Bush Wins!

[August1991]

Even de Tocqueville noted that American politicians tend to present themselves plainly as opposed to European politicians who tend to be authoritative. Maybe this derives from Protestantism.

In any case, Michael Moore made the case that Bush Jnr was a goofball and I gather Bush Jnr never bothered to defend himself much. It's a long tradition.

Gerald Ford said "I'm a Ford not a Lincoln." Jimmy Carter was proud to be a peanut farmer. Nixon pointedly said he graduated from Whittier College and barely passed his bar exams. Harry Truman ran a clothing store and was as plain speaking as they come. Reagan just smiled and nodded, pretending not to hear.

On this issue of style, I'd say the European Left/Michael Moore approach is clueless. I think Bush Jnr's smirk and success bewilder and anger the Left.

BTW, thanks Slavic for those numbers. Interesting. Do you have a link?

[Slavik44]

I bookmarked a few, just incase, August

1.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1256406/posts

2.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/...y%20SAT%20score

3.

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm

[Hugo]

Ya speaks volumes from a group of indocrinated and irrelevant Canadians. Lol.

An enlightened response, I must say. Who indoctrinated us, exactly? They did a pretty terrible job considering that Black Dog, Argus and myself hold three substantially different views. As to being "irrelevant Canadians", if you are indeed American, then I would remind you that your vote makes absolutely no difference and you are just as irrelevant as we are in the American political process.

IQ:

Bush: 125-130

Kerry: 120

Hey, I'm smarter than both of them. Give me the job.

Sorry, sunshine, but I ain't no lefty. I'm a conservative. I'm just not the kind of bible-thumping, fiscally irresponsible big brother kind of "conservative" Bush is.

I think this is quite a common reaction. Conservatism used to be about small government, fewer taxes and more freedom, but Bush has hijacked it and turned it into a statist vehicle. Unfortunately, the fact that Kerry really has nothing better to offer doesn't leave them with anywhere to go, and probably leaves them where many Canadian Conservative voters were left after Harper destroyed the Alliance/Reform roots of the party and turned it into Liberal Lite.

[Black Dog]

You cite some disputable incidents from the past and use them as evidence that Bush is unfit for president. Things like he partied in college and the same old diatribe of daddy got him in. Give me a break. No one buys it. So far I see that in order for Bush to be a decent President in your eyes he must have no past mistakes, no identifiable religion and must be perfect. We could talk about the past ghosts of Kerry, Clinton, Martin or who ever else but you know as well as I do that your unreasonably high standards apply only to George Bush.

Well, we xcan also look at Bush's legions of failures as president (notably pissing away the largest surplus in history, misleading the public to justify a poorly planned and executed war, alowing the alleged perpatrator of the biggest mass murder in U.S. history to escape). I'm curious: you've been quick to slag of Bush's detractors without evidence, yet overlook the glaring evidence of his failings, something I can only ascribe to idealogical blindness.

Ya speaks volumes from a group of indocrinated and irrelevant Canadians.

Translation: "I can't counter any arguments with facts or evidence, only irrational faith in the system and my chosesn political doctrine, therefore I'll simply deem those who oppose me "irrelevant".

Gerald Ford said "I'm a Ford not a Lincoln." Jimmy Carter was proud to be a peanut farmer. Nixon pointedly said he graduated from Whittier College and barely passed his bar exams. Harry Truman ran a clothing store and was as plain speaking as they come. Reagan just smiled and nodded, pretending not to hear.

On this issue of style, I'd say the European Left/Michael Moore approach is clueless. I think Bush Jnr's smirk and success bewilder and anger the Left.

If you mean "clueless" as in "out of touch with reality", you may, sadly, have a point. However, I personally perfer world leaders who project the qualities of a world leader, not the local dog catcher.

