Hillary Clinton has stated several times that she would not have voted for the invasion of Iraq if she had had accurate intelligence. So let's chalk this answer up to a misunderstanding.
But that being said, it's a big mistake for Bush to even answer the question. I don't know how he avoids it, but connecting himself in any way to Iraq and his brother's decisions there cannot be good for his candidacy.
But that being said, it's a big mistake for Bush to even answer the question. I don't know how he avoids it, but connecting himself in any way to Iraq and his brother's decisions there cannot be good for his candidacy.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
The far more interesting question is whether Jeb agrees in hindsight the decision to invade Iraq was correct.
timschochet
Footballguy
Yeah this is the 2nd or 3rd time now when I found myself shaking my head from a Rubio foreign policy comment.
The first time was during his questioning of Kerry over the Iran negotiations. It's perfectly fine to criticize those negotiations, but Rubio seemed confused about what side Iran was on vs. ISIS. Several times he seemed to imply that Iran was supporting ISIS (when in fact they are very much opposed to each other.)
The second time was in his comments about Cuba, and Obama's plans to normalize relations. I know this is an issue close to Rubio's heart, but his cold war rhetoric seemed very dated to me, and almost paranoid.
And now the comment about Ukraine. Rubio is supposed to be one of the "establishment" candidates, but he is hitting hard line, extreme notes on foreign policy.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I agree. I shake my head at this stuff, I dread a general election with Jeb debating Hillary on this issue. Just for our country's sake. IMO Jeb is conflicted on this issue 1000x ways.
Last edited by a moderator:
CBusAlex
Footballguy
There are a lot of people out there who still think that the invasion was a good idea, even in hindsight, and Jeb is probably the candidate who can least afford to alienate them. Sidestepping that question to take on the much more defensible position of whether it was a good idea given the information at the time is probably a wise move for him, if he can manage to keep it up all through the primaries.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
Poke_4_Life
Footballguy
I find the diversity in the field appealing. We have a latino senator, a Bush, an african-american doctor, a female CEO, a bass playing former governor, and even a governor that triumphed over weight-loss surgery (still fat!)...
If we could get a midget and a war hero to join, along with the billionaire and his hair then the GOP may cover all the minorities before Iowa.
If we could get a midget and a war hero to join, along with the billionaire and his hair then the GOP may cover all the minorities before Iowa.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Yeah I saw that, subtle and funny. Also really sad and true.Awesome.
I wonder when she shows up.
squistion
Footballguy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/13/jeb-bush-iraq_n_7278442.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
Jeb Bush: Asking Me 'Hypothetical' Questions About Iraq Does A 'Disservice' To The Troops
WASHINGTON -- Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush ® has found himself ensnared in his brother's legacy this week, facing questions over whether he would have sent the country to war with Iraq. On Wednesday, Bush argued that he shouldn't even be asked such "hypothetical" questions because they were insulting to... American service members.
On Monday, Fox News aired an interview between Bush and host Megyn Kelly, in which she asked him whether he would have invaded Iraq in 2003, "[k]nowing what we know now" about the inaccurate weapons of mass destruction claims. Bush said he would have authorized the war, just like his brother did.
After several prominent conservatives criticized Bush's answer, the likely GOP presidential candidate said Tuesday that he "interpreted the question wrong."
"I don't know what that decision would have been -- that's a hypothetical," he added. "Simple fact is, mistakes were made."
It's unlikely that this issue is going away anytime soon. Indeed, while on the campaign trail in Reno, Nevada, Wednesday, voters continued to press Bush on national security. According to ABC News, Bush then said that questioning him about what he would have done on Iraq was essentially unpatriotic:
"If were going to get into hypotheticals I think it does a disservice for a lot of people that sacrificed a lot," Bush said after explaining that as governor of Florida he called the family members of service men and women who lost their lives in the war.
He added: "Going back in time and talking about hypotheticals -- what would have happened, what could have happened -- I think, does a disservice for them. What we ought to be focusing on is what are the lessons learned."
The invasion of Iraq is widely regarded to be among one of the worst foreign-policy decisions made by any president and has altered the trajectory of Middle East history in ways that continue to reverberate on a daily basis. In the violence that followed, thousands of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of people in the region, have died or had their lives upended.
During the presidency of Bush's brother, it was common for Iraq War critics to be branded as anti-military or undermining the troops. Republicans labeled calls for withdrawal as a desire to "cut and run" and a "surrender to our enemy." The Democratic Party responded by recruiting a host of veterans to run for Congress
Jeb Bush: Asking Me 'Hypothetical' Questions About Iraq Does A 'Disservice' To The Troops
WASHINGTON -- Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush ® has found himself ensnared in his brother's legacy this week, facing questions over whether he would have sent the country to war with Iraq. On Wednesday, Bush argued that he shouldn't even be asked such "hypothetical" questions because they were insulting to... American service members.
On Monday, Fox News aired an interview between Bush and host Megyn Kelly, in which she asked him whether he would have invaded Iraq in 2003, "[k]nowing what we know now" about the inaccurate weapons of mass destruction claims. Bush said he would have authorized the war, just like his brother did.
After several prominent conservatives criticized Bush's answer, the likely GOP presidential candidate said Tuesday that he "interpreted the question wrong."
"I don't know what that decision would have been -- that's a hypothetical," he added. "Simple fact is, mistakes were made."
