Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

It's very early, but right now Scott Walker is looking very strong in the polls. He's leading in both Iowa and New Hampshire, without having formally announced or really begun to campaign in earnest.

Jeb Bush is close, but he's got a lot of things going against him. The "establishment" (big money donors and Beltway insiders) seems to be behind him, and he has name recognition on his side. But the record of the Bushes is not very favorable, and Jeb may have the least political skills of any of them. Not only is he suspect to primary voters, he's also got a very tough argument to make when it comes to being a general election candidate. The New York Times and Washington Post have been writing a lot of favorable articles about him. That's a bad sign for him.

Ted Cruz may be more ideologically pure than either of the above, and conservatives appreciate his image as a "fighter" in the Senate. But he is not that strong in the polls, even after his formal announcement and PR push. I think he's got questions about electability and seeming "presidential" to primary voters. I would say it's very unlikely Cruz will be the nominee, and most people share that opinion. VP, maybe.

Rand Paul occupies an unusual space, and will probably hang around for a long time with a portion of the vote, like his father. The Paul army is not big enough to win a nomination, but it is intense.

One of the reasons Walker is so strong is that he fits all of the criteria for a winning candidate. He's a governor, and people want someone from outside Washington DC. He wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth, unlike the last three Republican nominees. Mitt Romney was badly hurt by that. He's a proven winner, having won three times in four years in a state that leans blue. He's from a part of the country that Republicans have made a lot of gains in recently at the state level, and will be targeting in 2016. He's been reliably conservative enough for the base, but also has a large national donor network thanks to his recall campaign.

At this point (again very early), I'd say Walker has a very good chance, and it's up to him to make it happen. Jeb Bush is very much like Hillary Clinton, except the Democrats have no other viable candidates, while the Republicans have many. He could theoretically win, but if he does it will be because all of his opponents disqualify themselves, and voters reluctantly support him as a last resort.

Based on the polls, right now it looks like Walker and Bush competing for the job, with Rand Paul hanging around, and everybody else below those three.

I'm trying the recall the last time we had a President from the upper Midwest. Reagan, sort of. But only long after leaving.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Same here.
So, until that happens ... "For Whom the Bell Tolls" was about God and Catholicism!?

Are you referring to the Hemingway novel, Donne's metaphor, or maybe, something else(?).
They're somewhat different, IMO.


Prince

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Are you referring to the Hemingway novel, Donne's metaphor, or maybe, something else(?).
They're somewhat different, IMO.


Prince

Yeah I realized that my question was vague, and edited accordingly.
It doesn't really matter, though. Off topic. But a good example of how people put their own "spin" on things.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Baring some unforeseen catastrophe, it's probably going to be the son of George V* and brother of George VI versus the wife of William VII. You always knew it.

Since I'm one of the only people who ever posts here from a conservative/libertarian point of view, follows conservative thought, votes in Republican primaries and usually supports Republican candidates, I think I have a better grasp on this than most here.


What you're saying is true. There has been a pattern of "succession" among Republican nominees. But there are reasons to believe this time will be different. I already listed Bush's weaknesses. Even though the "establishment" has largely sided with him early, even they have misgivings about him. Furthermore, the emergence of the Tea Party movement has created a new dynamic, and a very real split in the party.


All you have to do is look at comments in this thread to see how disenchanted people are, across the spectrum, with the idea of a Bush vs. Clinton "choice" in 2016. Even the most stubborn individuals in the elite camp know this. That kind of election will be very bad for the country, increasing disillusionment with Washington even more, when it's already at a low point.


The ideal Republican candidate is one who can unite all elements of the party. Bush is not only poorly suited to do that, he's said flat out that he has no interest in it. At least his brother and father made an attempt.


So again, Walker possesses all of the attributes to be the right candidate, and his early strength is a reflection of that fact. He looks like the candidate people are looking for. But it's up to him to close the deal. In fact I would say, even though it's early, the nomination is Walker's to lose. That is where things stand right now, but there is a long way to go.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Yeah I realized that my question was vague, and edited accordingly.
It doesn't really matter, though. Off topic. But a good example of how people put their own "spin" on things.

