We don't like him and the current GOP doesn't like him. I don't think he cares much for Trump, and I don't know why he hasn't said anything about this election. But he's been away from politics since he left office, which is just fine; his endorsement wouldn't help and his non-endorsement won't hurt.

former President.

And it might partially redeem him like Cheney.

Almost nobody cares.

Why?

I'm with you. He was a lousy POTUS. Maybe it has to do with reconciliation, or maybe it was a "all hands on deck" kind of thing.

Last edited Mon Nov 4, 2024, 09:04 AM - Edit history (1)

I edited it. Obviously the same argument applies.

I know that I was.

Negated by 5 people that will view this negatively. He's a non-factor. He deserves to be that, IMHO.

They're to get the votes of people who LIKE the Cheneys.

tent? Do we have NO standards?

How about getting the endorsement of the Ariyan Nations gang? I mean do we want their supporters in the Democratic Party?

we are doing by trumpeting endorsements by the F-ing CHENEYS.

Winning elections is about the number of votes each candidates gets, not who casts those votes. No candidates is going to run around vetting people to determine whether they are "pure" enough for their votes to be acceptable to us.

Endorsements are a somewhat different matter, but even then, I'm not sure we need to worry too much. The non-Democrats who are endorsing Harris-Walz right now are people who share certain values with us, even though they disagree with us on a lot of policy issues. Those shared values are a respect for the U.S. Constitution, a desire for the U.S. to continue to be a democratic republic rather becoming a fascist dictatorship, and a recognition that Donald Trump is a serious danger to this country and ultimately the world. I don't see why we would want to slam the door in the face of anyone who shares those values and sees that the best way to keep America and the rest of the world safe from Trump is to elect Kamala Harris.

As far as the Cheneys go, I know they're far from popular here, but after reading Liz's recent book, I am convinced that she really does care about the Constitution and about not letting Trump turn this country into Nazi Getmany. Her father is a different matter, but humans are complicated, and sometimes even a very flawed human can be capable of surprising insights. (Insert joke about blind pigs occasionally finding truffles. )

As for Dubya, I don't care one way or the other. I wouldn't have a problem with the only living Republican ex-president other than TSF endorsing Harris if he wanted to, for the same reason I don't mind Cheney doing it, but I certainly don't see any urgent need for that to happen.

do not condone the Democratic Party trumpeting their endorsements of Vice President Harris.

At the end of the day, Kamala and her team get to make that call, of course. I voted for her because I trust her to run the country. I'm willing to trust her on this.

During Clinton's campaign, either Charles or David Koch approached Hillary Clinton about endorsing her over Trump. She told him where to shove it. I thought, then, and am convinced even more, that this was a major strategic error. She should have accepted his endorsement. Had she done so, she would probably have reached out to the coalition of Republicans who were becoming very nervous about Trump, and may have been able to eke out enough Republicans who would have accepted the Koch endorsement without actually losing any Democratic support.

Kamala Harris is the Democratic nominee, but she is also the Vice President of the United States. This means that her constituency even now is not just Democratic voters, but also Republican voters, Independent voters ... everyone. I don't think the Clinton's campaign understood that, even if Hillary likely did. Trump of course doesn't understand that at all. He believes that the only ones who are his constituency are those that are loyal to him, and he is actually under NO obligation to return that loyalty.

I suspect that Liz Cheney and Kamala Harris have had a long conversation. Kamala earned Cheney's loyalty, even though she does not fit into the Democratic mold, and more to the point Liz Cheney also earned Harris' loyalty.

IF WE ARE GOING TO HEAL THIS COUNTRY, WE HAVE TO GET PAST THE PARTISAN DIVIDE ... ALL OF US. There are people here who are going to have trouble accepting that, but it's the reality that we face. Loyalty is earned, but it has to be mutually earned, and that means accepting that there will be people who you may not agree with on all things, but who are willing to take oars and help push this ship forward, regardless of where they came from.

is widely regarded as a war criminal. That is a bridge to far for me.....

Of Trump.

I'm ok with that.

If we could just get chump to shut up as well as Dumbya has.

Those not in the cult either probably won't vote or will vote Harris. Magats hate W. His endorsement really won't change anything.

I think that has a lot to do with it

IMHO.

no one should give a fuck what that warmongering piece of SHIT has to say

he's just smart enough not to touch that

We want the votes of those who don't agree with you.

It is just that people are worried about what it might mean downstream.

These are typically not people known for their selfless concern for society (the Cheneys, Bushes etc). So progressives worry about getting pushed further out of the party mainstream to make more room for the Cheneys or say Mark Cubans ( Cuban was a Nikki Haley supporter and now wants Lina Khan fired).

I mean it is useful when anyone votes against Trump, but it is a given that at some point there will follow the whole “soul of the party” debate. Especially if it is more than merely “Look even the Cheneys can’t stand Trump”.

It is the same concern you see reflected here from the left part of the coalition:

https://newrepublic.com/article/187156/mark-cuban-harris-working-class

Trump has become so repellent even some fairly conservative Republicans are ditching him. What that means policy wise downstream worries the left side of the party.

just like he is, hopefully. I'm sure his daughter's opinion swayed him a little.

loony-tunes? And can't respond for himself.

Or maybe he's a Trumpster?

I do agree that it's a mystery.

That's giving his miniscule mind way too much credit.

Surely they talk about what is happening to their party.

