While Noelle has been given every break in the book — and then some — her father has made it harder for others in her position to get the help they need by cutting the budgets of drug treatment and drug court programs in his state. He has also actively opposed a proposed ballot initiative that would send an estimated 10,000 nonviolent drug offenders into treatment instead of jail. I guess what’s good for the goose gets the gander locked away.

Of course, Jeb’s wildly inconsistent attitude on the issue — treatment and privacy for his daughter, incarceration and public humiliation for everyone else — is part and parcel of the galling hypocrisy that infects America’s insane drug war on every level.

The latest example of this madness is last week’s early morning DEA raid on a medical marijuana club in Santa Cruz, Calif., that caters to terminally ill patients. Although the hospice-style operation has been lauded by local law enforcement officials for its caring and ethical approach, federal agents stormed the place with guns drawn and chainsaws whirring — leveling its pot garden, handcuffing ailing patients (including a paraplegic) and carting off its founder and director, Valerie Corral, a woman who has been called the Florence Nightingale of the medical marijuana movement.

So much for the president’s compassionate conservatism, and its conservative consistency. Back when he was running for president, candidate George W. Bush declared that medical marijuana is a states’ rights issue. “I believe,” he said, “each state can choose that decision as they so choose.” Although the mangled syntax makes it a little hard to tell exactly what the president was getting at, is it consistent with allowing John Ashcroft to order a holy-roller war against cannabis clubs in California, even though it is one of 12 states that have decriminalized the use of pot for medical purposes?

Surely there has got to be a better use of our limited law enforcement resources than busting grievously ill cancer and AIDS patients searching for relief from their suffering. How about unearthing a terrorist cell or two?

And the White House continues to bombard us with those offensive — and expensive — TV spots implying that youthful drug users like Noelle Bush are the moral equivalent of Mohammed Atta. Maybe her Uncle George can get her an audition for the next round of taxpayer-funded ads. Show her pulling some crack out of her shoe while saying, “I helped blow up buildings.”

Or does that kind of overheated and stigmatizing rhetoric only apply to those other, non-Bush-family youthful drug users? After all, a glaring double standard has been a hallmark of our nation’s drug policy for decades. It’s why African-Americans make up only 13 percent of the country’s drug users but 55 percent of those convicted of drug possession and 74 percent of those sent to jail on possession charges. And why the youthful indiscretions of the rich are routinely treated with a slap on the wrist and a ticket to rehab while poor kids are shipped off to prison.

If America’s drug laws were applied consistently, Jeb Bush and his family would be evicted from their publicly funded digs, just as people living in public housing can be thrown out of their homes if any household member or guest is found using drugs — even if the drug use happened someplace other than in the housing project. And Noelle could find herself joining the tens of thousands of young people unable to get a college education because of a provision in the Higher Education Act that denies financial aid to students convicted of possessing illegal drugs.

But the rich and powerful are judged by a very different set of rules. That’s why the staff at Noelle’s rehab center tore up a sworn statement incriminating Noelle even though the facility’s standard policy is to turn all such matters over to the police.

If, through her pain, Noelle Bush can help open her family’s minds as well as their hearts and force them to rethink their disastrous drug policy, the nation — and millions of young Americans in particular — will owe her a tremendous debt of gratitude.

I wish her much luck.

The most important lesson of terrible premature presidential-campaign speculation is that nearly everyone who engages in it will be terribly, hilariously wrong. It doesn’t matter if you’re a complete buffoon, like Dick Morris, author of the 2007 classic “Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race,” or someone fairly serious and “savvy,” like New York Times politics reporter Matt Bai, who posited current nobody Mark Warner as the future of the party in a 2006 Times magazine cover story now best (if barely) remembered for its altered and unflattering photo of the subject.

There will be events no one could’ve predicted — like “obvious” future Republican presidential contender George Allen using an obscure racial slur on camera, or John Edwards being generally John Edwards — that destroy promising careers in an instant.

