Jeb Bush revealed today, via Facebook.
Just this morning, I'd said (out loud, here at home) that Bush must run in 2016. If he's ever going to run, he needs to do it when Hillary Clinton is running, to fend off the not-another-Bush attacks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
131 comments:
No, Jeb. Just...
No.
Makes sense to jump now (from his perspective).
Probably negates a Rubio run, puts Christie at a donor disadvantage and helps quell the growing Romney rumors.
Such is life on the Rep moderate side of the line. That side can't support effectively more than 1 candidate.
Now i am a liberal Democrat but I absolutely love Jeb Bush. Run, Jeb, run. I'll vote for you.
Vicki from Pasadena
Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, and Phil Bredesen were the best governors of the last 25 years. (I think Walker likely will end up on that list as well but he's just finishing up his first term and the other 3 served two full terms).
Jeb Bush would be a much better President than his brother (soft bigotry of low expectations I know) and would be much better than Romney or Christie or Kasich or Jindahl.
I would like to see how Walker keeps doing and hope he runs.
I will not vote for any Republican who has not been a governor if I vote in the Republican primary. Same goes if I vote in the Dem primary.
Jeb Bush would be a far better President than The Senators (Rubio, Cruz, and Paul).
A Bush-Clinton campaign in 2016 would be utterly depressing. Is there ever any hope of ending that absurd Cuba embargo?
Hopefully someone can talk some sense into him and get him to go away.
Jeb Bush run leading to President Warren?
No. A thousand times no. The Republic needs you to stay at goddamn home, Jeb.
No freaking way. No Bush, no Clinton.
Rick Perry is not pleased. The Connecticut Bush's have already had their turn twice. And karl Rove is way over the hill.
But does Jeb speak English or Spanish these days?
What mezzrow wrote.
I dunno. Another Bush??
I will say that whoever is elected, they will become the post-racist President.
I predict favorable, fawning media coverage of Jeb Bush, all the way up until he wins the Primary.
If either Bush, Christie or Romney get the nom, the Republican party will split.
It's appalling that we have no viable candidates for the presidency (aka The Imperial Butler) than yet another Bush and yet another Clinton. It's as if the idiot offspring of inbred royal lines are all who remain to ascend to the throne.
Yet another sign of the ongoing collapse of our Republic.
Jeb Bush could have several reasons for running:
1) He thinks he, alone, could serve the nation best.
2) He thinks he, alone, could defeat the likely opponent.
3) He has an ego the size of Texas.
#3 is the obvious answer. That is why Jeb must stand down. Stand down, Jeb.
No way will I vote for another Bush under ANY circumstances.
No more dynasties. No more RINOs.
Give me a Perry or a Jindal. In fact, give me both.
He'll never get my vote. I'll write in a name, and not my own.
Jeb Bush, please ... go away.
Doesn't he (like Rove) look exactly like the fat, smug POS you'd love to punch out? Admit it, he does.
We need a good conservative President to slow down the rush into oblivion, so that Tank can be dead before we get there.
Jeb Bush would make a great president, but I don't see how he gets the GOP nomination, let alone wins.
"That side can't support effectively more than 1 candidate."
-- Judging by the conservative's ability to get a nominee to win the nomination, neither can that side.
"If he's ever going to run, he needs to do it when Hillary Clinton is running, to fend off the not-another-Bush attacks."
Yep.
So here comes a 3rd fucking Bush
Oh joy, what great values he'll push!
But as with dad and his brother
Best get ready for another
Surprise RINO dick up your tush.
The Idiocracy was made about the wrong people.
I'm not a big Jeb Bush fan, but we could do worse.
And probably will.
In what world could he possibly imagine that people will vote for him? Yeah, sure, I get that establishment fat-cat donors will pony up cash. And maybe they just don't care about the actual electorate, and figure they'll do as they're told.
But can he not understand that -- irrespective of his success as governor (and disregarding his "illegal immigraiton is an altruistic Act of Love" nonsense) -- he is disqualified by being brother and son to former presidents? Unfair? So what. You could equally say it's unfair that non-natural-born citizens are precluded from running.
Me, I like Jindal -- except that he has now listened too much to advisors who taught him to be a politician, repeating sound bites in the recent interviews I saw, where I had always read that his style is, or had been, very dense and fact-filled.
All these pronouncements about "Jeb Bush No Way!!eleventy!!" ring hollow.
What if our choice, after the primaries, boils down to Jeb vs Hillary?
Are you really going to sit back and say "screw it, let Hillary have it!"?
I'm no fan of Jeb, but I'm really no fan of Hillary's.
Plus: Judges (assuming no more Souters (thanks alot John Sununu)).
I think we should look at both Jeb and Hillary as individuals in their own right wanting this on their own merit. But I fear Jeb being a man will have an easier way with that than Hillary -- to start with, Hillary became this and that only because she was BC's wife and he was philanderer whereas Jeb became a governor and this and that in his own right, and Bush elder didn't have anything whatsoever to do with it.
