Why is he not running as a democrat?   


NEW YORK – As Senate Republicans delay a vote on Loretta Lynch attorney general nomination, GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush is urging confirmation, arguing President Obama deserves the right to appoint his own team without partisan opposition.

"If someone is supportive of the president's policies, whether you agree with them or not, there should be some deference to the executive," Bush responded at a New Hampshire town hall meeting Thursday evening, according to Time magazine. "It should not always be partisan."

http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/jeb-urges-republicans-to-ok-obamas-ag-pick/?

But he's not a rino, er....liberal...umm, he's not a Dim?

This from a man whose brother took us to war with 100% of the Republicans voting in favor and 100% of the Democrats voting opposed.  That was when a lot of us knew this nation was in deep trouble. Americans have had it with the Holder/Obama teamwork. Lynch appears to be the type of politician that will only make the aggravation worse.

The fact is, the GOP, many Democrats,  and much of Washington does not want Lynch in that position. Her amnesty stance is just the tip.  Islamic illegals now outnumber Spanish speaking illegal crossers five to one. Ties to drug lords, terror, money laundering, add up to a dead heat the nomination is in now.  How ironic that Lindsay Graham and Orrin Hatch support Lynch.

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/loretta-lynch-nomination-in-big-trouble-heres-why

It is not partisanship that's the hold up, JEB. You don't have the support for the nomination. You are not President, yet.

Quote from: red_dirt on April 19, 2015, 12:11:41 PM
This from a man whose brother took us to war with 100% of the Republicans voting in favor and 100% of the Democrats voting opposed.  That was when a lot of us knew this nation was in deep trouble. Americans have had it with the Holder/Obama teamwork. Lynch appears to be the type of politician that will only make the aggravation worse.

The fact is, the GOP, many Democrats,  and much of Washington does not want Lynch in that position. Her amnesty stance is just the tip.  Islamic illegals now outnumber Spanish speaking illegal crossers five to one. Ties to drug lords, terror, money laundering, add up to a dead heat the nomination is in now.  How ironic that Lindsay Graham and Orrin Hatch support Lynch.

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/loretta-lynch-nomination-in-big-trouble-heres-why

It is not partisanship that's the hold up, JEB. You don't have the support for the nomination. You are not President, yet.

Red, can you provide a link to that?

Quote from: red_dirt on April 19, 2015, 12:11:41 PM
This from a man whose brother took us to war with 100% of the Republicans voting in favor and 100% of the Democrats voting opposed. That was when a lot of us knew this nation was in deep trouble. Americans have had it with the Holder/Obama teamwork. Lynch appears to be the type of politician that will only make the aggravation worse.

The fact is, the GOP, many Democrats,  and much of Washington does not want Lynch in that position. Her amnesty stance is just the tip.  Islamic illegals now outnumber Spanish speaking illegal crossers five to one. Ties to drug lords, terror, money laundering, add up to a dead heat the nomination is in now.  How ironic that Lindsay Graham and Orrin Hatch support Lynch.

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/loretta-lynch-nomination-in-big-trouble-heres-why

It is not partisanship that's the hold up, JEB. You don't have the support for the nomination. You are not President, yet.

What happen to I voted for it before I voted against it.

Traitor Hanoi "flip flop" John kerry.  ("I voted for the war before I voted against it.")

Like many RINO's, it hasn't sunk in with Jeb what's been happening in Washington recently. Collegiality has long since gone out the window. He also does't understand why the Senate has to approve Presidential appointments. The president just doesn't get who he wants, that's how we end up with incompetents, ideologues and corrupt "Yes" men. He's the President of a Constitutional Republic, not the King.

If I didn't know any better, I'd swear Jeb is trying to throw the election.

Quote from: Solar on April 19, 2015, 12:32:58 PM
Red, can you provide a link to that?

Even Hillary supported the war in Iraq and even gave a big speech about Saddam's WMD!

House vote!

QuoteParty

Yeas

Nays

Not
Voting

Republican 215 6 2
Democrat 82 126 1
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 297 133 3

Senate vote!

Quote
Party

Yeas

Nays

Republican 48 1
Democrat 29 21
Independent 0 1
TOTALS 77 23

Quote from: Solar on April 19, 2015, 01:17:36 PM
If I didn't know any better, I'd swear Jeb is trying to throw the election.

I just think he is a Bush. They are all gentlemen, but very few of those exist in Washington. Lee Attwater showed us what is necessary to beat democrats.

Jeb and Lindsay have both said that the President deserves to have the appointee of his choice.

Huh?

Then why did the Constitution give confirmation rights to the Senate?

These guys are total fools or believe like the liberals that the Constitution is out of date!

The confirmation process was created exactly for situations like this!  Outrageously poor nominees should be blocked by the Senate!  Loretta Lynch is the poster child for poor nominees. 