[I miss Reagan]

Black Dog you bring up the same tired insults against Bush over and over. They've been refuted. True, Bush has made mistakes he's a human being. Infact that is what makes him so endearing to people, they can relate to him. He doesn't need a butler to make his peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for him. Your radical hatred of him is unjustified. It's pretty funny. You're boiling over with such rage that you have to call me a "moron" or put words in my mouth such as your "translations". As for Canadians being irrelevant, I'm sorry that it was offensive to some but it's true. We offer a similar contribution to the world as say Luxemburg. Yet somehow we have this little mans complex that we have the arrogant right to tell those in the world who they should elect. Ironically canadians are the epitome of what they hate so much about Americans. Nevertheless, the US public resoundingly showed their ability to see past the liberal media propeganda from the major networks, hollywood movied stars, popular musicians, even a major motion picture dedicated to manipulating the public into hating the president. It's actually quite telling of how intelligent the American public actually is to see through the overwhelming majority of negative press the republicans recieve(d).

[Guest eureka]

Out of curiosity. I read through the information on Bush and Kerry. The sources tell more than the "results." I am no fan of Kerry, but the obvious bias towards Bush does not lend credibility.

There is a much wider variance in SAT and its relatiionship to IQ than is posited in these. My son coaches, as a sideline, children of many middle to upper class parents who are having difficulty in reaching the standards. He gets them through while brighter kids fail.

I could well believe that Bush does have an IQ of 125 -130. That is what is so scary about him. It is not high enough for the work he is involved in. It does explain, though, why he is so slow in providing answers to complex questions that are thrown at him.

Kerry, very clearly is in a much higher bracket. It would be almost impossible for him to have graduated Law School, let alone graduated respectably, with a 120 IQ. That is reality and the convoluted estimates are absurd.

To consider Clinton's IQ, I would take his ability to do the NY Times crossword in twenty minutes to be a valid indicator of a much higher IQ than the estimates. Apparently he did that each morning as a warm up.

Estimates of IQ from material that is not direct testing are impossible. I think I could guess more accurately from simply talking and discussions with a person. Their expressed thoughts and the speed of the thoughts are far more indicative of what is there.

Long ago, I remember reading an essay (I think it was an essay) estimating the IQs of a number of famous historical personages. The only two I recall were J.S. Mill and Einstein.

Mill's was said to be 180 and Einstein 158. I would think that the estimate for Mill might be reasonably accurate. Would you think that Einstein's was? It would make him a technical genius on the scales but not a genius as we think of genius.

[Black Dog]

Black Dog you bring up the same tired insults against Bush over and over. They've been refuted.

Uh..pointing out Bush's abundant policy failures are not insults. they are legitimate criticisms that you clearly have no answer for.

True, Bush has made mistakes he's a human being. Infact that is what makes him so endearing to people, they can relate to him. He doesn't need a butler to make his peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for him.

And somewhere, Karl Rove is smiling, knowing his "Bush is just plain folks" meme remains firmly lodged in the frontal lobes of the credulous.

The Bush of the cowboy hat and folksy charm is a creation, an articficial personae crafted to appeal to the electorate. how else do you explain the fact that both Bush and Kerry are incredibly rich, Ivy-League sons of privilege with roots in the northeastern establishment, yet it was Kerry who was branded the "elitist"?

I prefer to look past the image and at the first-hand accounts of the real Bush: the quick tempered, belligerant with a sense of entitlement and a disdain for those not of the same social strata as him.

As for Canadians being irrelevant, I'm sorry that it was offensive to some but it's true. We offer a similar contribution to the world as say Luxemburg. Yet somehow we have this little mans complex that we have the arrogant right to tell those in the world who they should elect.

No. It's a dodge, a canard that basically states "I can't argue with you, so I'll just pretend your opinion doesn't matter". It's telling that you haven't offered up a single well-reasoned defence of Bush. In fact, the best you can manage is that he makes his own sandwiches.

Nevertheless, the US public resoundingly showed their ability to see past the liberal media propeganda from the major networks, hollywood movied stars, popular musicians, even a major motion picture dedicated to manipulating the public into hating the president. It's actually quite telling of how intelligent the American public actually is to see through the overwhelming majority of negative press the republicans recieve(d).

A typical response and plays well with the right wing culture of victimhood, which always paints conservatives as victims of the leftist elites. Meanwhile, right wing think tanks and pundits dominate the airwaves, news organizations take their marching orders from the giant corporations that own them (a good example was the president of Viacom's endorsement of Bush. Viacom, of course, owns CBS.) But in order to see the big picutre, one has to have some idea about how the nmedia works and how public opinion is shaped. Neither you, nor the average American, seems capable of seeing that picture, falling back on tired whining about the "liberal media".

