Laura Meckler has this article in the WSJ on Bush's record as governor.
On crime, he backed a mandatory sentencing law for offenders using guns and enhanced the state's concealed carry law. He also signed the "stand your ground" law giving people the right to use deadly force when threatened, which later played a role in the debate over the shooting of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin. Mr. Bush has said he didn't think the law applied in that case.Nope, it didn't, as we have noted on this blog many times. The article's description of the law is not correct. People have a right to use deadly force when threatened with death or great bodily injury in every state. A "stand your ground" law abrogates the exception existing in some states that one has a duty to retreat rather than use force even if he has the legal right to be where he is. When one person has another pinned on the ground, "duty to retreat" is a moot point. The Zimmerman case was a standard self-defense case and would have come out the same way if the bill in question had never passed.
Also in the WSJ, Beth Reinhard and Patrick O'Connor have this story on the launch. They note the question that everyone wonders about:
The broader question is whether the Bush family name is an asset or a liability. "I can't see the country electing another Bush," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) "There's still hard feelings about George W. So you start out with a negative because you've got the wrong last name. If he didn't have that last name, he'd be a pretty good candidate."If life were fair, the family name would not matter either way. In the famous words of President Kennedy, "Who ever said life was fair?" Even so, I think he's a "pretty good candidate" anyway.