Quote from: kroz on April 19, 2015, 02:01:28 PM
Jeb and Lindsay have both said that the President deserves to have the appointee of his choice.

Huh?

Then why did the Constitution give confirmation rights to the Senate?

These guys are total fools or believe like the liberals that the Constitution is out of date!

The confirmation process was created exactly for situations like this!  Outrageously poor nominees should be blocked by the Senate!  Loretta Lynch is the poster child for poor nominees.

If Jeb Announces this will come back to bite him in the primary!

Quote from: redbeard on April 19, 2015, 02:09:31 PM
If Jeb Announces this will come back to bite him in the primary!

The idiot probably thinks that when I'm President I want to have whoever my choice is confirmed.  Two things wrong with this thinking;

1.  The Libs in the media and Congress will never play ball and give a Republican President a break just because they advocated giving the Democrat President a break...

                                             and, more importantly...

2.  Jebb Bush will never be Predisent!

Kiss ass.....

Another nail in his coffin

Of course he did. The GOP's motto should be "never rock the boat".

Quote from: Solar on April 19, 2015, 12:32:58 PM
Red, can you provide a link to that?

Over stated in my failing memory. I was thinking of one of the 2007 votes. In retrospect, many now feel Pelosi and Reid were cutting funding for the war in order to make it more likely Barack Obama would be elected and/or the House would be returned to the Democrats.
The attached NY Times article shows how close the vote was in 1991, and how divided along party lines.

There have been a number of evenly split votes on the wars in the Middle East. The efforts of the Democrats to lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan peaked during the period 2006, after voters had handed Democrats the House, to the elections of  2010, when voters gave it back to the GOP. From  2012 to 2014, the House again fell into Democratic hands. Those were the years Pelosi and Reid ran the action in Congress while Obama did what he could as chief.  Those were the withdrawal years, the years which led to the present situation.

--------------------------------------------

NYT   January 13, 1991

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/13/world/confrontation-gulf-congress-acts-authorize-war-gulf-margins-are-5-votes-senate.html

.....examples of a remarkably full, thoughtful debate by more than 268 Representatives and 93 Senators, many of whom waited until the early hours this morning for a chance to go on the record. And today, both chambers usually had majorities of the members sitting and listening as the final arguments were offered.
Today's action was the first time since Aug. 7, 1964, when the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was adopted, that Congress had voted directly for offensive military action. But today's votes were far closer than the 88-2 Senate margin or the 414-0 result in the House for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which was cited for years afterward by foes and supporters of the war effort as Congress's critical move.
The last time Congress was comparably divided in deciding to go to war was with its votes to launch the War of 1812; the House voted 79 to 49 in favor and the Senate followed, 19 to 13. Sanctions Lost in First Votes
Before voting for force, each House foreshadowed its crucial decision by defeating resolutions urging continued reliance on sanctions.
In the Senate, the vote was 53 to 46, with only 1 Republican, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, joining 45 Democrats in the losing effort. In the House, the vote was 250 to 183, with 179 Democrats, 3 Republicans and 1 independent in favor and 164 Republicans and 86 Democrats opposed.
The House also passed, 302-131, a measure reasserting Congress's exclusive constitutional authority to declare war.

---------------------------

Nov. 14th, 2007

Just about an hour ago, the Dems passed their Iraq withdrawal bill, tying $50 billion in war funding to a demand that President Bush start bringing troops home in coming weeks (never mind that it's already starting) with a mandated timetable of ending combat by December 2008:
House Democrats pushed through a $50 billion bill for the Iraq war Wednesday night that would require President Bush to start bringing troops home in coming weeks with a goal of ending combat by December 2008.
The legislation, passed 218-203, was largely a symbolic jab at Bush, who already has begun reducing force levels but opposes a congress mandated timetable on the war. And while the measure was unlikely to pass in the Senate — let alone overcome a presidential veto — Democrats said they wanted voters to know they weren't giving up.

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/14/white-flag-dems-pass-iraq-withdrawal-bill/

-------------------------------------

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/15/secdef-gates-cowboys-up-against-the-surrendercrat-congress/

SecDef Gates cowboys up against the surrendercrat Congress
November 15, 2007 by Bryan
The Democrats believe that they were handed Congress in 2006 to end the war in Iraq. In nearly a year in office, they have tried and failed to end the war 40 times. These repeated failures have surely contributed to Congress' approval rating falling below that of President Bush, but it's not the only reason by a long shot. Congress remains corrupt, pork-laden and kindergarten in its approach to disputes to the point that most Americans have rightly concluded that it's just plain useless. And besides that, if Congress was given to the Democrats just to end the war, why are the President's numbers higher than theirs? That ought to make them go hmm.
-------------------------------------------------