[CdnRepublican]

I miss - get use to it - the Cdn media, British Media and US media are in a terrific funk over the election result - the most one-sided since 1900. You will be abused as well.

The entire country with the exception of the Leftist Coast and NE and NY, Chicago and Pittsburgh and Philly are Red.

Even lying Exit Polls pointing to a Kerry landslide did not sway the outcome. I can't believe that the media reported these fraudalent exist polls - was it a mistake or was it on purpose ? Gee i wonder.

On Bush's IQ the analysis done by Sailor and the NY Times [hardly a Bush supporter], suggest that Bush is smarter than Kerry with higher SAT scores [around 1300 in today's dumb downed SAT version]; higher military scores; and a higher IQ [125 vs. 120].

There is no evidence that Kerry is smarter. If you listen to Kerry talk he offers contradictions, bad data and poor sentence construction. A man of supreme intellect is direct, clear, concise and knows facts. In the last debate for instance Bush clearly won on those criteria, though the Liberal media of course gave the debate to Kerry because he did not vomit on his tie.

A Bush win by the way is good news for Canada or Canuckistan.

[I miss Reagan]

And somewhere, Karl Rove is smiling, knowing his "Bush is just plain folks" meme remains firmly lodged in the frontal lobes of the credulous.

The Bush of the cowboy hat and folksy charm is a creation, an articficial personae crafted to appeal to the electorate. how else do you explain the fact that both Bush and Kerry are incredibly rich, Ivy-League sons of privilege with roots in the northeastern establishment, yet it was Kerry who was branded the "elitist"?

Well I'm glad you at least admit that the republicans ran a smarter campaign. Karl Rove is a genius and did do a fantastic job. But it's funny how Bush can be such a "moron" yet manage to swindle the American people into believing his "artifical personae". I wonder what it is you think that qualifies someone to wear a cowboy hat? According to you it'd seem that if you grew up above the poverty line you are fake if you are "folksy".

I prefer to look past the image and at the first-hand accounts of the real Bush: the quick tempered, belligerant with a sense of entitlement and a disdain for those not of the same social strata as him.

Well I prefer to see him as a Texan. LOL what was that you said a few lines earlier? "pointing out Bush's abundant policy failures are not insults" Yet you continue to post your contrary to fact hypothesis.

In fact, the best you can manage is that he makes his own sandwiches.

Perhaps but it's tough to get motivated to put forward facts in a debate with someone who has such blind loyalty to an irrational position. The truth is that Bush took over a slack economy from Clinton. Real income is up 11% since Clinton. Bush recovered the US economy from the worst attack in US history and the economy has grown 4.8% since then, the fastest 3 year rate in 50 years. Home ownership is the highest ever. He increased funding for schools in poor areas but held them accountable for the funding. He even allowed the most liberal senator to write the program as a gesture of bipartisanship. Bush brought back the military and intelligence spending which Clinton cut, and since 9-11 there hasn't been another attack on US soil. Bush took the tax burden off small businesses and doubled the child tax credit. Pretty interesting for someone who is supposedly all about big business.

a good example was the president of Viacom's endorsement of Bush. Viacom, of course, owns CBS

I'm not sure this even deserves a response. Dan Rather, great example of objective journalism . And how about the CBS produced film entitled the Reagans? Real right wing *scoff*.

[CdnRepublican]

Yes there is no doubt about media bias - the exit polls on Nov 2 were nothing more than Media manipulation of the worst variety. It was akin to CNN stating at 7:40 pm in the 2000 election that Gore had won Florida - thereby ensuring that Reps in the Panhandle did not vote. This broke the law btw.

The US is moving to the right - thankfully for the future of mankind. If the Reps are diligent enough they can build the ground forces to win in 2008. They must stick to the Bush Doctrine, implement the social and tax policies that Bush outlined Nov 3, and ignore the Internationalists and Liberals.

If they do this, they will in 2008 regardless if Hillary and CNN start their campaign tomorrow.

[I miss Reagan]

Welcome CdnRepub. Always nice to know there are a few of us left in Soviet Canuckistan. Yes the media is astondingly biased. It is always baffleing to me how anyone can argue that it is not. Did you hear the NY Times yesterday claimed that 2008 was Hillary's to lose. Already they are beginning to campaign for her. Media Research is one of the best websites.

