Possible 2012/16 Republican candidate?

Overheal

He also battled against government intrusion into private lives.

Was that while his brother was signing into law...

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

and remember terry schaivo.

He plunged into supporting the absolutely wrong side on that miserable affair.

Yeah Jeb was such a horrible person for thinking that starving someone to death was a bad thing, and that he disagreed with the Florida court's position against offering new evidence during the trial. Funny how courts often take 20 to 25 years to wade through death penalty cases, and allow for extensive depositions, hearings and testimony. But not so in Terri’s case. The court refused requests from Jeb’s attorney’s to depose witnesses, including Michael (who was the person claiming his wife would have wanted to die that way), and his live-in girlfriend.

transylman

Amerika wrote: »

Yeah Jeb was such a horrible person for thinking that starving someone to death was a bad thing, and that he disagreed with the Florida court's position against offering new evidence during the trial. Funny how courts often take 20 to 25 years to wade through death penalty cases, and allow for extensive depositions, hearings and testimony. But not so in Terri’s case. The court refused requests from Jeb’s attorney’s to depose witnesses, including Michael (who was the person claiming his wife would have wanted to die that way), and his live-in girlfriend.

:rolleyes:
Have you ever had an opinion that didn't come off a right-wing website?

Amerika

transylman wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Have you ever had an opinion that didn't come off a right-wing website?

Yes, right after I escaped this one from your guy.

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTbx4LDGNMKAYAfCajzbkF/SIG=12rk1m89a/EXP=1281645963/**http%3a//i45.photobucket.com/albums/f52/therealfars/Obama_hope-nosisL.gif

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

Well, as governor, Jeb cut the red tape of government and wastefulness of the public monies into a smaller, business-friendly administration which needed fewer tax dollars to run upon. He championed school vouchers, tax cuts that benefited business, trimmed the state's payroll, stripped job protection from many civil servants, and gained more power over the judiciary. He helped make Florida a biotechnology center, and led the nation in job creation.

Look, I don't really give a crap about the 'conservative credential' talking points. I care about how things actually work on the ground, and the long-term well-being of the state. And Jeb Bush did little to improve either. He presided over a huge economic boom and bust fueled by out-of-control development that destroyed long-standing communities, further threatened the state's rapidly shrinking fresh water supply, and increased the state's financial liabilities (as taxpayers, via the state's insurance program, are responsible for the fact that developers face few restrictions on building waterfront properties in a hurricane-prone state).

School vouchers mean little when so many of Florida's students are stuffed into trailers. More power over the judiciary is not necessarily a god thing, seeing as how Florida lawmakers and bureaucrats are consistently NOT in compliance with their own rules regarding water, sanitation, and the environment (not to mention federal guidelines). As for Florida and biotech, the state has sunk a lot of money into subsidizing labs, which I am not fundamentally opposed to, but they don't have the educational infrastructure behind them, nor the kind of 'hothouse' cluster effect that places like Cambridge, MA has. I wonder if that money would have been better spend investing in the university system and clustering around Gainesville or Tallahassee...or better yet, in the primary and secondary system, since Florida also has a problem in filling the ranks of highly skilled workers from its own population.

Amerika wrote: »

He also battled against government intrusion into private lives. Sounds pretty presidential to me... Much better than the guy playing president at the moment.

How can you cite Jeb Bush - JEB BUSH - for battling against government intrusion into private lives, and then post this:

Amerika wrote: »

Yeah Jeb was such a horrible person for thinking that starving someone to death was a bad thing, and that he disagreed with the Florida court's position against offering new evidence during the trial. Funny how courts often take 20 to 25 years to wade through death penalty cases, and allow for extensive depositions, hearings and testimony. But not so in Terri’s case. The court refused requests from Jeb’s attorney’s to depose witnesses, including Michael (who was the person claiming his wife would have wanted to die that way), and his live-in girlfriend.

I would hardly call a seven-year court battle a speedy decision. And regardless, the only way Jeb Bush would or could have a legitimate say in that sorry situation is if Terri Schiavo was his wife, mother, or child. Utter hypocrisy.

Overheal

What was ever fresh about the water supply? Have you tried to drink volusia municipal tap? You might as well lick a nickel.

cheesehead

Having been away from the board recently, I return to find much talk about the Bush political dynasty: George W, George P, and Jeb, etc...

Immediately, this came to mind:

Amerika

I figured I’ll even out the discussion with some Democrat talk for 2012.

Something is rotten in the state of Pennsylvania. And I’m confused. Bill Clinton was just in the area, “just up the pike” as we call it, stumping for Joe Sestak for the US Senate race.

As some of you might recall there was a furor that the White House illegally made a job offer to Sestak to drop out of the primary race in order to clear the way for Benedict Arlen Specter. It became a non-issue when the White House and Sestak told a fable about Bill Clinton making a “trial balloon” type offer that was somehow misinterpreted by Sestak. Everything died down afterwards with the White House and Stestak collaboration of stories, even though most around here knew shenanigans had taken place, and Clinton was being a good soldier. There remains a push for the PA Attorney General to persue the matter, but as he is going after the Governorship, it won't happen because it would look like a political witch hunt.

