Previous Post
Next Post


Last week in Nashville, Jeb Bush dutifully appeared before the NRA faithful, sticking up for Florida’s stand your ground law (which he signed) and dinging President Obama for his resolute anti-2A stance. So…brownie points, no? The former Florida gov, widely seen as a middle-of-the-roader, got up there in front of a decidedly right-leaning crowd and presented his pro-gun bona fides. But maybe the (at best) polite response he got was due to those in the crowd who use the New York Times as something other than fish wrap. Because just the day before, the paper of record had reported that Mayor Mike had anointed Jeb as the only worthy GOP candidate . . .

For gun rights supporters, that’s a little like Michael Corleone planting a big wet kiss on Fredo’s forehead.

When asked what he thought of the growing field of presidential candidates, Mr. Bloomberg was equally definite. “Hillary and Jeb are the only two who know how to make the trains run,” …

No question about it. There’s nothing that will establish Bush’s RKBA street cred in the eyes of America’s gun owners like a Mussolini reference from a Napoleonic know-it-all who loves nothing more than telling others how to live their lives. With friends like that….

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Common Core supporter? Check.
    Amnesty supporter? Check.
    Completely oblivious to the Founders and their antipathy toward a ruling clan? Check.

    Yet, I’m sure the GOPe will gladly allow MBM to pick their losing candidate.

    A thousand times “NO!”

    • Not as far as I know… Nearly every GOPer I know has said, “Ugh another Bush?”

      I do think it’s funny how the mainstream Media think he’s our “front-runner”… Oh please don’t throw me in the briar patch. Pretty much nobody in the conservative circles wants Bush. This is like another nail in his campaign coffin.

      • Most Republicans I know (meaning mostly only people old enough to collect Social Security) are obsessed with the idea that the Republican party has to ignore the stated views of the GOP and nominate an “electable” candidate – like how Mitt Romney was “electable”. Most Republicans seem to have lost their marbles in their old age and they think that the response to a Democrat winning the last election or two is to run a Democrat as a Republican because somehow this will mean that they’ll magically start supporting small government (which virtually no Republican in office these days supports) once they’re elected. This way of thinking is idiotic and results in the Republicans losing. Why? Well the Democrats sure as hell aren’t going to vote for them, the minority of Republicans who still believe in small government won’t vote for them, and a lot of moderates see two virtually identical Big Brother statists running and say “Screw it, I’ll just stay home”.

        • This is a misconception. Mitt Romney was plenty electable. What hurt him was his social conservatism, such as his stances on abortion and same sex marriage, He initially had soared in the polls after that first debate. The GOP needs a center-right candidate who can explain conservatism very well. Instead, we tend to end up with establishment Republicans who are just light-hearted Democrats (Bob Dole, John McCain), or far-right extremist Republicans like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. Mitt Romney came closest to being a center-right conservative, as opposed to a light-hearted Democrat, but his social conservatism, which he had to adhere to due to the Evangelical portion of the party, did him in.

          People such as yourself I think view a center-right conservative as being the same as a light Democrat, but there is a difference. A Republican who is a light Democrat can’t defend conservatism worth a damn. They just argue for essentially the same things as the Democrat, and get “out Democrated” by the Democrat as a result. A center-right conservative, by contrast, knows how to make the argument for conservative principles and present an alternative view to what the Democrat is proposing as opposed to essentially a lighter variant of the exact same thing. This is close to what Mitt Romney did and it worked very well for him initially. But then he lost women voters, independents, the youth vote, and the Hispanic vote over his positions on abortion, same-sex marriage, and immigration.

          The GOP is delusional if they think that they can run their idea of a “true” conservative, i.e. a Rand Paul or a Ted Cruz, and win. If we run that, we end up with a President Hillary Clinton.

          • @Kyle, un no….nice try. Were you sent by the DNC? The reason Romney wasn’t electable was because the conservative base didn’t trust him. Romney is a proven flip-flopper. Abortion, gun control, etc…flip flopper. The conservative base knew Romney would shat them out as soon as the election was over and he would immediately go back to his RINO ways. He was not electable. When you can’t win your base, you are by default, unelectable.