[Black Dog]

Well I'm glad you at least admit that the republicans ran a smarter campaign. Karl Rove is a genius and did do a fantastic job. But it's funny how Bush can be such a "moron" yet manage to swindle the American people into believing his "artifical personae". I wonder what it is you think that qualifies someone to wear a cowboy hat?

A "brilliant campaign"? To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the American people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.

To answer your question about how a moron like Bush can pull off such swindles, it's easy when you have the services f the entire Republican party and it's affiliated propaganda apparatus.

Well I prefer to see him as a Texan. LOL what was that you said a few lines earlier? "pointing out Bush's abundant policy failures are not insults" Yet you continue to post your contrary to fact hypothesis.

Here are the facts:

Bush oversaw the largest job losses in history.

Bush was in office for the largest attack on U.S. soil in history and has faile dto capture the mastermind.

Bush invaded Iraq based on the bel;ief that teh regime there had WMD, weapons which have since been shown to be non-existent.

You haven't pointed out a single factual error. Put up or shut up.

Real income is up 11% since Clinton.

Source? According the to Bureau of Economic Analysis, personal income grew 3.5 percent under Bush, 0.5 less than under Clinton. Meanwhile, median income has declined by $1,535 since Bush took office , or 3.4 percent. As well, the number of people living below the official poverty line increased by 14 per cent under Bush, while the employment-to-population ratio has plummeted under Bush's tenure from 64.4 in 2000 to 62.3 in 2003.

since 9-11 there hasn't been another attack on US soil.

Nor had there been one since 1993. That's an irrelevant factoid.

Bush took the tax burden off small businesses and doubled the child tax credit.

False: according to the IRS, the vast majority of small businesses do not earn nearly enough money to fall into the highest income tax bracket and thus don't benefit from Bush's cuts at all. Furthermore, since he took office, Bush slashed the Small Business Administration budget by 25 percent.

As for the child tax credit, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy data shows that the temporary increase in the per-child tax credit to $1,000 for 2003 and 2004 will provide no benefit to one out of four families with children under 17, because they do not earn enough to qualify for the aid.

I miss - get use to it - the Cdn media, British Media and US media are in a terrific funk over the election result - the most one-sided since 1900.

i would hardly call the weakest incumbent reelection in recent memory to be "one-sided".

• This is the largest number of people who have ever voted AGAINST a president
  
• Assuming Bush gets New Mexico and Iowa, he will have gotten the lowest percentage of electoral votes (54%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Wilson. If those two states should swing Kerry's way (NM might), it'll be even lower.
  
• He will have won with the lowest percentage of the popular vote (51%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman
  
• He will have won by the lowest margin of the popular vote (3.5M) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman
  
• Finally, he will have won the three states that put him over 270 (OH, NM and IA--assuming the last two go his way) by only 161,989
  

Even lying Exit Polls pointing to a Kerry landslide did not sway the outcome. I can't believe that the media reported these fraudalent exist polls - was it a mistake or was it on purpose ?

I suspect the reason the exit poll data did not match the final tallies can be summe dup in one word: Diebold.

Exit polls/Electronic voting discrepancies

IMO, the Republicans swiped this one too, with a little help from their friends.

A man of supreme intellect is direct, clear, concise and knows facts. In the last debate for instance Bush clearly won on those criteria, though the Liberal media of course gave the debate to Kerry because he did not vomit on his tie.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Bush was a loser and alcoholic party boy who only got into university because of dad's influence. Nor did Kerry fail at project after project, business after business. Nor does he come complete with stories of his arrogance and shallow nature.

Pure irrational hatred. I rest my case.

Where is the "irrational" part?

[kimmy]

I miss - get use to it - the Cdn media, British Media and US media are in a terrific funk over the election result - the most one-sided since 1900. 

This is so wrong it's funny. It's not even the most one-sided election of my lifetime.

Walter Mondale, in 1984, won just a single state and lost the popular vote by nearly 20%. The electoral vote scorecard was 525 to 13.

In 1988, Michael Dukakis lost by 315 electoral votes and 9% of the popular vote.

In 1992, Clinton beat George Bush Sr by 5% of the popular vote and 202 electoral votes.