Now on camera and tape it appears Bill Clinton is now claiming that he never tried to get Sestak out of the race, and has never been accused of it. Huhhhhhhh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7khgAMhdPo&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TguL6b_-_VI&feature=player_embedded

I couldn’t believe it. Now it’s pretty evident someone is lying. But why would Slick Willy, one of the greatest and most savvy politicians of our time, say such a thing? The only thing I can think of is Hillary is vying for something big. I think Bill is working to gain some sort of leverage on the White House, as it now appears he is the only one that can make this issue go away (which hasn’t been picked up by the national media quite yet). Bill can make up some story, everyone will believe it, and the issue will again die down. But why did he say it to a reporter?

So, is Hillary going to make another run for president in 2012? I just can’t see Obama not going after reelection in 2012. And if Hillary is thinking of a run, she should have resigned already as Secretary of State. My best guess is Joe Biden is out and Hillary is going to be Obama’s running mate in 2012.

Obama
Clinton
2012

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

Well, as governor, Jeb... gained more power over the judiciary.

How is this a good thing?

rossc007

oscarBravo wrote: »

How is this a good thing?

Its a good thing if your a Republican, pesky Judiciary...

oscarBravo

rossc007 wrote: »

Its a good thing if your a Republican, pesky Judiciary...

It's not a good thing for anyone who believes in separation of powers, surely...?

rossc007

I was being sarcastic

His bother as fond of this too, the patriot act meant he could leapfrog the legal system.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

And if Hillary is thinking of a run, she should have resigned already as Secretary of State.

That would be an irresponsible Sarah Palin move, to quit an office like Alaska's Oil & Gas Commissioner after only serving one year, or quitting halfway through her first term as Alaska's Governor to sell books.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

How is this a good thing?

As I recall, judicial activism was hurting many in Florida, including businesses, where judges were increasingly substituting their own values for those of the Constitution. He gained more control over the state's judiciary by persuading the Legislature to let him appoint many new judges.

You ask how is it a good thing. I’ve heard the reasoning best explained this way: "If the legislative and the executive branches are of the mind that the judicial branch possesses ‘the final say’ on any matter simply by issuing a ‘court order’, then they have implicitly exchanged Constitutional government with its checks and balances for judicial tyranny." That's how.

rossc007

So your saying the Florida Judiciary where Tyrannical? Examples please

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

As I recall, judicial activism was hurting many in Florida, including businesses, where judges were increasingly substituting their own values for those of the Constitution.

"Judicial activism" is a phrase I'm seeing a lot from conservatives lately. It generally seems to mean "judges making decisions I disagree with".

Amerika

rossc007 wrote: »

So your saying the Florida Judiciary where Tyrannical? Examples please

Just read the Colleen Pero’s (a legal analyst specializing in reviewing state supreme court opinions for philosophical trends and directions) "The ‘Activist’ Journey of the Florida Supreme Court" for the examples you want of unelected judges whose rulings unlawfully validate or invalidate the policy decisions made by elected officials, unlawfully sustain or overrule enacted statutes or court precedents, or violate a constitution.
http://www.legalreforminthenews.com/Reports/Florida_Supreme_Court_Report_AJP_7-18-06_Final.pdf

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Judicial activism" is a phrase I'm seeing a lot from conservatives lately. It generally seems to mean "judges making decisions I disagree with".

You can use all the persuasive definitions you want, but it has been my experience that the majority of American people overwhelming believe the willful acts of judges striking down legislation that comports with the Constitution simply because they don’t like the legislation, is the act of mostly Progressive justices.

Overheal

As an aside, whats wrong with Progressiveness? Or Progress, even?

kev9100

Amerika wrote: »

You can use all the persuasive definitions you want, but it has been my experience that the majority of American people overwhelming believe the willful acts of judges striking down legislation that comports with the Constitution simply because they don’t like the legislation, is the act of mostly Progressive justices.

What about the actions of conservative judges who ignore the will of the people and grant someone an election even though they may not have won? Are they activist judges?:rolleyes:

BluePlanet

Amerika wrote: »

Just read the Colleen Pero’s (a legal analyst specializing in reviewing state supreme court opinions for philosophical trends and directions) "The ‘Activist’ Journey of the Florida Supreme Court"

Why should her opinion on Constitutional Law mean anything?

She practiced [FONT=Palatino,Palatino][FONT=Palatino,Palatino]law with the Texas firm of Winstead, McGuire Sechrest & Minick and the Michigan firm of Dickinson, Wright.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino,Palatino][FONT=Palatino,Palatino]She served as Executive Director of Senate Majority Leader John Engler’s office, and subsequently as Special Counsel to Governor Engler[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino,Palatino][FONT=Palatino,Palatino]later joined the 1996 Lamar Alexander for President Campaign as General Counsel. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino,Palatino][FONT=Palatino,Palatino]was Co-Director of the Michigan Political Leadership Program at Michigan State University from 2001-2002 :rolleyes:[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino,Palatino][FONT=Palatino,Palatino]Colleen earned her BA from Michigan State University,[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino,Palatino][FONT=Palatino,Palatino]her MBA from the American Graduate School of International Management, [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino,Palatino][FONT=Palatino,Palatino]and her law degree from the University of Houston,[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino,Palatino][FONT=Palatino,Palatino] Colleen and her husband, Dan, live with their two children in Laingsburg, Michigan [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino,Palatino][FONT=Palatino,Palatino]I mean, is she not just some partisan political minded hack[/FONT]??
[/FONT]

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

As an aside, whats wrong with Progressiveness? Or Progress, even?