Quoting Rhett Butler’s final line in "Off with the pixies" or whatever that film was. (Gone with the Wind, actually.)

I'd prefer to hear endorsements either way from leaders of other countries. After all, there is a lot at stake globally.

IF:
Trump wins: World leaders go WTF and cut ties with America as much as possible.
Kamala wins: Big collective global sigh of relief, business as usual.

Conservatives' brains are wired differently from mine, but I think many of them are voting the way they think they're "supposed" to, even though they really don't care for The DonOld. Couldn't hurt, but I wouldn't sweat it -- SHE'S GOT THIS!

He has daughters.

What does Bush's endorsement do - he is looked upon as a fool and/or failure by both Dems & Repubs.
Who would endorsement move?

Someone speculated last night that he wouldn't because Harlan Crow sits on his library BoD.

I don't know if his endorsement is a blessing or a curse, really.

He hasn't endorsed anyone.

Just sits in his bunker these days getting stoned and paintin pictures. Maybe if Cheney sticks his hand back up his ass he can bring him back to life

of the decorum hoops. I thought the threats to Liz Cheney would get him to endorse. Oh well.

The reason it could help a tiny bit is when people make a long list of republicans who are pro Harris, he would be on it.

That said, he is on the list of republican's who will not endorse trump.

His endorsement completes the whole set of "every living former president ." He probably doesn't like Kamala enough to make the statement.

Besides, doesn't he have relatives who may want a future in the republican party? I seem to remember a nephew running for office a few years back. They might not want to weaken support from the cult that took over the party.

43 was considered the worst president ever until Trump came along. Why should we be surprised that he can't do the right thing now?

presidencies of Messieurs Buchanan and Pierce. I do believe Mr. Trump has equaled their awful presidencies and his desire to cause harm certainly surpasses either of theirs.

Conversely, Mr. Bush, who incidentally should never have been president*, is not close to as bad as the above trio. Perhaps he is the fourth worst. He did have his truly terrible moments which helped lead us to today. This is true too.

Although Mr. Bush did hire crooks, I believe he did so innocently. Remember his scheduler did time ? Mr. Bush appointed a donor to head the National Archives who stole some of our treasures and sold them on eBay. Yet, I don’t believe Mr. Bush was a conman. He was not a grifter or a thief either.

* by any measure, Al Gore won Florida. Anybody he claims Al Gore did not win Florida is lying to themselves.

I seem to remember a Time magazine cover asking if Bush 43 was the worst president ever? I'll have to google it.

Dubya LITERALLY STARTED A WAR BASED ON LIES

it doesn't get worse than THAT

general inability to stand up to anyone, or to stand for anything basically led us right to the civil war. Without the civil war, who knows when we end slavery. Does this give Pierce or Buchanan some mitigation?

No. President Buchanan may have pressured the court for the Dred Scott ruling. He also said this about slavery in our then territories “happily, a matter of but little practical importance.” This statement would have surprised many a Kansas free-soil jayhawker if they had not already been machete’d to death by Quantrill’s goon squad of pro-slave poor white sods.

No doubt, Mr. Bush’s invasion of Iraq was an unprepared disaster. We are still living with its deadly consequences. Although we do not have to live with Saddam Hussein anymore.

Nonetheless, the abysmally tragic Iraqi mess does not surpass the sheer cruelty of Mr. Buchanan’s dismissal of the horrors of slavery or the murders in Bloody Kansas.

As for Mr. Pierce, his presidency would be first but for Mr. Buchanan.

It truly was worse once upon a time. It was a lot worse for millions of our ancestors and our kin who were murdered before they got a chance to procreate. Babies were bayoneted in bloody Kansas. Men bayoneted babies. I should say babies of European descent because a slave owner could bayonet a baby of African descent any day he wanted and the only incentive against that murder was the hit he would take to his pocketbook. It was legal to do anything you wanted to do to your property. It was legal to have workplaces so dangerous many “free” workers up north, died while working, too. There was no workers’ compensation.

I find it extremely difficult to wrap my brain around how truly terrible it was in America before our civil war. The poison of living in an environment in which it was legally fine and “happily a matter of but little practical importance” to murder children, not to mention adults, must have been brutal on many, many minds and consciences.

The above does not even touch the tenements in which many of our ancestors lived (and died) alongside rats and without any kind of sanitary condition.

I think never trump’er GOP’er’s do.

But to me, he's a useless POS. What an embarrassment we had that creep for 8 yrs and DonOLD for 4. 12 yrs of unmitigated hell.

Will never admit he's done anything wrong.

Ever.

He's a "college boy" through and through.

The entire Bush family is proof that reality is optional.

He's a silent toilet sitting on a pile of shit.

Dick and "doo da" started this shit.

They made a lot of money.

Killing folks.

And, that's what's really important.

The only thing I do is laugh at how it upsets MAGAs. I know, unlike some seem to, that anyone who backs us now only wants us to remove Trump from their party. We do the dirty work, and then they turn on us and we're right back in it.

And the truth is, we don't need them. We can use them to make a point, but it's not going to win this for us. We will win it. Getting out the black vote, the young vote, the Latino vote, and more importantly, the women votes.

Nothing else matters but showing everyone a path to a better future, with opportunities, not handouts. With peace and equality, not hate and divisiveness. That is our true strength, and no Republican endorsement is going to make a damned bit of difference.

Day before the election.

Whadda ya think?