Laura Bush for President?

To put it simply she would not have my vote unless it was against Hillary.





ELECTION 2008
Laura Bush
for president?
Speculation begins as first lady shifting into high-profile mode
Posted: May 26, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern



Those who follow American politics have no doubt noticed a new, high-profile role for first lady Laura Bush in her husband's second term.

She's taking trips to hotspots such as the Middle East, making risqué jokes about her husband and even questioning how the Secret Service recently handled President Bush's protection during a flight scare over Washington.

The "New Laura" has some people asking questions if there's a designed reason for her new outspokenness.










LINK

There are too many qualified candidates to even bring up Laura Bush.

George Allen, Newt Gingrich, Tom Tancredo, Bill Frist...etc

If Laura wanted to further her political career, an ambassadorship would be appropriate, but nothing much more political than that.

shes a lovely woman who is shy and modest and no doubt not arrogant all at, she be a great woman president over Hillary Clintion.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

This is absolutely absurd.

1. It is a FACT she that killed someone. Can you imagine the s***storm that would fly once she got the nomination. If you think things are spun too badly nowadays, just wait...

2. Have you looked at her? No...really...have you? There is something not right in her face. It is something that does not really work. I'm not saying she is ugly...but there is something odd there. And since this country is famous for electing aesthetically friendly people, she might have a few problems.

3. What credentials does she have? How much public service does she have? Just because you live with the most powerful political figure, does not mean that you would be good at it.

4. Her personallity does not seem suitable for a politician. She looks like she would be a nice person. That would be her downfall. NICE PEOPLE ARE NOT GOOD POLITICIANS. After all, how would they respond to some of the snarkier comments of people like Dean and Hillary?

5. I just don't like the idea of anybody other than Giuliani or McCain being serious about the nod. I know the democrats will nominate "SomeCrappyGuy 2008", I just hope the Republicans put up a more balanced person...someone who appeals to both sides. Laura would only appeal to two people. One of them is hardcore Republicans who will vote Republican regardless. And the other are those who will be voting specifically against Hillary.

Originally posted by OXmanK
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

This is absolutely absurd.

1. It is a FACT she that killed someone. Can you imagine the s***storm that would fly once she got the nomination. If you think things are spun too badly nowadays, just wait...

2. Have you looked at her? No...really...have you? There is something not right in her face. It is something that does not really work. I'm not saying she is ugly...but there is something odd there. And since this country is famous for electing aesthetically friendly people, she might have a few problems.

3. What credentials does she have? How much public service does she have? Just because you live with the most powerful political figure, does not mean that you would be good at it.

4. Her personallity does not seem suitable for a politician. She looks like she would be a nice person. That would be her downfall. NICE PEOPLE ARE NOT GOOD POLITICIANS. After all, how would they respond to some of the snarkier comments of people like Dean and Hillary?

5. I just don't like the idea of anybody other than Giuliani or McCain being serious about the nod. I know the democrats will nominate "SomeCrappyGuy 2008", I just hope the Republicans put up a more balanced person...someone who appeals to both sides. Laura would only appeal to two people. One of them is hardcore Republicans who will vote Republican regardless. And the other are those who will be voting specifically against Hillary.

So we agree, No Laura in 2008. This was probably dreamed up by "Bush-basher" anyway. It will never happen.

What do you mean "more balanced"? Someone who "compromises" with Democrats? Guiliani and McCain will not get the nomination because they are considered moderate. Republicans are looking for the next Reagan, Bush is good but not quite Reaganesque.

George Allen and Newt Gingrich are my top choices at this point.

[edit on 26-5-2005 by Carseller4]

I would love to see someone who would compromise. I'm sure you would agree, neither side has it completely correct. I became an independent because both sides "bask" in not being completely correct. Neither side tries. They are too set in their ways.

But, you are right, the more extreme person on the caucus will most likely get the nod. Why? Because they completely appeal to those on one side. Then in the fall, we get two guys who are terribly polarizing. I would have loved to have voted for McCain in 2000. Instead, I ended up loathing that I voted for Bush 2000. (And that was when I was a registered "Clinton-lovin'" Democrat.) I would have loved to vote Lieberman (Even though I hate his PTC membership) in 2004. Instead, I voted for Badnarik. (Even though I am troubled by a lot of the Libertarian stances.)

Originally posted by Carseller4


If Laura wanted to further her political career, an ambassadorship would be appropriate, but nothing much more political than that.

Why shouldnt Laura run for office if she so chooses?
Much depends on which direction the republican party takes in 2008 there are plently of Neo cons around should the republican party take a difernt directions things could be quite interesting.

2012 could be option if Laura has her eyes set on the oval office.

Some thing to consider in 2008 some people are leaning towards voting Libertarin will people vote Libertarin when it comes to the crunch?
If so it raises the possablity that the Libertarins may split the republican vote allowing the dems to re take the oval office.

[edit on 27-5-2005 by xpert11]