And the 300+ ex-staff members of Obama campaign will prop up Warren saying no more Bush or Clinton.
Not just "no", but "fuck no".
What if our choice, after the primaries, boils down to Jeb vs Hillary?
A whole lot of people will stay home instead of voting. :)
Cook,
There will be others who run who may be viable.
The interesting thing about Jeb v. Hillary is that one will be dissociating himself from W. while Hillary will be associating herself with Bill.
I get the feeling HW told Jeb to try and reclaim the family name before, like the Kennedys, it's too late.
Mathew Sablan: "-- Judging by the conservative's ability to get a nominee to win the nomination, neither can that side."
True.
It will be interesting to see who wins out on both sides for the final primary fights, though the early schedule would seem to favor Jeb on the moderate side.
Revenant said...
What if our choice, after the primaries, boils down to Jeb vs Hillary?
A whole lot of people will stay home instead of voting. :)
Bingo. But, not sure why you're smiling.
I actually think it's smart for him to run. First, his chances at the nomination aren't poor--there's no obvious "establishment" candidate at this stage so he could very well be their pick--and establishment candidates have won the GOP nod every cycle since Reagan. Second, the negative associations with the Bush family are dropping rapidly, as Bush I is widely liked by moderates and Bush II has been steadily rising in the polls since he's been out of office, so Bush III is far less unattractive than it was last two cycles. Third, his apostasy on illegal immigration isn't much of a handicap--it didn't prevent McCain or Bush II from getting nominations. As for "Common Core" most people don't even know what that is. Fourth, he was a relatively successful two term governor of the biggest swing state, and did well with the Hispanic constituency.
None of that means he's a lock, of course, but certainly at this stage--with the nomination more wide open than any time in recent history--he's got as much chance as anyone. And, even if he loses, so what? Getting his name out there and free press means more valuable speaking fees, more influence, book deals--it's win-win.
So the question isn't "why" but "why not".
Amy Pascal would be unbeatable
Revenant: "Not just "no", but "fuck no"
Not to slight your comment, but so what?
Whaddya gonna do to stop it?
Do you play a role in Republican primary politics? If not, then pfft.
The reality is that only those that jump in and jump in strong can win.
Jeb is already doing it. It doesn't matter if you or I like it. He can get upwards of 25 to 30% of the primary votes in key states with his name recognition and infrastructure.
It's going to take a strong conservative who can pull moderates over and do it quickly enough in the primaries to knock him off. Otherwise, it's just a long, slow, inexorable coronation of the next Bush.
BTW, is it just me or do you think that the rest of the world is watching this and thinking that we've got our own monarchy-like battles going on between the Bush's and the Clinton's?
"What if our choice, after the primaries, boils down to Jeb vs Hillary?
A whole lot of people will stay home instead of voting. :) "
Stupid is as stupid does.
Jeb vs. Hillary? Ultimately, that's yet another illustration of the flaws of our two-party, winner-take-all system. I rather like the fact that, in Germany, the two major parties have been around since the end of WWII, but there have been significant minor parties which have come and gone and, at times, been able to press their agenda. The Greens, the Liberals, and, looks like coming up, the euro-skeptic "Alternative." Here we're stuck. Third parties can do nothing other than give votes to the other side.
We'd have saved ourselves a lot of trouble if we had just given H.W. a second term back in 1992.
Bush and Clinton. This is the best we've got?
Don't blame the Media, which trivialized the Presidency - "Tune in at 11:00 for the President's response to a dog barking in Peoria." The Media is in business to sell "news."
Blame low information voters, and extension of the franchise to persons with no skin in the game.
Why, for gosh sake, should folks who pay no taxes decide how much the Government takes in taxes and how that taken money is spent?
"Read my lips, no new Bushes!"
What if our choice, after the primaries, boils down to Jeb vs Hillary?
A whole lot of people will stay home instead of voting. :)
Not me. I'll be voting Libertarian.
The Dems think the Hispanic vote is very important:
"...while most critical races this [past November] took place in states where the Latino population wasn't yet large enough to provide the margin of victory [for Democrats], 2016 provides a different -- and more favorable -- map. Among the most important battleground states are several where Latinos make up a sizable part of the state's population, including Nevada (27%), Florida (23%), and Colorado (21%.) In addition, other critical battlegrounds have Latino populations large enough to swing an election, including Virginia (8%) North Carolina (9%) Pennsylvania (6%) and Wisconsin (6%)."
Jeb is the Republican's best bet for getting the Hispanic vote, especially if Susana Martinez is his running mate. And his Mexican-American wife doesn't hurt either.
Molotov!
Stupid is as stupid does.
Stupid would be voting for Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton. Who, other than an utter moron, would want either to be President?
Republicans need to pull their heads out of their asses and learn that "we ruin the country slightly slower than Democrats do" is not a good party motto.
Sorry but America does not need or want presidential dynasties.