It's unlikely that this issue is going away anytime soon. Indeed, while on the campaign trail in Reno, Nevada, Wednesday, voters continued to press Bush on national security. According to ABC News, Bush then said that questioning him about what he would have done on Iraq was essentially unpatriotic:
"If were going to get into hypotheticals I think it does a disservice for a lot of people that sacrificed a lot," Bush said after explaining that as governor of Florida he called the family members of service men and women who lost their lives in the war.
He added: "Going back in time and talking about hypotheticals -- what would have happened, what could have happened -- I think, does a disservice for them. What we ought to be focusing on is what are the lessons learned."
The invasion of Iraq is widely regarded to be among one of the worst foreign-policy decisions made by any president and has altered the trajectory of Middle East history in ways that continue to reverberate on a daily basis. In the violence that followed, thousands of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of people in the region, have died or had their lives upended.
During the presidency of Bush's brother, it was common for Iraq War critics to be branded as anti-military or undermining the troops. Republicans labeled calls for withdrawal as a desire to "cut and run" and a "surrender to our enemy." The Democratic Party responded by recruiting a host of veterans to run for Congress
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I'm not going to not give Bush points for actually taking questions, I think candidates must do that and should, and we could only imagine, because we must, what Hillary would sound like did she have the courage to face a similar setting and the same set of questions. She doesn't and she won't.
However. Getting past that - his leaping around the subject is pathetic. Sorry, one Bush one Iraq war, two Bush another Iraq war, what should we expect from a third Bush? And then this response?
It's just a horrible response on so many levels.
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
You're really showing your bias with the whining about Hillary not holding pressers 18 months before an election.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/13/college-student-to-jeb-bush-your-brother-created-isis/
College Student to Jeb Bush: "Your Brother Created ISIS"
RENO, Nev. "Your brother created ISIS," the young woman told Jeb Bush. And with that, Ivy Ziedrich, a 19-year-old college student, created the kind of confrontational moment here on Wednesday morning that presidential candidates dread.
Mr. Bush, the former governor of Florida, had just concluded a town-hall-style meeting when Ms. Ziedrich demanded to be heard. "Governor Bush," she shouted as audience members asked him for his autograph. "Would you take a student question?"
Mr. Bush whirled around and looked at Ms. Ziedrich, who identified herself as a political science major and a college Democrat at the University of Nevada.
She had heard Mr. Bush argue, a few moments before, that Americas retreat from the Middle East under President Obama had contributed to the growing power of the Islamic State. She told the former governor that he was wrong, and made the case that blame lay with the decision by the administration of his brother George W. Bush to disband the Iraqi Army.
"It was when 30,000 individuals who were part of the Iraqi military were forced out they had no employment, they had no income, and they were left with access to all of the same arms and weapons," Ms. Ziedrich said.
She added: "Your brother created ISIS."
Mr. Bush interjected. "All right. Is that a question?"
Ms. Ziedrich was not finished. "You dont need to be pedantic to me, sir."
"Pedantic? Wow," Mr. Bush replied.
Then Ms. Ziedrich asked: "Why are you saying that ISIS was created by us not having a presence in the Middle East when its pointless wars where we send young American men to die for the idea of American exceptionalism? Why are you spouting nationalist rhetoric to get us involved in more wars?"
Mr. Bush replied: "We respectfully disagree. We have a disagreement. When we left Iraq, security had been arranged, Al Qaeda had been taken out. There was a fragile system that could have been brought up to eliminate the sectarian violence."
He added: "And we had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress. The result was the opposite occurred. Immediately, that void was filled."
He concluded: "Look, you can rewrite history all you want. But the simple fact is that we are in a much more unstable place because American pulled back."
Mr. Bush turned away. The conversation was over.
College Student to Jeb Bush: "Your Brother Created ISIS"
RENO, Nev. "Your brother created ISIS," the young woman told Jeb Bush. And with that, Ivy Ziedrich, a 19-year-old college student, created the kind of confrontational moment here on Wednesday morning that presidential candidates dread.
Mr. Bush, the former governor of Florida, had just concluded a town-hall-style meeting when Ms. Ziedrich demanded to be heard. "Governor Bush," she shouted as audience members asked him for his autograph. "Would you take a student question?"
Mr. Bush whirled around and looked at Ms. Ziedrich, who identified herself as a political science major and a college Democrat at the University of Nevada.
She had heard Mr. Bush argue, a few moments before, that Americas retreat from the Middle East under President Obama had contributed to the growing power of the Islamic State. She told the former governor that he was wrong, and made the case that blame lay with the decision by the administration of his brother George W. Bush to disband the Iraqi Army.
"It was when 30,000 individuals who were part of the Iraqi military were forced out they had no employment, they had no income, and they were left with access to all of the same arms and weapons," Ms. Ziedrich said.
She added: "Your brother created ISIS."
Mr. Bush interjected. "All right. Is that a question?"
Ms. Ziedrich was not finished. "You dont need to be pedantic to me, sir."
"Pedantic? Wow," Mr. Bush replied.
Then Ms. Ziedrich asked: "Why are you saying that ISIS was created by us not having a presence in the Middle East when its pointless wars where we send young American men to die for the idea of American exceptionalism? Why are you spouting nationalist rhetoric to get us involved in more wars?"
Mr. Bush replied: "We respectfully disagree. We have a disagreement. When we left Iraq, security had been arranged, Al Qaeda had been taken out. There was a fragile system that could have been brought up to eliminate the sectarian violence."
He added: "And we had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress. The result was the opposite occurred. Immediately, that void was filled."
He concluded: "Look, you can rewrite history all you want. But the simple fact is that we are in a much more unstable place because American pulled back."
Mr. Bush turned away. The conversation was over.
Similar threads