In 1996, Bob Dole (who I think would have made a much, much better president than Dubya, btw. Too bad he couldn't have run against Gore instead of Clinton. ) lost the election by 9% of the popular vote and 220 electoral college votes.

In fact, a quick trip back through the history books revealed that there have been only 4 elections since 1900 that even compare to the 2004 in terms of close decisions:

-Kennedy's win over Nixon in 1960

-Nixon's win over Hubert H Humphrey in 1968

-Carter's win over Ford in 1976

-and of course Bush Jr's win over Gore in 2000.

Only those 4 elections had popular vote closer than the 2004 election. And only the 2000 election was closer in terms of electoral votes.

I found many more landslides than close battles. Particularly epic beat-downs include Franklin D Roosevelt's win in 1936 and Richard Nixon's win over McGovern in 1972.

Just some quick research to put this election in perspective.

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

IQ:

Bush: 125-130

If Bush has an IQ of 125+, then he is a truly brilliant actor.

[August1991]

Kimmy, I think this past election's significance lies in the Republican victories in the House and Senate.

[The Terrible Sweal]

...  True, Bush has made mistakes he's a human being.

I would make a different characterization. Bush has done terrible things deliberately (not by mistake) which he was specifically warned against and which he nevertheless persisted in.

He has also done things which he should have known better than to do ... so, not merely 'human', but a stupid or foolish human.

Finally, Bush has done things which are not stupid, but are execrably self-interested. The stupidity in this regard is in the electorate standing for it.

In fact that is what makes him so endearing to people, they can relate to him. 

Well, you're onto something there, I think. Bush voters look at people like Clinton, or Kerry, or Michael Moore and they hate them BECAUSE they are intelligent and perceptive, and therefor threatening to the self-esteem of voters who cannot tolerate the idea that they might not measure up. Bush is comforting to them. "Look", they can think, "He's no smarter than me and HE'S PRESIDENT."

Your radical hatred of him is unjustified.

I don't understand why defenders of Bush think this is a credible statement. Anger at someone, like Bush, who acts illegitimatel and harms your interests is perfectly justified and sensible.

... the US public resoundingly showed their ability to see past the liberal media propeganda from the major networks, ...

You have no evidence of a liberal bias pervading the major media. The US public in fact seemed to either ignore or find acceptable the strong evidence that Bush is dishonest and harmful.

[Black Dog]

Well, you're onto something there, I think. Bush voters look at people like Clinton, or Kerry, or Michael Moore and they hate them BECAUSE they are intelligent and perceptive, and therefor threatening to the self-esteem of voters who cannot tolerate the idea that they might not measure up. Bush is comforting to them. "Look", they can think, "He's no smarter than me and HE'S PRESIDENT."

Evidently, it's more important for Americans to have a president they can see themselves having a beer with than one who can talk to world leaders and understand global geopolitics. How very depressing.

[CdnRepublican]

No you are utterly wrong. Bush is perceived as a LEADER. Not a guy who brings his video camera to Vietnam to take pictures flexing his muscles. Bush has policies, plans and commitments - he keeps them. Kerry does not and never did. He changed positions on every issue - when asked whether he was for or against Gay Marriage he said 'yes'. He refused to release his med records from Vietnam showing as his Doctors have testified that his wounds came from scrapnel from his own gun treated by bandaids. He refused to discuss his Senate record. He refused to give details on his plan for Iraq. He voted for tax increases; a decreased military budget; against the $87 billion for Iraq.

The American people who apparently are a lot smarter than most Cdns, saw all this and said no thanks.

Bush captured 51 % of the popular vote - the most ever. Clinton never got above 40 %.

The West is in a War - pity that Cdns don't have enough common sense to see that.

[Black Dog]

Ah the spin machine at work.

Bush is perceived as a LEADER. Not a guy who brings his video camera to Vietnam to take pictures flexing his muscles. Bush has policies, plans and commitments - he keeps them

Bad policies, plans and commitments. LEADERS recognize when they've made mistakes and work to correct them; LEADERS reconsider their view points according to the situation, not blindly adhere to dogma. Bush is no LEADER.

He refused to release his med records from Vietnam showing as his Doctors have testified that his wounds came from scrapnel from his own gun treated by bandaids

Eyewitnesses, battlefield citations and Kerry's medical records show Kerry's wounds were recieved in combat. You are peddling lies spread by the partisan slime machine.