Not to slight your comment, but so what? Whaddya gonna do to stop it? Do you play a role in Republican primary politics? If not, then pfft.
No individual's vote or political opinion means anything in national-level politics. You're more likely to be killed by a meteor at the polls than to sway the outcome of the Presidential election.
But the people here talk like our opinions matter, because it is more fun than conceding that we have no influence at all. :)
garage mahal: "Molotov!"
"Corpse-man!!"
Your voice-actuated point is...?
Buckley rule: "I’d be for the most right, viable candidate who could win."
It's not clear yet who that will be. Maybe Jeb.
Chances in Florida help to determine "could win."
Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain, and Romney show that most GOP voters are willing to play by Buckley rule.
Perry and Walker will have to raise their game.
The Republicans will not get the Hispanic vote. Somehow, they've convinced themselves they can, if only!
Jeb v. Hillary?
So what? Jeb won't get my vote. The Dems could run Zombie Che Guevara, and he's still not going to get my vote.
No more dynasties.
Floridian here. Worked for Jeb all through his governorship in the Army National Guard, including multiple state of emergencies thanks to hurricanes.
Jeb was an outstanding executive. Solid personal integrity, good decision-making apparatus, knew how to delegate and make timely decisions. Excellent staff because of solid leadership and planning right from the top.
Good at reaching out and getting the hispanic vote, as well. Speaks fluent spanish. We'd have the first hispanic first lady.
Also ran the state quite well without a state income tax, I might add. I know, libtards think that's un-possible. But there you have it.
I don't know whom I'll be pulling the lever for in the primary - I'll have to see who else runs. I'd support Jeb Bush easily against and Dem likely to run, and if he wins the primary, he will have earned that support.
It's not his fault his dad and older brother were presidents, but he was an excellent governor in his own right.
And Revenant's gonna vote his gay penis's interests, anyway, uber alles, so he can fuck right on off.
As a lifelong Floridian, the episodes that stands out most for me in Bush's gubernatorial career was his intrusion into the battle between the parents and ex-husband over the final disposition of a dead woman's body. Granted, Florida has a rather weak governor system. My primary criterion for President is foreign policy. If Jeb displayed any of his father's pragmatic realism, I might consider voting for him. Unfortunately, Jeb seems to be right in line with the most obnoxious hard-liners in the Republican party. So I will not expect a scintilla of foreign policy creativity from Jeb. Just more warmed over Weekly Standard boilerplate.
"Stupid would be voting for Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton. Who, other than an utter moron, would want either to be President?"
If they're the candidates in the general one of them will be, no matter how hard you stomp your foot.
No more bushes please! [Do I sound like a reformed lesbian?]
As I remember it, conventional wisdom back at the turn of the century was that Jeb was the smarter, more competent brother. Timing just wasn't right in 2000. I'd be fine with him. Then again, I'll vote Republican, no matter who runs or what the issues are. I cannot believe I've turned into THAT voter, but there you have it.
I love Christie and like Walker but doubt a Northern accent can win. Obama was the exception that I doubt will change the rule. Jindal is my favorite, but he is too smart to be palatable to the low information voters, especially after broadcast news is through with him. Perry is doing a nice job of reinventing himself. I see him as the only alternative to Bush 45.
Besides, much as we are weary of war, Jeb is most believable as a counter to Putin, Iran's nuclear dreams, and The Islamic State. None of our enemies would doubt his willingness to engage. That willingness could be the best prophylactic against war.
Jeez, you people. Jeb's a smart, accomplished guy who actually knows a lot about the world. And the thought of such a man as president sends you into paroxysms.
People who call themselves conservatives won't support a guy like this, so we end up with ingoramuses like Obama. Maybe we'll get an even bigger ignoramus - think Elizabeth Warren, or some other know-nothing senator.
No thanks. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Jeb Bush represents bigger fed govt to me. I don't want that.
Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain, and Romney show that most GOP voters are willing to play by Buckley rule.
Except that over half of them lost -- which means they were not, in fact, "the most conservative candidate who could win".
It is one thing to sell out your supposed principles to win a tight race. It is quite another to repeatedly sell out your supposed principles and still lose.
J. Farmer said...
"A Bush-Clinton campaign in 2016 would be utterly depressing. Is there ever any hope of ending that absurd Cuba embargo?"
Probably not. Most people seem to be unaware of the fact that the American embargo of Cuba was a response to the Cuban government's seizure of the property of American citizens in Cuba. If they want an end to the embargo, all they have to do is give back what they stole. Of course, if you believe the claims of the Cuban government, Cuba is uniquely blessed by being the only country in the Americas that the USA refuses to subject to capitalist exploitation. Lucky Cuba!
The comments demonstrate nicely the basic split in the Repub party. There are those willing (if not happily) to continue the slow death spiral of alternating between the big, big, big gov't liberal Demos and the RINO Repub Inc. just big gov't Repubs.