I agree. But, I will say this, though. For me, that bell isn't some dark, "you're gonna die!" type of thing.
It's more like Zuzu's line from It's a Wonderful Life:"Every time a bell rings, an angel gets its wings". So,
if I'm alerted to the possibility that someone might require assistance, I check it out and see what I can
do. I look at my awareness of the bell as sort of an opportunity, I guess. Eh? I don't know.
(But, there does appear to be that whole "There, but for the Grace of God, go I"-thingy happening, also.)

IOW, I basically just follow my 'conscience'.


Prince

PS: Karma works as well, I suppose.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I'm trying the recall the last time we had a President from the upper Midwest. Reagan, sort of. But only long after leaving.

For Republicans, the last four presidents were from Texas and California. But Texas has become a reliable Republican state, and California is not producing any viable Republicans at all. Arnold actually would have been a very strong candidate for the nomination, before he had some setbacks, moved left and got divorced, but he was not born in the US.


A better comparison for Walker is Bill Clinton. Arkansas is not an electoral giant, but it is in the South. By nominating Clinton, the Democrats were able to downplay their coastal elitism and make inroads into Republican territory. The Midwest (which was previously the epicenter of the "Reagan Democrat" phenomenon) is a region where Republicans have the potential to make inroads. The whole region has elected conservative Republicans in a slew of statewide races in recent years, both governors and senators. Walker is the strongest of those. In addition, exit polls from 2012 show that one of Romney' biggest weaknesses was with white, working class voters in the Midwest. A huge number of them stayed home, while black voters turned out in droves to support Obama. Black turnout exceeded white turnout for the first time in recorded history. That's why Romney lost. By comparison, if all else had remained equal, Romney would have had to win something like 75% of the Hispanic vote to win the election.


Frankly, unless Republicans could put California in play, chasing the Hispanic vote is not that helpful in the electoral college. The only states where it has any impact are CO, NV, NM and FL, but they already do well with Cubans who are a big part of the Hispanic population in FL, which is the most important swing state
of that group.

Right now, if I had to make a prediction, as early as it is, I would say the Republican ticket could well be Walker/Rubio. That is probably the ideal ticket, at least based on the superficial characteristics (which matter quite a bit, as Obama has proved). They are much younger than Hillary Clinton, both grew up in economically humble circumstances, Walker is a governor from outside Washington, from a region where Republicans can make inroads, and Rubio is a Hispanic candidate from FL. They target all of the key constituencies and critical swing states, and Walker has the potential to mobilize the base in ways recent nominees have not.


Just a very early informed guess on my part.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I'm trying the recall the last time we had a President from the upper Midwest. Reagan, sort of. But only long after leaving.

Obama? Illinois is to Obama what California is to Reagan.

Before Reagan was Gerald Ford, who hailed from Michigan.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Obama? Illinois is to Obama what California is to Reagan.

Before Reagan was Gerald Ford, who hailed from Michigan.

True about Obama, in a carpetbagger sense.

Ford, by appointment.

You'd have to go clear back to Taft, if counting Ohio as "the upper midwest."

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

For Republicans, the last four presidents were from Texas and California. But Texas has become a reliable Republican state, and California is not producing any viable Republicans at all. Arnold actually would have been a very strong candidate for the nomination, before he had some setbacks, moved left and got divorced, but he was not born in the US.


A better comparison for Walker is Bill Clinton. Arkansas is not an electoral giant, but it is in the South. By nominating Clinton, the Democrats were able to downplay their coastal elitism and make inroads into Republican territory. The Midwest (which was previously the epicenter of the "Reagan Democrat" phenomenon) is a region where Republicans have the potential to make inroads. The whole region has elected conservative Republicans in a slew of statewide races in recent years, both governors and senators. Walker is the strongest of those. In addition, exit polls from 2012 show that one of Romney' biggest weaknesses was with white, working class voters in the Midwest. A huge number of them stayed home, while black voters turned out in droves to support Obama. Black turnout exceeded white turnout for the first time in recorded history. That's why Romney lost. By comparison, if all else had remained equal, Romney would have had to win something like 75% of the Hispanic vote to win the election.


Frankly, unless Republicans could put California in play, chasing the Hispanic vote is not that helpful in the electoral college. The only states where it has any impact are CO, NV, NM and FL, but they already do well with Cubans who are a big part of the Hispanic population in FL, which is the most important swing state
of that group.

