Jeb Bush For President?

[Silcc69]

Come On Ben...Why float shit like this? We're Bushed out. Jeb's a decent guy but politics is about timing and it's not his time. He's moved closer to the center, and the party's moved fiscally right. That's not a marriage made in heaven. Jeb's from the David Frum, David Brooks wing of the party......mushy moderates. They liked to be liked by the enemy at the expense of the base. You want to send Obama back in a landslide....put another Bush on the ballot. You all underestimate Romney. He's no Bob Dole....mark my words. If he puts Christie or Rubio on the ticket and promises Ron Paul a position such as Treasury Secretary...Barry's in for the fight of his charmed life.
And as for Stanley Greenberg....a fairly accurate pollster, but the operative word..."Democrat". He is right about Mitch Daniels. He gets America from the top to the bottom, and understands you can't piss off the base, but he had his shot at the title, and forfeited.

So is that who YOU want to win the nominee then?

[Faldur]

Another vote, "stay out da bushes!"

[onmyknees]

So is that who YOU want to win the nominee then?

No...Mitch Daniels is too subdued.....the media driven culture we live in now needs 30 second sound bites for the evening news....You're not going to get that from him. Mitch Daniels is slow, steady profoundly competent and gounded. Do I think he would make a good President....absolutely But People like flash, song and dance and snappy oratory...but not much on substance. That's just the way it is.

My choices would have been..

1. Paul Ryan
2. Marco Rubio
3. Christie

[BluegrassCat]

Romney will lock it up eventually. Then it's 1996 all over again.

[Gouki]

Romney and Obama = Goldman Sachs Lackeys

[buttslinger]

This has already been a great election year and it's only march.

[onmyknees]

Romney will lock it up eventually. Then it's 1996 all over again.

I'll mark that down. Hopefully your streak of being incorrect will continue at least until November. If by chance you're right, then it will be more like 1984 (as in George. Orwell) rather than 1996. lol

[Stavros]

An intriguing external factor is emerging -the Sunday Telegraph is saying that Netanyahu, when he meets the President this week, will deliver an 'ultimatum' to Obama over Iran, in effect insisting that the USA support an Israeli attack on Iran's developing nuclear facilities. Even by the warped standards of Israeli diplomacy, the 'ultimatum' sounds like the demands of a playground bully. The intriguing element is the timing -suppose there is no clear agreement between Obama and Netanyahu and the latter decides to attack Iran in October...what does Obama do? We cannot know if the attack would be successful, if there would be retaliation from Hezbollah in Lebanon, and so on. It looks like Ahmadinejad's favourites have lost out to Conservatives in the legislative elections in Iran but I doubt this will impact on nuclearisation.

Setting aside the strategic stupidity of an attack (Iran will merely re-build its facilities); we do know Netanyahu hates Obama and wants him to be a one-term President so that another tame Republican in the White House will be more obedient to Israel and its fanatical government; could this become a defining issue for the election, rather than the 'economy, stupid'?

[hippifried]

A public Israeli "ultimatum" would give President Obama impunity to shoot down any planes that violate airspace that we control or protect.

[giovanni_hotel]

Christie is just too damn fat to be elected POTUS, and he doesn't have enough juice to get Romney over the top.

No one likes an angry fat guy.

ANd if it's perceived that Netanyahu launched an October surprise attack against Iran in part to insure BHO's defeat, long term it could fracture the US/Israeli alliance.

Since when does Israel publicly dictate U.S. foreign policy to its one and only benefactor??
I don't think most Americans would look too kindly at Israel dragging us into another regional war in the ME.