Then there are the libertarian/conservative types who are no longer buying that BS, and refuse to vote for the lesser evil. I voted for Bush the W the first time, I'm not going to make that mistake again.
hawkeyedjb, someone running for the Presidency of the United States should have at least an inkling of the George Washington sense that America is not a monarchy.
Jeb and Hillary lack that.
The Presidency is one job, one job, among 317 million people. Nobody has a right to it, nobody has a right to access to it, and nobody has an ability to claim that he or she is the best, above all others' claims, that he or she is the one. It's a race.
Jeb must step down. If he doesn't, the humility demanded of him, that his brother and father displayed to some degree, disqualifies Jeb.
If they're the candidates in the general one of them will be, no matter how anyone here votes.
Fixed that for you.
Voting for Bush says "I want Bush to be President". If you want Bush to be President, you're an idiot. If you think your vote for Bush will make the difference in whether or not Hillary is President, you're an even bigger idiot.
Your vote matters if the election comes down to a single electoral vote, decided by a single popular vote, in the area you happen to be voting in. Barring that, your vote means diddly-shit. If you aren't willing to vote your conscience, you're selling out for nothing.
I remember a comment on a lefty site, about a particularly nasty primary fight where the hard-lefties were excoriating a not-lefty-enough Democrat. After he won the primary, someone asked if they should vote for such a man. Hell yes, was the resounding reply - primaries are the time to fight for your principles. Don't abandon your party for someone who will almost certainly be worse.
Good advice for people who throw around terms like RINO.
Drago said...
"All these pronouncements about "Jeb Bush No Way!!eleventy!!" ring hollow.
What if our choice, after the primaries, boils down to Jeb vs Hillary?
Are you really going to sit back and say "screw it, let Hillary have it!"?
I'm no fan of Jeb, but I'm really no fan of Hillary's.
Plus: Judges (assuming no more Souters (thanks alot John Sununu))."
I see no realistic difference. Both will push the ascendance of the ruling class. Government will still grow under either of them. It will become more intrusive under either of them. There will be literally zero difference in foreign policy. And yes I used literally in the correct manner which is difficult.
Most of all we will have a majority of republicans in the House. So Hillary wouldn't have a chance at single payer and Jeb likes Obamacare, amnesty, and common core. They could both be on the same ticket.
The only actual difference is the press will treat Jeb like the devil and will prostrate itself for Hillary even though they support the same policy.
It would not be worth my time to fill out the ballot. I would rather vote meaninglessly on a third party candidate to register my protest.
Jeb must step down. If he doesn't, the humility demanded of him, that his brother and father displayed to some degree, disqualifies Jeb.
Oh, bullshit.
If nobody is qualified by virtue of name or ancestry, then nobody is disqualified, either.
Jeb is no less qualified than anyone one else for the office. He can do what he wants. People obsessed with pedigrees are as bad as the damn English.
Then there are the libertarian/conservative types who are no longer buying that BS, and refuse to vote for the lesser evil.
Life is full of choices. Consigning the world to the greater of two evils out of spite when you have it within you to cast your vote for the lesser of two evils is a dumb one.
If you are serious...change your last name
I'll continue to be bemused by the the GOP establishment. Karl Rove and the establishment love anybody whose last name is Bush, god knows why. I'm sure they'll put the their full force behind Jeb.
For me choosing between Hillary and Jeb would be like choosing between getting kicked hard in the nuts and contracting full blown Ebola: Both are bad, but one is much worse. But I'll be a good soldier and vote for getting kicked in the nuts because I don't want Ebola.
"Voting for Bush says "I want Bush to be President"."
No. It doesn't.
GET OUT DA BUSHES!
Those hoping to support a small-government Republican need to know: there are no small-government Republicans. At least not any who can realistically run for president.
Maybe you can draft Justin Amash. I'd vote for him. But he'd win about 1.4% of the vote in the primaries. Because that's how many small-government voters there are.
Jason, it's a big country. 317 million people. At a guess, more than 100 million qualified to be POTUS.
Jeb is the best we can do? Why?
Because he's a Bush?
Make that 20 million qualified to be POTUS. Still quite a lot.
Walker, Christie, Cruz, Paul, on and on and on the list goes through the bushes.
Of all the possible conservatives of national stature, I would sure love to see Paul Ryan take a swing at it.
He's got a good way about him, and he's smart as a whip. It certainly doesn't hurt that he knows the intricacies of the federal budget well, and his prior experience in a national campaign would be an asset. Still, it's very hard for a member of the House to make a convincing run.
- Krumhorn
A red letter day... I agree with both Cookie and Revenant.
We have no royal families here. I didn't want a former first lady to be senator, nor do I want another Bush on the ticket.
Regardless of how well he might do, there's a larger principal at play.
I think Jeb wants to be President, but I don't think America needs him.
Of all the possible conservatives of national stature, I would sure love to see Paul Ryan take a swing at it.
His stab at VP was weak sauce. No one wants to vote for a wonk, so he needs to become a better storyteller or something.