Right now, if I had to make a prediction, as early as it is, I would say the Republican ticket could well be Walker/Rubio. That is probably the ideal ticket, at least based on the superficial characteristics (which matter quite a bit, as Obama has proved). They are much younger than Hillary Clinton, both grew up in economically humble circumstances, Walker is a governor from outside Washington, from a region where Republicans can make inroads, and Rubio is a Hispanic candidate from FL. They target all of the key constituencies and critical swing states, and Walker has the potential to mobilize the base in ways recent nominees have not.


Just a very early informed guess on my part.

You've got me sold on Walker as the GOP nominee.

I will take it further and state Clinton v Walker.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

You've got me sold on Walker as the GOP nominee.

I will take it further and state Clinton v Walker.

Yeah, I'm leaning towards that as the likely (but certainly not desirable) lineup. I'm actually thinking Walker/Rubio v Clinton/Castro at this point. We'll have to see, though, it's early yet.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The question is not whether people are involved in community. The question is whether that community is a collectivist, totalitarian government, or whether it follows the traditional American model where associations are bottom-up. The first and foremost being the family, the second the church group, then various private civic organizations and charities, followed last by local government, state government and the federal government in that order.

The Constitution was written for the specific purpose of making the federal government the last resort, not the first. The left today holds the completely opposite view, and wants to nationalize and collectivize every aspect of life, and give the federal government as much money and power as possible. Unfortunately, many Republicans who claim otherwise are very much on board with that mentality, disagreeing only about the form of federal dominance, and not really wanting to reverse it.

The GOP doesn't have control over us like the Democrat's have over them. The Republican base is more self reliant than the Democratic base at this point.

You guys should realize that a bunch of Walker's associates are under investigation. Whatever comes of this if you don't think Bush the machine is going exploit that to rip little Scott apart in states where independents can choose the primary that they vote in, and there are many, you've got a surprise coming.

EDIT: Yes I do see that my keyboard typed in ''Bush the machine'' rather than as intended ''the Bush machine.'' But I like the look and sound of the error better!

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

You've got me sold on Walker as the GOP nominee.

I will take it further and state Clinton v Walker.

Contrary to what JPT estimates, the pro pols don't decides nominees on the basis of which states are advantageous in the general election. Voters choose nominees in primaries, and they don't vote based on political calculations. Jeb Bush already has shown he has all the support which any political pols can give anyone. Voters choose candidates on the basis of the candidates' performance and policies. Walker will prove to be a very bad candidate. He is also extremely polarizing, which will suit the right-wing just fine, but there are enough voters even in the GOP primaries who don't want that kind of candidate. Walker will lose. He would also have zero chance against Hillary Clinton.

Rubio and Paul have some chance, and so does Chris Christie.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

You've got me sold on Walker as the GOP nominee.

I will take it further and state Clinton v Walker.

I'm not making a guarantee by any means, just an early prediction based on where things stand right now. Like I said, it's up to Walker to close the deal, and he has a long way to go. But what makes him look very strong in addition to his attributes on paper is the fact that he's still unknown to a lot of people, and hasn't formally launched yet, but where he has made trips to Iowa and New Hampshire, he's clearly impressed people and now leads the polls in both states. Bush, in contrast, has very few people who don't know who is, and he's neck and neck with Walker nationally, and trailing in the early states.

So in other words, if Walker continues on his current trajectory, he almost certainly will be the nominee. But that is far from guaranteed at this point. What is clear is that he's much stronger than candidates in 2012 like Herman Cain or Rick Santorum who rose in the polls and then faded. He's a governor who has shown considerable political abilities, and has executive experience. Jeb Bush would be uniquely weak against Hillary Clinton, neutralizing many of her negatives, which is why so many Democrats and their mouthpieces in the media are desperately hoping he's the nominee. Given a choice between a third Bush or a second Clinton, Clinton would clearly have the slight advantage, which would help her considering the difficult odds she faces of winning a third term for the same party, something that has only happened once since the passage of the 22nd amendment, for the phenomenally popular Ronald Reagan.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

You guys should realize that a bunch of Walker's associates are under investigation. Whatever comes of this if you don't think Bush the machine is going exploit that to rip little Scott apart in states where independents can choose the primary that they vote in, and there are many, you've got a surprise coming.