            And the soft headed RINOs like yourself have proven time and time again, your way doesn’t work. It didn’t work for “read my lips” anti-gunner Bush Sr., it didn’t work for establishment RINO Dole, McCain’t or Romnoid. It barely worked for Bush Jr and that was by the skin of his teeth…”compassionate conservative” AKA RINO.

            Nice try…

        • For one, as said, there is a difference between someone like a Dole and McCain versus a center-right conservative who can actually defend conservatism. I respect McCain for his military service, but he was an utter moron policy-wise. Also, your term “RINO” is your opinion. Generally I find it is used by those who think they and only they adhere to the “true” form of conservatism, as if they hold a monopoly on what constitutes “true” conservatism, and others are perverting or bastardizing conservatism.

          Romney didn’t lose because the GOP base didn’t trust him. Even if the base had come out in full support of him, he would have still lost, the margin was that large. As for his being a flip-flopper, so what? Getting Obama was the better choice? Also Romney was a liberal in Massachusetts because he had a Democratically-controlled state legislature and had to go along with what they were pushing forth.

    • That’s a ringing endorsement for nope the effing way in heck if I ever heard one. I don’t give a crap, I won’t vote for Jeb or Christie. These freaking statists need to have their turd sandwich bluff called.

    • Endorsement by rabidly anti-gun Sir Michael Bloomberg, newly knighted resident of London? Check.

      Gee, Jebbers, you won’t be getting my vote.

    • . . . to your nearest attorney’s office and file a defamation by mention/association suit.

      It’s strange, Bloomberg must have had a microphone on a 4′ selfie-stick, ’cause there’s no way he could pop-his-head out of his a _ _ long and far enough to make a comment, and there wouldn’t be anyone else for miles around to record it if he did.

      • Joe, Jeb is very unlikely to file a defamation suit against Bloomberg. Bloomberg created a very large foundation. Jeb Bush has long been a member of its board. I don’t know if he’s resigned from that in the last six months, but either way, Jeb and Mike are on the same page. Bloomberg, in turn, gets the commentary of one of America’s most plugged in families.

        Democracy doesn’t mean much when such a large part of policy and enforcement/regulation is piled on the Imperial Presidency, which has grotesquely undermined representative government. Instead of local elections creating a representative legislature, we have a few billion dollars buying a presidency…and shaping the supreme court. The big money can flow to the most finance-attractive politician in each presidential cycle. Nobody notices.

  2. If you are aware of what WA State is fighting with the 2A infringing I-594 and the continuing add-ons, knowing this anti-2A Law was backed by Bloomberg, How on earth could you believe Bush being pro-2A? You’d have to be a complete fool! (or a tool).

  3. Well I am in Florida and he won’t have my vote (or that if my wife). Bloomy’s endorsement had nothing to do with that decision, but surely won’t help his cause in my house.

    We don’t like his stance on other issues. There are others in the current crop that reflect our ideals better. Okay. Actually all the Republicans, except Bush, reflect our ideals better.

  4. See how easily liberalism slides into fascism without missing a beat? Hey, wait a minute, isn’t Bloomberg Jewish? Huh, fascist remembrances by an anti-gun mayor, hostile to the 2nd A….who’s Jewish? Go figure.

  5. I still want a “none of the above, go back and give me different options” box on my ballot.

    • That would take an amendment. Which I would support $$ and vote for.

      Possibly should preclude the candidates running for public office again, for some period, also. Say, 5 or 10 years (ie, get a job, dude!).

  6. Hillary and Jeb are the only two who know how to make the trains run. Never you mind who’s in those cattle cars or where they’re going. At least they’ll get there on time.

    • In my experience “make the trains run on time” is just CEO parlance for “keep corporate and top tier tax rates down and keep the regulation of financial companies as loose as possible.” Code.

    • That’s who the msm will focus on, and all the good candidates will get marginalized. The GOP won’t approve of such “rebels” as Cruz or Paul, they’ll want a non-threatening neutered Democrat Lite such as Jeb. I mean, who do those “crazies” think they are, with their respect for the Constitution, flat taxes and spending cuts? I mean the nerve!!!

  7. Oh, wow……………….an endorsement by Michael Bloomberg…………..something akin to annointment by the devil, himself, isn’t it?

  8. All Kapo bloomberg needs to do now is endorse Paul and Rubio and Cruz and Hitlery is a shoe in.

  9. Sooooo they can make the trains run…….let ’em be engineers. People should stick with that which they do well……let Northern hire them.