Bob Ellison
Cruz and Paul aren't any more qualified to be President than Obama was.
If you think 20 million people are qualified to be president then you should put these guys in the bottom 100, especially Rand Paul. He rode his father's coattails more than Jeb.
Ben Carson would be a much better choice than Cruz or Paul. He's actually an impressive man.
What Hawkeye said.
As a Libertarian, I know 'limited government' is a really tough sell on a national scale.
And yes, maybe Bushicus Tertius is the best possible option... but I sure hope not.
I'd love Scott Walker if there was any chance of him running.
Either Paul Ryan or Rand Paul would be great if they were even remotely electable to the general voters.
Marco Rubio has officially been cut off at the knees due to Jeb, so he's out.
Romney claimed he wouldn't run if Jeb ran, but who the hell knows at this point?
Rick Perry has to become a great deal more media savvy to have a chance in hell.
I sure hope Jersey the Hut is out of the running, he could still cause mischief for other potential candidates.
Ted Cruz's chances are slim-to-none, and slim left town. He's way too scary for the middle of the road crowd.
And of course there's always embarrassing, distracting sideshows like Donald Trump.
Hawkeye
Well said. If you don't want to repeal Medicare and Social Security, you are not in favor of small government.
And about 98% of Americans would not vote for someone who did favor it.
"Voting for Bush says "I want Bush to be President"."
No. It doesn't.
If you don't even know that much, you probably should sit out the election anyway.
Those hoping to support a small-government Republican need to know: there are no small-government Republicans. At least not any who can realistically run for president.
You may be right.
However, if you *are* right then the country, as a political entity, is doomed anyway. Political systems that rely on unending expansion always collapse in on themselves, because eventually they reach the point where their rapacious appetites exceed what the non-governmental portions of the country can or will produce.
A choice between big-government Republicans and big-government Democrats is a choice between collapse in, say, 2040 vs. 2036. Why bother?
Here's my reaction.
His stab at VP was weak sauce. No one wants to vote for a wonk, so he needs to become a better storyteller or something.
I'm not sure what a strong sauce stab at VP would be except for Sarah Palin. She filled arenas to overflowing during her campaign. Clinton was widely extolled for his wonkiness, although he was also a very compelling personality.
I think that Ryan's prior exposure to a national campaign would serve him very well as a story-teller. He is fluent, charming and genuine. And it helps that he actually has constructive ideas.
Flame-throwers scare off the Alhouse voters. What we need is someone who has much of the same ideological footing as the flame-throwers....but without giving off all that heat.
- Krumhorn
Nonapod: "I'll continue to be bemused by the the GOP establishment. Karl Rove and the establishment love anybody whose last name is Bush, god knows why"
Hmmmm, because Rove has had a personal and professional relationship with the Bush family for about a zillion years?
Because Rove (and the establishment) tend to share some of the same core beliefs as the Bush's?
It's not that complicated.
Bob Ellison: "Jeb is the best we can do? Why?
Because he's a Bush?"
No, not because he's a Bush. He's simply one of the guys who will be running.
You can't really vote for someone who won't at least get up and run for the office.
Who would you like to see run?
What if that candidate doesn't run?
Then what?
Achilles: "It would not be worth my time to fill out the ballot. I would rather vote meaninglessly on a third party candidate to register my protest."
It's not "meaninglessly".
It's, on an operational level, a vote for Hillary since it removes a vote from her potential opposition pool of votes.
So lets not pretend there's no impact.
I understand and empathize with your point fully of course.
You can talk about Jeb's qualifications till the cows come home but the reality is that, on the ground, his name makes him toxic. The same should be true of Hillary, but isn't due to a grotesquely biased media. Anyway, it what it is. Jeb Bush cannot win the presidency anymore than pigs can fly. Give me a minute and I'll come up with more barnyard metaphors.
Revenant: "A choice between big-government Republicans and big-government Democrats is a choice between collapse in, say, 2040 vs. 2036. Why bother?"
Wrong wrong wrong!!
Everyone knows that a choice between big-government Republicans and big-government Democrats is a choice between collapse in 2042 vs 2036!
Sheesh.
Get it right man.
Are you really going to sit back and say "screw it, let Hillary have it!"?
This is what the establishment expects every time. If you keep following their markers, they won't change.
Jason, it's a big country. 317 million people. At a guess, more than 100 million qualified to be POTUS.
Jeb is the best we can do? Why?
You might do better taking that up with someone who's actually asserted that Jeb is the best we can do.
I don't play "straw man."
If Jeb is nominated I'll actively ignore the election.
"That willingness (to engage) could be the best prophylactic against war."
The best prophylactic against war would be for America to stop its covert and overt intrusions into other regions of the world. The best guarantee for more and worse wars is for us to continue our covert and overt intrusions into other regions of the world.
It's not "meaninglessly".
It's, on an operational level, a vote for Hillary since it removes a vote from her potential opposition pool of votes.