EDIT: Yes I do see that my keyboard typed in ''Bush the machine'' rather than as intended ''the Bush machine.'' But I like the look and sound of the error better!

Who cares? A bunch of Obama associates were social con artists and radical militants. That didn't matter to you, why should that matter to us?

Originally Posted by herbal tee

You guys should realize that a bunch of Walker's associates are under investigation. Whatever comes of this if you don't think Bush the machine is going exploit that to rip little Scott apart in states where independents can choose the primary that they vote in, and there are many, you've got a surprise coming.

EDIT: Yes I do see that my keyboard typed in ''Bush the machine'' rather than as intended ''the Bush machine.'' But I like the look and sound of the error better!

I think Walker's opponents in the recall and re-election campaigns already tried every attack on him, and it all failed. Within a Republican primary, they will have a hard time smearing him.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The question is not whether people are involved in community. The question is whether that community is a collectivist, totalitarian government, or whether it follows the traditional American model where associations are bottom-up. The first and foremost being the family, the second the church group, then various private civic organizations and charities, followed last by local government, state government and the federal government in that order.

The Constitution was written for the specific purpose of making the federal government the last resort, not the first. The left today holds the completely opposite view, and wants to nationalize and collectivize every aspect of life, and give the federal government as much money and power as possible. Unfortunately, many Republicans who claim otherwise are very much on board with that mentality, disagreeing only about the form of federal dominance, and not really wanting to reverse it.

It is a very cynical and deceptive tactic to compare American Democratic Party governance with "totalitarian collectivism." You know that is false; why do you make the comparison?

The primary deception at work is to promote the idea that restrictions and taxes on the wealthy and powerful corporations and financiers is "totalitarian," or otherwise an attack on "freedom." "Libertarians" are especially subject to (or promoters of) this big lie. Non-deceived people could care less about the "freedom" of big business to exploit, murder and otherwise abuse people, and would rather that their criminal behavior be restricted and their ill-gotten gains be taxed.

You really want to compare Barack Obama

to Kim Jong-un


???

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I think Walker's opponents in the recall and re-election campaigns already tried every attack on him, and it all failed. Within a Republican primary, they will have a hard time smearing him.

The national press is a lot more aggressive than the Wisconsin one....And the national spotlight burns hotter too.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

The national press is a lot more aggressive than the Wisconsin one....And the national spotlight burns hotter too.

I hope he's taking notes and learning from the mistakes that are being made by the Republican early birds.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is a very cynical and deceptive tactic to compare American Democratic Party governance with "totalitarian collectivism." You know that is false; why do you make the comparison?

The primary deception at work is to promote the idea that restrictions and taxes on the wealthy and powerful corporations and financiers is "totalitarian," or otherwise an attack on "freedom." "Libertarians" are especially subject to (or promoters of) this big lie. Non-deceived people could care less about the "freedom" of big business to exploit, murder and otherwise abuse people, and would rather that their criminal behavior be restricted and their ill-gotten gains be taxed.

You really want to compare Barack Obama

to Kim Jong-un


???

Based on personal experience, his choice for words to describe Democratic governance are pretty accurate.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is a very cynical and deceptive tactic to compare American Democratic Party governance with "totalitarian collectivism." You know that is false; why do you make the comparison?

The primary deception at work is to promote the idea that restrictions and taxes on the wealthy and powerful corporations and financiers is "totalitarian," or otherwise an attack on "freedom." "Libertarians" are especially subject to (or promoters of) this big lie. Non-deceived people could care less about the "freedom" of big business to exploit, murder and otherwise abuse people, and would rather that their criminal behavior be restricted and their ill-gotten gains be taxed.

You really want to compare Barack Obama

to Kim Jong-un


???