  10. I believe that on the subject of Jeb Bush, the Rev. Jesse Jackson summed up my sentiments best.

  11. It is actually quite possible that Mr. Bloomberg’s comment for once had nothing to do with guns. One thought behind his comment could have been the question of whether Jeb Bush is the only Republican candidate with enough gravitas to have a chance to win the election against Ms. Clinton. It is not an invalid question.

    • Hillary Clinton has so much ‘gravitas’ that she got run into the ground by a first-term Senator who’s major accomplishment up to that was defeating Alan Keyes in an election.

      Hillary is not inevitable.

      • No, she is not, but the question is who can beat her, assuming she will actually get the Democratic nomination. Which she may or may not.

  12. Anybody else dreaming of a hypothetical Rand Paul/Elizabeth Warren standoff? Because that would be an awful lot of fun to watch. Something to put a smile on your face while we wait for Bush 3.0 vs Clinton 2.0. Apparently both parties are gunning for new high-water marks in voter apathy.

    • If that matchup did not get “none of the above” amendment passed, nothing ever will.

      In fact, if that was the setup in August, I suspect it would be possible to have NOTA passed and effective by November.

  13. Can’t the people who appoint the president in this country find a couple fresher faces for us to pretend to pick from? It’s like they’re not even trying to keep up the facade anymore.

  14. Probably, mikie’s blessing is the only thing more dangerous to your political life than an endorsement from dear leader.

  15. I said it before, we don’t need another Clinton or Bush in the White House, this country isn’t supposed to have monarchies, these two families have done enough damage to this country.

  16. He who counts the votes has the power. Who will prevent vote tampering on all electronic machines ? We become more like 1950’s USSR by the day.

  17. I’m really confused why we can’t get some new blood here. Bush’s and Clinton’s??? Seriously?

    No thanks. Again No. Some more no.

  18. Nanny Bloomie likes Jebbie? That is enough to turn off anyone who supports freedom and individual responsibility. Period. Is there anyone else, maybe a cut-out of Washington?

  19. Anyone in the family tree as the president who gave us the Patriot Act can pretty much KMA.

  20. The mad midget did it on purpose…the little fella’ didn’t get billions by being stupid. Yeah no beast or bush…

  21. NOPE.

    Still voting for Gary Johnson. The rest of ’em can frankly kiss my ass ’cause not one of ’em is even qualified to run so much as a broom, let alone a country. The only GOP nominee that doesn’t make me physically ill when I so much as think about them is Condi Rice, and even then, she worries me.

  22. Well, that pretty much locks it up for me. If Michael Bloomberg is in favor of Jeb, I’m against. Not that I actually needed more reasons to oppose Jeb.

  23. I found Jeb Bush’s NRA-ILA speech to be uninspiring and weak to the point of appearing unrehearsed. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, was very engaging, a much better speaker. Not to mention he delivered a stronger pro gun rights message.

  24. Apparently few appreciate the fact that Jeb sat for years on Mike B’s private foundation board. It doesn’t get much closer than that in the upper strata. Of COURSE Bloomberg will endorse Jeb.

  25. Jeb is far more electable than Cruz or Paul, but he himself is a rather blah candidate and placed up against Hillary, it is a 50/50 draw most likely because both will be seen as two establishment candidates. Rand Paul is too libertarian and Ted Cruz is too right-wing overall and too socially-conservative. What the GOP needs is someone who can come across a center-right conservative, i.e. someone who is not seen as far-right, but who nonetheless can explain conservatism, is very intimately well-read in conservatism, but at the same time who does come across as far-right.

    Many claim that is what we’ve tried with Bob Dole, John McCain, and Romney and that such candidates just come across as lighter-hearted versions of the Democrats, and you can’t out-Democrat a Democrat. I agree with regards to Dole and especially McCain, as McCain was utterly clueless regarding how to defend conservatism. He just argued for the exact same things as Obama for the most part, just a lighter version. A center-right conservative, by contrast, rather than coming across as a lighter Democrat, comes across as a total alternative to the Democrat, a conservative who really takes the fight to the Democrat, but who is not seen as far-right-wing. Mitt Romney came closest to this in 2012, but his socially-conservative positions did him in with women and youth voters, and also the Hispanics were scared of him.