If you vote for Bush, Bush gets 1 extra vote and Hillary gets 0 extra votes. Bush's margin of victory increases by one (or, more likely, the margin by which he lost decreases by one).
If you vote for Hillary, Hillary gets 1 extra vote and Bush gets 0 extra votes. Hillary's margin of victory increases by 1.
If you vote for Frank Zappa, who despite being dead is better Presidential material than either of those two clown shoes, Bush gets 0 extra votes and Hillary gets 0 extra votes. Their margins of victory/defeat are unchanged.
So, no, a vote for a third party candidate is not "a vote for Hillary".
Also, the argument "everyone needs to vote for X to keep Hillary from winning" applies equally for any value of X -- including a third-party candidate. After all, the only reason third-party candidates lose is the same reason Bush will lose. Not enough people vote for 'em. :)
"If you don't even know that much, you probably should sit out the election anyway."
Don't be a dope. It's thinking like that that got us ObamaCare. This shit does matter.
Jeb is most believable as a counter to Putin, Iran's nuclear dreams, and The Islamic State. None of our enemies would doubt his willingness to engage. That willingness could be the best prophylactic against war.
If Jeb is willing to militarily "engage" with Russia, a nuclear power, in order to protect a string of third-rate nations we have zero national interest in, then that itself is the single best argument for keeping Jeb as fucking far from the Oval Office as humanly possible. Box him up and mail him to Australia if you have to.
Based on the current sampling of 2016 presidential hopefuls and the reality that a country gets what it earns:
We Suck!
Don't be a dope. It's thinking like that that got us ObamaCare. This shit does matter.
Republicans' war obsession is a bigger and more costly fuck-up than ObamaCare. Try again.
Jason said, "I don't play "straw man."
I don't play Play-Doh logic games.
How would you like me to ask the question in such a way as to not offend you?
Can we do better than Jeb Bush?
Can we get someone who is not named "Bush", because another "Bush" would do disastrous damage to everyone associated with any political party or movement remotely related to conservatism?
Is there anyone, anywhere, maybe named Walker, Jindal, even Palin, who might be a better pick?
Let me flesh that out a little more.
You want to know what got us ObamaCare? Nominating a worthless piece of shit in 2000. Someone who got us into a disastrous war based on faulty intelligence. Someone who did precisely fuck-all to reign in the govenment-backed real estate bubble. Someone who recommended trillion-dollar bank bailouts and added trillions of dollars to the deficit.
Democrats could have nominated Zippy the Pinhead in 2008 and gotten him elected, because by then voters were quite rightly convinced you Republicans were a bunch of irresponsible fuckwits. And lo and behold the Democrats DID nominate Zippy the Pinhead, and he won.
Then you decided to run Mitt Romney, against him in 2012. Shockingly, voters rejected your strategy of "we know you dislike Bush and are rapidly coming to dislike Obama, so we decided to run a guy who is a mix of Obama and Bush".
And now here comes 2016, and your big plan is "hey, let's try some more Bush. Yeah we have the same stupid ideas we had a decade ago, but hopefully Democrats' more-recent stupidity will be enough to convince you we're not as bad".
You know why Democrats win? Because you suck, that's why. You're no better for America than Democrats are. The rhetoric's just different.
Let me put it this way: if I were Bob Bush, and a much-liked and successful ex-governor of, say, Ohio, and a good-looking, smart, wise, and well-rounded guy...
...I still would not run, and if nominated, I would run no further, and if elected, I would not serve.
And now here comes 2016, and your big plan is "hey, let's try some more Bush. Yeah we have the same stupid ideas we had a decade ago, but hopefully Democrats' more-recent stupidity will be enough to convince you we're not as bad".
From where I sit I don't see a big difference between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. It really would be the most boring presidential election in my lifetime.
I'm not a Republican, Rev, and it's not my plan to try some more Bush. But I don't tilt at windmills.
It's awesome to say we should all vote for third party candidates, but it's not living in reality.
Reality is that the overwhelming majority of voters aren't political hounds like the commentariat of this blog. And the reality is that they most likely never will be. Generally people don't change. You can choose to ignore that and pretend like there's a chance in hell that a majority of voters will start caring about things beyond the personality and charisma of a particular candidate, or that he or she is a member of your team because they have a (D) or (R) in front of their name, but you'd be living in a dream world. The last time a third party candidate had any kind of a shot (Ross Perot) we ended up with a Clinton as president. If you don't think that same scenario can happen again then you refuse to learn from history.
No.
More.
Bushes.
Ever.
I can see its very very important to revenant to pretend that our electoral system is not what it actually is.
If you are a nominal rep, conservative etc and you vote 3rd party then your vote improves hillarys chances.
I'm sorry this reality doth flummox you so.
Mikesixes: no more Bushes ever?
What are your thoughts regarding more Clintons?
That just might be the choice have, revenants 3rd party fantasies notwithstanding.