And there is also the plain fact that the sort of politicians that Washington-based reporters and pundits and political operatives like, and the sort of politicians they think “voters” would like, are often people who have no appeal for anyone outside of their districts or the Beltway. (Like Evan Bayh. Jon Huntsman. And Mitch Daniels, probably.)

Some people turn out to be awful at campaigning: Like Wesley Clark, the general who was going to sweep a troop-worshiping country off its feet and away from George W. Bush, until it turned out that he did not blink like a human. Or Rick Perry, who, it turned out, seems too dumb to dress himself when asked simple questions on television.

There are times when this sort of long-range forecasting is easy until you overthink it: John McCain was the logical 2008 front-runner the moment he addressed the 2004 Republican convention, until you started daydreaming about Fred Thompson’s seductive drawl. Al Gore was pretty obviously going to be the Democratic nominee in 2000, and boredom with his inevitability might’ve had a hand in how the political press helped destroy him that year.

A hell of a lot will obviously depend on whether or not Barack Obama wins reelection. If he loses, Democrats might suddenly find white candidates from the West or the South more attractive. If he wins, we might have to take Joe Biden semi-seriously for a few unlikely news cycles. If Obama ends a second term as popular as Clinton, someone associated with his administration is certainly more likely to be nominated than if Obama’s 2015 numbers look more like Bush’s in 2007.

So let’s get to the predictions, shall we? According to Cillizza, the “number one seed” for 2016 is New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. (Mark Warner is still on the shortlist, by the way. His time will come!)

Cuomo is the reasonably popular governor of a very populous state. He’s thus far managed to balance liberal base-pleasing deeds (gay marriage!) with “moderate” newspaper editorial-board pleasing things (going after the pensions of public employees!). But we’re still talking about a Northeast liberal (or “liberal”) — from New York! — who’s living with but not currently married to a celebrity television cook who makes awful-looking garbage food out of prepackaged garbage food. The Democratic Party might not want to chance another blatantly culturally urban candidate. (I mean urban in the literal sense, and not as weird racial code.) Plus he’s in the honeymoon portion of his governorship, and that job has utterly destroyed its last two holders.

Plus, Cuomo looks like he’s on pace to use up much of the goodwill he built up with liberals after signing gay marriage into law. (So far there’s been his apparent lack of interest in transit, signing awful gerrymandered legislative and congressional district lines, and his property tax cap.)

Joe Biden has run for president twice and never come remotely close to winning a single primary. He’ll be 74 in 2016. As Steve Kornacki already pointed out, Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to nominate 70-somethings. He’s also a gaffe-prone goofball whose appeal is that he’s a ridiculous character. I would not put a lot of InTrade money on Joe Biden winning the Democratic nomination in 2016.

Hillary Clinton is a bit younger than Biden, and a lot more serious than Biden. But does she still want to be president? Who knows. (Anyone who says they know is lying.) And if she runs in 2016, does she hire the same asinine campaign team that lost her the nomination in 2008?

After those three, we’re already essentially in “who?” territory with the Democrats. Not to say that someone no one has heard of now won’t be the nominee — with Democrats, you may be more likely to get a relative unknown than with Republicans — but we can’t know which governors or senators will turn out to be Barack Obama (or even John Edwards) and which ones will turn out to be… well, Mark Warner.

And theoretically there would be more women vying for the nomination than just Hillary Clinton. Cillizza posits New York Sen. Kristen Gillibrand — a long shot, in my estimation — and senatorial hopeful Elizabeth Warren, who, if she loses her election, would surely be out of the running, and if she wins, would be … a liberal senator from Massachusetts. So, I dunno, Amy Klobuchar? Sadly, four of the current six female governors are Republicans. The two Democrats are North Carolina’s Bev Purdue, who is currently polling poorly enough that she’s announced that she won’t seek reelection, and Washington’s Christine Gregoire, who seems cool, so let’s just put her on the fantasy shortlist. (Oh, I guess the Times already did.)

But you see where we are, at this point: Randomly tossing out names. It’s like predicting the 2016 NFL Draft. Some of these kids are still in high school!