    But Romney soared in the polls initially after that first debate, where he really came across as a center-right conservative as opposed to a light Democrat. Romney basically wasn’t centrist enough unfortunately due to the demands of the Evangelical wing of the GOP. I wonder if the GOP will ever be able to win another presidential election because of the ultra social conservatism demanded by the Evangelicals.

    An oft-cited line in the GOP is that every time they run a moderate, they lose, that they thus need to run a “true conservative.” But it’s not when they run a moderate that they lose, it’s when they run a moron who can’t explain conservatism at all and thus comes across as a light Democrat. Running a “true conservative” like a Paul or a Cruz will only make their next loss even worse.

      • We run a Bob Dole or a John McCain, we’ll lose. But if we run a Ted Cruz or a Rand Paul, we’ll also lose.

        • You’re basically saying that whoever we run, we’ll lose. Your search for a Goldilocks candidate is futile. I say we run on our principles or not at all. And we keep running on our principles. If we keep losing, and the nation keeps getting ruined, then people will be willing to give us a chance.

          When we put in RINOS, squishes and moderates and then are surprised when people think we’re “just as bad” as Democrats or “driving us off the cliff slower” (and they’re right about that), then we fuzz the distinction between the parties and indicate that we don’t truly believe in the principles we espouse. For that, we deserve to lose.

        • @Kyle, you are so predictable DNC. Is this your “convince the the sky is falling” game plan? Laughable.

        • Agreed. Don’t play the Rino or Democrat game. We lose either way. Playing the “I don’t think he can win game so lets vote for a RINO” only ensures we can’t win.

        • Yes, currently, I don’t think anyone we have really stands a good chance at winning. That’s a reason why I wonder whether the GOP will ever be able to win another presidential election. But not because people disagree with conservative principles on taxes, foreign policy, economy, etc…so much as disagreeing with the GOP on social issues (same-sex marriage, wanting to completely outlaw abortion, etc…). A “RINO” stands a better chance at winning than the principled candidates we have such as Ted Cruz and Rand Paul as they are considered too extreme by the mainstream public. This is a center-right country, not a right-wing country, and it is a center-right country that twice elected a hard-left Democrat (because the public was too ignorant to realize what they were voting for). Also, I would say that Rand Paul in particular does not adhere to even the principles of many Republicans as he is too isolationist.

        • Also wanted to say:

          You’re basically saying that whoever we run, we’ll lose. Your search for a Goldilocks candidate is futile. I say we run on our principles or not at all. And we keep running on our principles. If we keep losing, and the nation keeps getting ruined, then people will be willing to give us a chance.

          Maybe, maybe not, it depends on if people avoid voting for us due to the social issues or not (which the GOP’s stance on certain social issues I disagree with).

          When we put in RINOS, squishes and moderates and then are surprised when people think we’re “just as bad” as Democrats or “driving us off the cliff slower” (and they’re right about that), then we fuzz the distinction between the parties and indicate that we don’t truly believe in the principles we espouse. For that, we deserve to lose.

          Would have to disagree there for two reasons:

          1) People didn’t vote for McCain and then not for Romney because they thought they were both “just as bad” as the Democrat. People voted for Obama in 2008 because he seemed new, fresh, young, vibrant, “Change!” and the first black president. People voted for him in 2012 because Romney’s social conservatism that he had to adhere to turned off a lot of women and young voters and the Hispanic vote was totally lost because the Hispanics are terrified of the GOP right now. Also many Hispanics ideologically disagree with the GOP’s stance on limited government.

          In addition, because he had the reputation for using drones to kill terrorists and had given the order to have Osama bin Laden killed, Obama was seen as just as strong as Romney on foreign policy. He wasn’t, but things hadn’t yet blown up in his face due to his foreign policy decisions yet, so the public saw him as strong.

          2) Running a center-right GOPer doesn’t mean we are running against our principles. It depends on how the person is center-right. For example, if the candidate is completely against a social welfare state, they’ll lose. If they argue for a social welfare state in terms of sound safety nets for people who truly need help, but otherwise not for the massive bloated state the Democrats want (and can make this eloquently), they’ll win.

  26. tell that zionist jew to kiss my christian ass. why doesn’t he run for president if he’s so smart?

Comments are closed.