I am interested to see how many here are ready to fall on their swords and let Hillary take the contest rather than face reality. Consider that Jeb Bush not only might be capable of leading to the solution of the Republicans' immigration problem as well as slowing the expansion of the Federal government. Perhaps we should hear what he has to say before we get all emotional and cry "No more Bush".
Those that think the measure of a conservative is the support of repeal of SS and Medicare are sorely in need of a reality check.
Let's get serious for a moment: Jindal is a wimp; Christie is a pain in the ass; Cruz is an idiot; Walker has the charisma of a barn wall; Ryan is a wonk; Huckabee and Santorum would be considered "nuts" by most Americans; Perry is lying in his grave waiting for the resurrection; Romney is just lying in his grave. That eliminates a lot of possibilities and makes Jeb Bush, at least, worth consideration.
Someone who did precisely fuck-all to reign in the govenment-backed real estate bubble.
Not entirely true.
I am interested to see how many here are ready to fall on their swords and let Hillary take the contest rather than face reality.
It depends on whether you're playing for the long game or the short game.
If Jeb is President, you're going to get a Democrat in office who calls himself a Republican and who will work well with Congress to grow our federal government.
If this is what you want, then Jeb Bush is your man.
On the other hand, if you want Congress and the President to be at odds, like during the Clinton years, and what we'll get for the next two years, then Bush won't be your man.
Sure, we'll suffer some supreme court nominees. But we'll also end up with 60+ Senators in the Senate (And probably a lot more Tea Partiers) and a lot more in the House as well.
Obama has been good for clarity in the Republican party. We have him to thank for that.
I'm pretty sure Jeb Bush, although he'll be demonized no matter what by Democrats everywhere, will work well with Democrats to pass all sorts of terrible legislation to ruin our lives.
I'd rather have a Democrat President and a Republican Congress than a Republican President and a Democrat Congress wherein the Republican President is a Moderate that works with Democrats.
We won't vote for Bush. He's for Amnesty.
I'd rather have a Democrat President and a Republican Congress than a Republican President and a Democrat Congress wherein the Republican President is a Moderate that works with Democrats.
This.
Bingo!
And a bunch more of us won't vote for him because he supports Common Core. He is not a conservative, he is the darling or the RINO donor class.
He's like HRC in that he thinks he deserves it and he doesn't have a compelling reason to run. But he has demonstrated the basic experience, competence and morality to qualify him as a reasonable candidate.
I am so good that I can barely contain myself. I sometimes look in the mirror and wonder: Why am I the best politico in America? Why?
I predicted here that Jeb will run. I predicted here again that Jeb's VP will be either Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire or Governor Susana Martinez of New Mexico.
There is NO WAY Hillary or Democratic Party can win.
There is NO WAY NYT or PBS or MSNBC or CNN can influence the election.
It is over.
GOP RISES from the Grave.
Why do so many commenters here take it as a given the Jeb is a liberal? I don't recall him having a liberal record in FL, though I wasn't living there. He only seems to break from the GOP orthodoxy on immigration, and frankly any future GOP president is going to have to realistically deal with the massive number of illegal immigrants, and deporting all of them isn't going to happen, even with president Tancredo.
I get the anti-dynasty argument, as well as the "boring" argument. But I'd like to see what these candidates have to say and do. I really don't know how Jeb is going to turn out as a candidate. He could fizzle like Perry and make all this pointless.
@Revenant. "Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain, and Romney show that most GOP voters are willing to play by Buckley rule.
Except that over half of them lost -- which means they were not, in fact, "the most conservative candidate who could win".
It is one thing to sell out your supposed principles to win a tight race. It is quite another to repeatedly sell out your supposed principles and still lose."
Could, not will. In each case, the judgment was reasonable and pragmatic, given the Buckley rule and available alternatives at the time.
Your disagreement with GOP voting behavior does not refute the point.
Jeb will have to appeal to GOP voters first. His problem is that he may focus on the general too early, turning off primary voters by condescension or by favoring amnesty too much.
His calculation, and that of most GOP voters, will focus on electability, since even pro-amnesty Bush will be better than any Dem alternative. What states can he win that Romney lost?
He has a shot at FL, VA, NH, OH, CO, and with Martinez or Sandoval as VP, NM or NV -- perhaps a better shot than Perry or Walker. If that's what primary voters think, he will win the nomination.
In the general, he would have an edge over Hillary! or Warren, due to Dem fatigue and executive experience.
It's too early in the game to get angry. I will say that if it's Bush v. Clinton in 2016, we might as well just start looking at 2nd generation Bushes and Clintons for beyond 2016 because obviously Americans only want familiarity and familial dynasties. This isn't what people mean by family values.
He could fizzle like Perry and make all this pointless.
He probably will.
Who would be the most likely Bush IV?
You may only choose from this list: link
@ Eric In the long game we are all dead. How about envisioning a Republican House and Senate with a Republican presidential candidate who can actually get elected and in so doing help to maintain the Republican majority? Isn't that the best scenario?
The pessimists and nay sayers should try a little more subtle thinking.