It has become very clear what the core of the far left, which now increasingly drives and dominates the Democratic Party, stands for. Raising taxes is a minor issue compared with their drive to create nationalized social programs, to nationalize education, and to impose what has been known as "political correctness" beyond its past "soft" dictates, into direct legal and personal coercion and force against anyone who dissents. When Orwell wrote of a dystopian left wing future in 1984, he wasn't inventing things out of thin air. He was intimately familiar with the mindset of the left, and extrapolating from it. Speech codes on college campuses, blacklisting in academia and media which is now spreading to other sectors, Brendan Eich, the small pizzeria in Indiana. The false rape charges at UVA, the false narrative of "Hands up, don't shoot" that led to the death of two NYC police officers (one Asian, one Hispanic). This is current reality, not supposition. They are increasingly collectivist and totalitarian, and reliant on propaganda from state-controlled media (which is almost all of the media). Right now some of these activities are informal, but they are becoming increasingly formalized.

On top of all of that, Obama's foreign policy goals have become very clear. He prefers Iran to Israel. He wants to do everything he can to prop up and legitimize the Castro regime in Cuba. He has always shown disdain for the UK, and for the US itself. He hates the America that has existed until he was president (his wife said as much), and he only feels positively about it to the extent that he can "fundamentally transform" it. I wouldn't compare him to Kim Jung Un, except in terms of the cult of personality they both rely on. But I think Hugo Chavez was very much what Obama would be if he thought he could get away with it. He has shown disdain for Congress, and a determination to push the boundaries of executive power to impose his will directly, without legislation.

All of this has happened just within the last year. The left and the Democratic Party have demonstrated more and more intensely who and what they really are - totalitarian collectivists who want to centralize power and authority, and use it to engineer society from the top down, including trying to control what people believe, think, and say. That's why Obama has shown so much generosity towards those kinds of regimes abroad, and so much disdain for the US and its allies. All of this was predictable, given the fact that Obama spent decades listening to Jeremiah Wright, has treated Al Sharpton as a respectable advisor, is a personal friend of Bill Ayers and other domestic terrorists from the Weather Underground, and so on. His childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist. His maternal family was far left. That is who he is.

The left in general has made it absolutely clear that they are not constrained in any way by moderation. They are only constrained by what they believe they can get away with - how far they can go before the people turn on them. The are also now emphatically the ruling class, the elite, the gatekeepers of society. They completely control academia, media and the arts, and they have purged dissenters ruthlessly. They increasingly include the leadership of the largest corporations, especially in the tech sector. They dominate the judiciary, which imposes their will when the people vote in a way the ruling class doesn't like. "playwrite" is a very good example of exactly who now runs American society. The only area where there is any moderation at all is on economics, and that's because the people who are cramming left wing dogma down our throats 24 hours a day are extremely wealthy. But even then, the policies don't defend free market capitalism and small business. They serve to prop up, bail out and institutionalize the big players, so that the interchange between big business and big government is not interrupted. What many left leaning proles don't understand is that high taxes, regulation and so forth are actually welcomed by big business, because they erect barriers to entry that prevent anyone from coming up from below and competing with them. The more expensive it is to start a business, the less likely people are to do it. Wall Street and Silicon Valley have created a situation where Democrats raise more money than Republicans and outspend them. And for the last 6 years, Wall Street and Silicon Valley have been drowning in champagne while the rest of the country has suffered through an ongoing economic stagnation, with no "recovery" whatsoever, no matter how much the media tries to pretend it. Quite a coincidence.

Economic growth has been around 2% or worse ever since Obama took office, but the ruling class barely acknowledges it. There has been no recovery. But the Democratic Party's big donors have made out like bandits. The Democrats talk about "income inequality", when it is precisely their policies that have increased it since 2008. This is the reality of socialism, once the ideological fantasies are swept aside. There is a ruling class that lives like kings, while everybody else suffers equally. That's how it was in the Soviet Union, that's how it is under the Democrats of today. This is not a bug, it's a feature. Why else would all of these rich and powerful people want to impose leftism? It's a great deal for them.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

The national press is a lot more aggressive than the Wisconsin one....And the national spotlight burns hotter too.

This is why Walker is kind of unique. His last two elections, the recall and re-election, were basically national campaigns. The Democratic Party and its activists threw everything they possibly could at him. He certainly has to step up and raise his game to compete on the national level. But he has shown evidence that he's capable of it. What's more, the national media is a ripe target to use as a foil, if done smartly. That's what Ronald Reagan did.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Since I'm one of the only people who ever posts here from a conservative/libertarian point of view, follows conservative thought, votes in Republican primaries and usually supports Republican candidates, I think I have a better grasp on this than most here.