I was actually being kind for once. Progressive to me is just another word for Liberal/Marxist... well here in the US anyways. But Liberal and Marxist are more or less still dirty words here in the US. The term Liberal had gained a little from the 2008 Presidential election, but Obama’s socialistic agenda has put the term right back where it belongs. Many Liberals here prefer the term Progressive be used to describe them rather than Liberal (lest they be classified as loons), as the public here is still unsure about the "Progressive" label.

Amerika

kev9100 wrote: »

What about the actions of conservative judges who ignore the will of the people and grant someone an election even though they may not have won? Are they activist judges?:rolleyes:

If that (which I believe you are alluding to) would have been the case, then I would say yes.

And yes, some conservatives judges are activists, just like the majority of progressive judges are.

But a 1 to 100 ratio doesn't fly with me as a valid agrument.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I was actually being kind for once. Progressive to me is just another word for Liberal/Marxist...

I'm not exactly sure you can tie progressiveness to Marxism. Even in the United States. Unless it's Marxist and Liberal to create the National Parks or introduce Child Labor Laws. And HOW DARE THEY introduce the concept of Anti-Trust Laws. Those heathens!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States

Either way I think you're comparing a turnip to a piece of fish. Marxism is a political ideology; Progressivism is about adapting new laws to new situations: such as the Industrial and Information Ages. Without Progressivism we would still be relying on Leviticus to tell us what to do. Does Leviticus tell me how we should address Internet Neutrality?

kev9100

Amerika wrote: »

But a 1 to 100 ratio doesn't fly with me as a valid agrument.

Any evidence to the 100 to 1 assertion by any chance?

Lets face, the Right don't like liberal/progressive judges so they call them activist judges. The Right agrees with conservative judges so they don't call them activist judges.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

But a 1 to 100 ratio doesn't fly with me as a valid agrument.

Ah, Creationism Math. :pac:

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

Just read the Colleen Pero’s (a legal analyst specializing in reviewing state supreme court opinions for philosophical trends and directions) "The ‘Activist’ Journey of the Florida Supreme Court" for the examples you want of unelected judges whose rulings unlawfully validate or invalidate the policy decisions made by elected officials, unlawfully sustain or overrule enacted statutes or court precedents, or violate a constitution.
http://www.legalreforminthenews.com/Reports/Florida_Supreme_Court_Report_AJP_7-18-06_Final.pdf

Judges don't magically appear on the bench - they are appointed by elected officials (although in some non-federal court systems they are elected). As for "unlawful" rulings, hello, it's for the judiciary to decide what is lawful or not - just because the legislature passes a law, doesn't mean that it is inherently lawful or correct...not to mention the fact that citizens have the right to challenge the legality of a law in court, or to appeal the ruling.

Conservatives complain about do-nothing legislatures, activist judges, over-reaching/under-reaching executives, incompetent government, and useless bureaucracy. Increasingly, these complaints seem less about critiquing the system and more about completely de-legitimizing every facet of government.

Amerika wrote: »

I was actually being kind for once. Progressive to me is just another word for Liberal/Marxist... well here in the US anyways. But Liberal and Marxist are more or less still dirty words here in the US. The term Liberal had gained a little from the 2008 Presidential election, but Obama’s socialistic agenda has put the term right back where it belongs. Many Liberals here prefer the term Progressive be used to describe them rather than Liberal (lest they be classified as loons), as the public here is still unsure about the "Progressive" label.

Like "activist judges", liberal doesn't really mean anything either, other than "I disagree with you". And most people in the US who call others "Marxists" or "communists" don't really know what these terms actually mean.

But none of this has anything to do with who the 2012/2016 GOP nominee will be...

Black Swan

southsiderosie wrote: »

And most people in the US who call others "Marxists" or "communists" don't really know what these terms actually mean.

Indeed, and on this forum it's become cliché and essentially meaningless.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

like the well informed and supremely intelligent people all over america and europe who called bush a fascist and a nazi? or is crappy political sloganeering (i can't believe that's actually a word) only a problem with it's people you support who are being insulted.

southsiderosie

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

like the well informed and supremely intelligent people all over america and europe who called bush a fascist and a nazi? or is crappy political sloganeering (i can't believe that's actually a word) only a problem with it's people you support who are being insulted.

Yes, I love that both Bush and Obama are fascist Nazis depending on what lunatic fringe is doing the talking. The difference is, the right-wing lunatic fringe, for some reason, actually gets serious media attention. Left-wing lunatics, with the exception of Michael Moore, are generally marginalized, or relegated to the Daily Kos.

[BTW, "they do it too!" isn't the greatest way to make a point, especially in a thread which is ostensibly about the GOP, not liberal lunatics.]