Bush, Rubio and Kasich are all good candidates imo.  if we're talking simple qualifications then candidates like Perry, Kasich, Walker and Jindal are good candidates as well.  you may not agree with their positions but they're giving the Republican party some good options.

you can cite verbal miscues from virtually any presidential candidate or politician (although Perry has a lot of them) so i don't know what you're trying to prove by saying that.  i mentioned Perry due to his qualfications, thus being his extensive (15 year) record of executive experience, and on top of that he has a great record of job creation and economic stimuilation in his state.

'warmongerer'? you realize that the American public as well as Congress pushed for the Iraq war as well? what do you think happens after a terrorist attack that takes like 1000 lives in one of the biggest cities in America? outrage and people wanted action

and you attacked a country that had nothing to do with it, yes, Saddam was a truly awful person, but he held things together in Iraq (and people told you/your representatives so at the time), american intervention did more evil in the region than Saddam in all of his reign - you can't just do that to a country/region because you are mad

I'm not saying George W. Bush isn't partially responsible but it's not as if he singularly made any decisions to go into Iraq. in the end make no mistake it was for a good PURPOSE. I'm not saying it ended up going well but I think George is obviously a fairly good person who just may not be the smartest in some of his decision making

it was 100% a mistake no matter the supposed intentions - by the way Chirac (former french president, might know him) is on the record saying Bush Jr phoned him and said the Iraq war was foretold in the Bible as the final struggle with Gog and Magog and urged him to participate as a fellow christian - he lead you to a freaking crusade and you think he is a "good person" ? nah, brah

all I know is that lately with world politics the USA seems bizarrely passive and that there should be a happy medium. at the same time the USA can be vocal and active without declaring war left and right. I will mention that despite a supposedly 'Democratic' Obama in office the military continues to be grown to gigantic proportions and when we do have healthcare or social reforms that are supposed to 'help' citizens they are forced and the people aren't even given a choice. how is that good?

in the end Jeb Bush doesn't have the likability factor. similar to Obama Clinton will win simply because there are many people in the States who would find it interesting to have a female President

I think she would do a decent job anyway simply because she has her husband there to advise her. beyond Clinton I'm not sure who would be any good. someone like Rand Paul or another reasonable third party will never get media and financial backing, and someone like Trump is just too extreme and will not get the backing of his party or the general public

I wouldn't qualify Rand Paul as a reasonable candidate, his flat tax proposal is a tax raise on the poor and the middle class and a big tax cut for the rich, the opposite of what the US needs and although he poses as a "libertarian" his voting record is super conservative (more so than many reps) - something feels off with that guy.

unless someone else magically steps up into the race Clinton will probably win by a landslide