He voted for tax increases; a decreased military budget; against the $87 billion for Iraq.

Spin spin away...

Lies about tax increases.

There's no doubt that there are valid instances of Kerry voting for tax increases/against tax cuts/whatever in there, too. If you follow the GOP argument to its logical conclusion, the only way Kerry avoids criticism is if he values low taxes over everything else, including education, the COPS program, health care, counterterrorism, the military, etc. Not even the most anti-government Republican does this.

Lies about defense cuts.

... if one considers Kerry's Senate record in its entirety, one concludes that Kerry is not weak on defense. He voted for the Pentagon authorization bill in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate: by that measure, he's an absolute hawk on defense. And Arizona Republican John McCain, who is heading up the Bush re-election efforts in Arizona, has defended Kerry.

Lies about Iraq funding.

"It is imperative that we succeed in Iraq. But to do so, we have to tackle the challenge of rebuilding Iraq an effective way, not the Bush Administration’s failed way. We need a detailed plan, including fixed timetables and costs, for establishing civil, economic and political security in Iraq."

Kerry took a principled stand on really supporting our troops, not to mention protecting taxpayer dollars, and the Bush campaign is using it to make him appear soft on defense. Kerry had good reason to take this stand; although those in the Pentagon with actual combat experience and knowledge about how to conduct a war draw up detailed plans for the aftermath, Don Rumsfeld intentionally ignored them. Our soldiers were basically sent in to Iraq and told to wing it. According to acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee, 'I also regret that we were not more farsighted here. We simply were not prepared for that kind of a counterinsurgency that attacked our convoys and our soldiers in the rear as it has proven to be.'

Bush captured 51 % of the popular vote - the most ever. Clinton never got above 40 %.

Bush captured the largest number of popular votes, not percentage. The flip side being, as I've already pointed out, that he also had more people vote against him than any other president. His 51 per cent win isn't even close to the highest margin of victory: Lyndon Johnson won in 1964 with 61 per cent of the popular vote.

The American people who apparently are a lot smarter than most Cdns, saw all this and said no thanks.

Correction: half of the American people plus one percent said no thanks to Kerry : the rest no thanks to Bush.

Bush captured 51 % of the popular vote - the most ever. Clinton never got above 40 %.

Wrong yet again. Clinton got 42 per cent in 1992, 49 per cent in 1996.

[I miss Reagan]

So much bunk to respond to, so little time. I think you lefties are in denial, grasping at straws as you fall. The facts are that the American people chose Bush, even if had just been by one vote, they chose him. You can call them stupid and you can call him stupid (or an evil genius) all you want. Americans choose their president. Your condractictory and fallacy ridden arguments are subjective.

Regarding my subjective opinion, my US stocks are doing great and have done even better since the election results. I like his foreign policy I'm glad he has the balls to stand up against the corrupt UN and the liberal world and fight the terrorists on their turf. I have relatives who survived 9-11. My family and friends are all employed. And finally I don't have a problem with his morals. So when it comes down to it more people agree with Bush than disagree and that's all that matters. So you guys can whine and cry and tear out your hair all you want, as Bush just said he's got "political capital" now.

[Big Blue Machine]

It's going to be Hilary Clinton V Jeb Bush in 2008.

[kimmy]

Don't go handing anything to Hilary yet. Who'd heard of John Kerry 4 years ago? And until this summer it was supposed to be Howard Dean facing Dubya, wasn't it?

A Democrat that many people will be watching is Barack Obama, the young man who demolished his opponent by a margin of over 40% in winning the Illinois senate seat. He is building a reputation as an electrifying speaker, and he might reconnect the Democrats with the black voters who went over to the Republicans over "values' issues.

I'm sure there are others who will emerge as the Democrats try and figure out what they heck they're doing.

As for Jeb Bush, I'm sure the Republicans understand the baggage that would bring. There has to be somebody out there that wouldn't alienate 49% of the electorate just through name alone. Jeb Bush himself recently said he won't run for the presidency.

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

Guiliani is being mentioned as a Republican possibility.

[Big Blue Machine]

At least Arnie Terminator can't run for president. That would be insane.