As for Republicans: If Mitt Romney wins the election, there’s the candidate, fun speculation time done. (Unless Newt and Ron Paul mount a primary challenge?!?) If he loses, the party likely learns the lesson it always learns and lurches to the right for a while, and your front-runner in that case (assuming he doesn’t blow up the party at the convention, I guess?) is Rick Santorum. I made this point already and Dave Weigel concurred. He’s a “true conservative” and he looks like he’ll “come in second” this year, which are both substantial advantages in the Republican race.

Maybe it’s Marco Rubio if Romney makes him the running mate, but the GOP does not often nominate losing running mates, because why would you?

Is Paul Ryan, who frantically introduces numbers-laden fake-serious budgets every year, the future of the party? I happen to think he’s basically a bland weenie who only excites people predisposed to thrill to rich-on-poor economic warefare, but a not insubstantial portion of the Republican Party “elite” seems to like that sort of thing. Mitch Daniels is somehow even less electrifying, but as a governor he has a better shot than Rep. Ryan. And Santorum still seems to have a massive advantage over them all.

(Oh, what about Chris Christie? Yes, well, he’d certainly be fun but he is pretty moderate for the national Republican Party, even if he masks it by being an obnoxious, belligerent bully. And he is woefully unprepared to protect us from CREEPING SHARIAH.)

One guy changes this calculus, obviously: Jeb Bush, because the Bush name exerts some sort of weird hypnotic power over the Republican Party, and they are often forced to do their bidding, even when, afterward, they all regret it. I like to imagine that the nation as a whole has decided that it’s done with Bushes forever, but that is pretty naive. I mean, Nixon got elected twice. Jeb Bush has not actually held office in a while — by 2016 he’ll have been a regular private citizen for nearly a decade — and it’s possible the family has decided to wait for George P. Bush to come of age before reasserting their claim over the White House (oh man, guys, he just turned 35).

The sick need to treat politics like it’s fantasy baseball ensures that there’s absolutely nothing anyone can do to make people not wildly speculate as to what will happen years after an election that is still months away, so I just encourage you to be sensible and responsible about it. (Like, it won’t be Rand Paul.)

Here is the very belated and perfunctory endorsement statement:

Congratulations to Governor Mitt Romney on his win last night and to all the candidates for a hard fought, thoughtful debate and primary season.

Primary elections have been held in 34 states, and now is the time for Republicans to unite behind Governor Romney and take our message of fiscal conservatism and job creation to all voters this fall.

I am endorsing Mitt Romney for our party’s nomination. We face huge challenges, and we need a leader who understands the economy, recognizes more government regulation is not the answer, believes in entrepreneurial capitalism and works to ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to succeed.

Now is the time to just give up on finding a good properly conservative candidate who is also electable and acceptable to the Republican Party’s rich donor base and make the best of this Romney thing.

Romney celebrated the endorsement by having a major campaign aide say something unbelievably stupid on television.

(Oh, fun fact from Dave Weigel: Guess who signed Florida’s insane “stand your ground” legislation into law?)

Washington insiders are not thrilled with this gang:

Another, more subtle indicator of the congressional GOP’s heartburn over the looming presidential campaign can be detected in the quips about some of the prospective candidates who are soaking up media attention.

“Well, I thought everybody had rallied around [Rep.] Michele Bachmann — that was my sense,” deadpanned [Rep. David] Dreier when asked about where his fellow House Republicans stand on the presidential race.

Ha. Zing? That’s going to make for an awkward chat in the cloakroom.

These establishment Republicans would like, say, David Petraeus to run. Unfortunately, he keeps saying he won’t. But the guy fights wars and wears a uniform, which makes him automatically super-qualified to be president in the imaginations of various doughy old Republicans, much like Colin Powell was, long ago.

If the general won’t run (and he won’t) these gentlemen would also settle for Chris Christie, the YouTube viral video star, or maybe Jeb Bush, who is a Bush. Or Mitch Daniels!