Basically you are a more complete partisan hack than I am, as if that gives you some authority.

There has been a pattern of "succession" among Republican nominees. But there are reasons to believe this time will be different. I already listed Bush's weaknesses. Even though the "establishment" has largely sided with him early, even they have misgivings about him. Furthermore, the emergence of the Tea Party movement has created a new dynamic, and a very real split in the party.

I have no idea of who the Republican nominee will be. All of the nominees have shown little ability to poach voters away from the Democratic vote. Even Scott Walker has won due to reduced turnout by Democrats in midterm elections. I look at the most recent poll of Wisconsin that showed Walker doing even worse than some other Republicans in Wisconsin, suggesting that he can win only with a low turnout or against a weak opponent in Wisconsin. That he has no Favorite Son effect to his advantage in Wisconsin suggests that the more that people know him, the less that they will like him.

The difference between the potential Republican nominees (with the possible exception of Chris Christie, who seems increasingly irrelevant) so far looks more like emphasis than like differences of core beliefs. Scott Walker appeals most strongly to those who hate unions and environmentalists. That said, I can't see any potential Republican nominee as friendly to organized labor or to the environment. Mike Huckabee plays strongly to those who want an America in which the advantages go to fundamentalist Christians, in which evolution is derided and creationism is promoted as a valid alternative... but other Republican pols would gladly sacrifice scientific progress to kiss up to the ignoramus vote. On the other side, eighteen states and the District of Columbia have voted for every Democratic nominee since 1992.

All you have to do is look at comments in this thread to see how disenchanted people are, across the spectrum, with the idea of a Bush vs. Clinton "choice" in 2016. Even the most stubborn individuals in the elite camp know this. That kind of election will be very bad for the country, increasing disillusionment with Washington even more, when it's already at a low point.

We are largely disillusioned with the effectiveness of American politics. The Right sees the Other Side damning America to Hell through godless secular humanism and rejection of the (Fundamentalist Christian) Jesus* in favor of abortion, gay rights, multiculturalism, and science. The Left sees the Other Side damning America to an economic order of cheap labor, brutal management, mass hunger, militarism, monopoly, and a ravaged environment while imposing a mindless way of life. Both are correct in their observations.

Whatever side gets control of the Presidency and both Houses of Congress gets its way and reshapes American life for decades. America can be a paradise for American plutocrats and a Hell for other Americans should the Right get control of everything (maybe pleasant enough for foreigners who find cheap holidays, as was Spain under Franco or Portugal under Salazar) ... or a more smoothed-out society in which prosperity is not only for people born into the right family. America could be the sort of country in which people want to live even if they must take a lower job classification to live there -- or the sort of place that many leave in a search for better lives.

The ideal Republican candidate is one who can unite all elements of the party. Bush is not only poorly suited to do that, he's said flat out that he has no interest in it. At least his brother and father made an attempt.

Really, any of the potential Republican nominees will unite all elements of the Republican Party. The Democratic nominee will have practically nothing to offer the Republican base. Likewise, any Republican nominee for President will have anything to offer Democrats.

So again, Walker possesses all of the attributes to be the right candidate, and his early strength is a reflection of that fact. He looks like the candidate people are looking for. But it's up to him to close the deal. In fact I would say, even though it's early, the nomination is Walker's to lose. That is where things stand right now, but there is a long way to go.

Eric has a method which offers more to say about the Republican field than I can offer. You might not like the method, though.
*If He were to come back to our world he would likely be a Reform rabbi.





So again, Walker possesses all of the attributes to be the right candidate, and his early strength is a reflection of that fact. He looks like the candidate people are looking for. But it's up to him to close the deal. In fact I would say, even though it's early, the nomination is Walker's to lose. That is where things stand right now, but there is a long way to go.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by herbal tee

EDIT: Yes I do see that my keyboard typed in ''Bush the machine'' rather than as intended ''the Bush machine.'' But I like the look and sound of the error better!

Or a pic. "Eat my Bush, baby".





and this, As a tip of the hat for Chas'88, shrew man, shrew.

Well now we have Rubio overtly playing the generation card.