Yes, Bill Clinton made everything all hunky dory all by his lonesome, but not really. Hillary is tied to the same influence peddlers and elites that her husband, and the Bush's are connected too. Don't you want better than that, or are you willing to settle for the same hollow victory you settled for with Obama? Or his Hillary and all her Goldman Sachs money fine with you? I'm going to take a wild guess and assume you're a liberal or whatever you people are calling yourselves these days, don't you want a real liberal representing you in the Whitehouse? What about people like Dennis Kuncinich, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or Ralph Nader who got stabbed in the back by limousine liberal turds like Michael Moore and Bill Mahr, just so they could try and elect the other limousine liberal John Kerry. I may oppose about 90% of what these guys stand for, but I can still respect them.
We already had two Co-Presidents named Clinton! They set us up for the economic collapse and 9-11! We don't need more of that by the Clintons!
Hmmmm the Bush family has been horrible for this country why on earth anyone would support another term for any of them is beyond me. My point was to ask the question what if anything did Bush JR do well for this country, that would warrant giving another family member the whitehouse again. Smartmouth couldnt even come up with an answer. By your post niether could you.
More repetition of tired outdated talking points. If this country had strictly adhered to the constitution the U.S. would end at the Mississippi River and there would be no interstate highways, parks or airports and our GDP would be less than half of what it is now.
Led up to the economic collapse then 9-11? Clinton did was sign the repeal of Glass-Stegall and NAFTA. Those were two nails in the coffin of the U.S. economy. Those were two huge blows to the economy but Bush allowed Wall Street to run wild and without oversight. Greenspan kept interest rates low because he screwed up the economy when he kept raising interest rates leading up to the 2000 elections so that economy would tank and Bush made the race close enough so he could steal it in FL. Of course the low interest rates led to the housing bubble and all of those bad loans and worthless stock bundles.
If we had two Clintons because of, as you say Co-Presidents, then we have had FOUR Bushes. So bring on two more Clintons.
There was only two Bush Presidents. Their wives performed their roles well, and they did not ever try to be Co-Presidents. We can not say that about The Hildebeast.
Maybe WE cannot say that, but I sure can....Hillary has and will put both Mrs. Bushes AND their husbands to shame. She already has as first lady, and will soon as the first U.S. woman president ever.
Bill Clinton ended his tenure with a 66% approval level (Poppy Bush with 56% and Junior with 34%) so you attack his wife - a typical lowlife tactic.
lol, I find this line of reasoning the funniest. A Bush can never run again because of G.W. I really hope Americans aren't so shallow-minded and simplistic. But hey, maybe Obama's kids will never be able to run for office. 37% approval, 55% disapproval. http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=13419
Maybe Jeb will become "flavor" of the month. I don't think America could survive another Bush for 4 years.
Well W would never even sniffed the Republican nomination much less gotten close enough to steal the election if he wasn't HW's son. But Jeb has other liabilities such as his push for immigration and the fact that he's been out of office so long. If no immigration bill is passed before Obama leaves office and Jeb decides to run Jeb's primary opponents will certainly use his pro-amnesty stance against him.
Yes, Jeb potentially has issues in the primary, but he has a better shot than Christie in the general election. W drew a lot of name recognition from H.W., but it's not like H.W. had a lot of popularity to lend him. H.W. was not a particularly popular President, except maybe in the military-type crowd (I've found from personal experience that his view on military operations is more popular than any other living President's views are with the military). G. W. had a lot more leverage pulling from his time as governor of Texas, and he actually ran on a more classical liberal stance. ^ I know a lot of idiots on this forum will laugh at that and say stupid stuff like, "what about Iraq", but Bush didn't run on Iraq in 2000. Go and take a look at the 2000 debates, and G. W. actually sounded clean, and did a good job in the debates. People forget that, real quickly. [video=youtube;cpIqItwCHzs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpIqItwCHzs[/video]
Find me a president who was elected to office that didn't sound good to at least half the country. The problem isn't what they say it's what they do and what they do has more to do with our political system and the private entities who own the politicians than what they say in an interview or on stage. We need to get money out of politics and as a country we need to start valuing intellectual honesty instead of simply voting along party lines.
You say Jeb has a better chance than Christie. I definitely agree with you, as 1-2% is certainly better than 0! No one, not 1 Republican, has a snowball's chance in hell over Hillary.
I don't have to answer you, but I will. I would never vote for Jeb Bush. He's just another establishment, status quo type RINO politician, same as about 90+ % of them. Like I said, I laugh because you think you have a choice in the matter.
Read the Constitution fellow...specifically Art. 1 Section 8. Airports-Most are either state, city or county-run[/B ]government. So local not federal. And of course, military bases with airstrips are federal government owned.
Manipulated approval ratings by whoever do not impress me. Hillary's total lack of accomplishment except for getting people unnecessarily killed does not impress me either. She is a lying, murdering scumbucket!
Many think the Bushs were bad for the country, but Clinton was worse. Can you imagine how bad it would have gotten if Crazy Al Gore or Scary Kerry had gotten elected! WOW! Of course, Barry Soetoro has made up for it by being the worst president in the history of our country! Period! :
Your needing to believe they were "manipulated" doesn't impress anyone in touch with reality - unless you mean that overseeing a thriving economy, avoiding multi-trillion dollar nation-building fiascos, and balancing the nation's budget are all just sneaky ways of manipulating public opinion. Stop raving. You appear quite deranged. (Screaming that she killed Vince Foster by dropping a 40 kilo block of lime Jello® from a 4 storey building is not an auspicious approach.) If you wish most Americans who have a favourable impression of Ms Clinton and from whom you are alienated to pay you any attention, try to sound rational. .
Here's the big difference, Bush lost popularity, because he started two wars and lost them both, and then collapsed the economy. No amount of time is going to make that look good. Obama has been taking a lot of flak on ObamaCare, which is going to look good in a few years, and become as popular as Social Security and Medicare. That is going to turn around, because unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, which only look stupider as time goes by, ObamaCare is going to be a very popular program, like it is everywhere else it's been tried. Fixing a website is easy, turning Iraq into a positive is impossible. Democrats want the Clintons to come and campaign with them. No Republican wants Bush associated with their campaign, for a good reason too. What would Jeb say if and when people ask about his brothers policies?
If you are paranoid about all polls that do not comport with your ideological dogma, it would help explain why you are so alienated from America and the political preferences of moderate Americans. Your sniveling about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is of little import.