Not mentioned by these insiders: Christie is just as gimmicky and grating as Trump. Jeb Bush isn’t going to waste his run on a fight against an incumbent. And Mitch Daniels is, secretly, no more exciting than Tim Pawlenty.

Mitt Romney is as good as it’s going to get for the GOP this cycle, and the sooner they get over themselves and embrace him the better off they’ll be. Or keep complaining, I’m fine either way.

Fun fact: Rove, who divorced his wife of 24 years in 2009, is now openly dating lobbyist Karen Johnson. Johnson sat on Bush’s Business Council when he was governor of Texas, and worked for his transition team in 2000, which helped her lobbying business immensely. Rove and Johnson have been rumored to be having an affair for years. The former incarnation of Radar Magazine reported the rumor in 2005. In 2008 Radar claimed that Johnson’s family was urging her to leave Rove and settle down with a ranch foreman named (no joke) Rhett Hard. Looks like that is no longer necessary.

Johnson’s business partner is of course Katharine Armstrong, the owner of the ranch where Dick Cheney shot Harry Whittington in the face. (This ranch is also where Rove spends a lot of time hanging out with wealthy GOP donors.)

Ok, so, what else do we learn about Rove? He still thinks he’s secretly a policy wonk, he nearly went broke during his legal troubles and divorce, he got his Fox job by just calling up his good friend Roger Ailes and saying he needed cash (“a Fox spokesperson says that Ailes doesn’t recall that version of events”), and Fox pays him much less than they pay Palin. He claims there is no such thing as the “Republican establishment” that meets in backrooms to plot out the future of the party and anoint candidates, but also this happened:

Last spring, Rove was ready to don the crown. He gathered the old tribes together and effectively anointed himself their leader, holding a breakfast at his house in D.C. with eighteen leaders of rival pacs, including former Nixon and Bush 41 confidant and GOP fund-raiser Fred Malek, of American Action Network, and Mary Cheney, Dick’s daughter, representing the Partnership for America’s Future. The anxious group was packed into Rove’s cramped living room, his two massive, ceiling-high shelves of history books looming over them.

Rove also mocks Sarah Palin and wishes that Jeb Bush would run for president. Rove is not scared of Palin — or of Rush Limbaugh — which looks like political bravery but is really just the knowledge that the base that the rest of the GOP is in thrall to is actually a relatively small demographic segment of the electorate. And his Crossroads money-raising machine will probably have a significant role in deciding who gets the 2012 GOP nomination, even though Rove doesn’t particularly like any of the candidates involved.

(The profile is illustrated with a photo of Rove taken by artist Andres Serrano, known among non-art aficionados primarily for his 1987 piece “Piss Christ.” I assume this is New York having a bit of fun.)

(K-Lo thinks Jeb Bush would make a fine running mate. Wouldn’t he look so nice up onstage with, say, Rick Santorum? Swoon!)

Jeb says he won’t run in 2012. If there is a point to all this Jeb Bush ego-stroking, it’s that the GOP establishment has probably decided that Jeb will be the post-Obama nominee, and they’re getting everyone acclimated to the idea. And maybe some of them would like Jeb to make a practice run for the job, like Reagan did in 1976. (Said practice run was not necessary for Jeb’s brother George, but I guess they’d like to make the process look more legitimate this time around.)

So here is Rich Lowry, with a more serious column, explaining why Jeb must run now. There are eight simple reasons, but they boil down to the fact that no one credible is running this year and by 2016 there will be more serious candidates (Christie! Rubio!) and Jeb Bush will have been out of office for 10 years. The unspoken argument is that Jeb needs to establish himself as nominee material this cycle, if he wants the crown next time.

Will it happen? I dunno, but the idea isn’t completely laughable. The sad fact is that the Bush name is not the handicap that you’d think it would be, because American popular memory lasts about 10 seconds now (aided by a press that strongly prefers to move on to the next thing), and there was never really a full national accounting of just how incompetent and criminal the previous administration was.

Those first debates are right around the corner, Jeb!