If JEB! is the choice of the Reps I WILL vote for him. Not happily or enthusiastically but , yes, I will vote for him. There is not a Democrat alive ( I likely could vote for Daniel Moynihan) that I trust on anything to do what is "right " for more liberty or personal freedom.
@ Retired You sound like a fourth grader: "He's for Amnesty". Come on, you haven't even heard what he is thinking. Maybe he's for amnesty (highly unlikely in any Republican), maybe he's not. My God, maybe he has a better idea but let's not give him a chance to explain it.
khesan0802:
You must be a liberal to go ad hominem so quickly.
"He (Bush) has set himself apart from many Republicans eyeing the presidency as a strong supporter of laws that would provide a pathway to citizenship for immigrants living in the United States illegally. In 2013, he published a book outlining a plan for immigration called Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution."
Source: Chris Moody CNN,
http://www.kcra.com/politics/6-things-to-know-about-jeb-bush/30256150
That is amnesty in my opinion and in the eyes of most conservatives. I could go for green cards but not citizenship for those breaking the law. Only because there is not the political will to deport the criminals and encourage self-deportation with the rest.
You can go all wordsmithy and argue about the definition of amnesty but that is a diversion.
I will not vote in the GOP primary for Bush nor will most conservatives. Electing a RINO just so we can say we have a GOP President doesn't accomplish what needs to be done. We need someone as close to Reagan as we can find. Jeb Bush who is even farther left than his relatives won't get it done.
khesan, don't assume there will be a republican house and senate in '16 with the way the GOP establishment has already acted AFTER they were given both houses.
They were voted in to stop Obama, stop amnesty, and get rid of obamacare. What did they do to start things off, instead? They funded both until September. Funding it is supporting it. That was a big FU to the voters.
There's obviously some Walker boosters on this site, but I'm not convinced he's legitimate and electable Presidential material.
Lately I have been wondering if there is or could be substantial support for Rick Snyder out of Michigan. Whaddaya think?
khesanh0802 said...
" @ Eric In the long game we are all dead. How about envisioning a Republican House and Senate with a Republican presidential candidate who can actually get elected and in so doing help to maintain the Republican majority? Isn't that the best scenario?
The pessimists and nay sayers should try a little more subtle thinking."
HAHAHAHAHAHA
The last time we had a republican congress and republican president together we got a whole new entitlement program. The republican party just wants their turn at the trough.
If they nominate Jeb it is over for them. I will never vote republican again and I am not alone. They know this too I think. The problem with the donor class is that they aren't republicans or democrats. They are rich people pushing the rich person agenda.
http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2014/12/16/125902
The donor class supports big government because it is easier to donate money to a politician to get a leg up than it is to compete in a free market. Bush is one of the donor class himself. There is no argument for voting for him.
Yeah, Jeb. No. You win the nomiation and, like in 2008, I just will not vote.
If both options suck, why vote?
"Yeah, Jeb. No. You win the nomiation and, like in 2008, I just will not vote.
If both options suck, why vote?"
I get that sentiment, and I have exercised it in the past (or voted third party, or write in). Depending on who the GOP nominates, I may do the same in 2016, however I think I speak for many when I say the prospect of a Hillary presidency after 8 years of Obama may be enough for me to hold my nose and pull the lever.
There won't be much excuse for a poor nominee for the GOP this time--the field is wide open so any good candidate should be encouraged to jump in. Contrast that with the Dems, who have been bullied out of it by the Clinton's machinations, so they may really have no one to challenge her.
If both options suck, why vote?
One always sucks harder.
Jeb is the Republican's best bet for getting the Hispanic vote, especially if Susana Martinez is his running mate. And his Mexican-American wife doesn't hurt either.
I don't see Martinez with JEB. That would be doubling down on the Hispanic angle. I think though that she would be good for almost anyone else - what more would you want? Hispanic, female, Republican governor.
Note that it isn't just JEB's wife though - his son just got elected statewide in Texas, and still has the looks that got him #3 in the list of eligible bachelors list in 2000. Except that he has Hispanic skin, instead of the white Bush skin. I actually expect him to be the next Bush President, and not his father. Not surprising, his election was a cake walk, with a lot of Hispanic votes.
I do think that the Republicans are in a pretty good position to pick up a lot of Hispanic votes, if they pander to them, with, for example, a ticket that includes a Hispanic (or Hispanic spouse). The Dems just don't have any good Hispanics to run, while the Republicans have a lot (Bush, Cruz, Rubio, Hernandez, Sandoval).
So we have to nominate a liberal republican to pander to the hispanic vote.
Why not Ted Cruz? Is it his principles or his skin color?
It will work the same way blacks loved Condi Rice
@ Retired I did not think that citing your childish response was an ad hominem. I did not say you were (fill in the blanks). I said you were behaving like a fourth grader and then illustrated that by quoting your unthoughtful remark. If I had wanted to attack you I would have made that obvious. All I did was ask you to think a bit.
I would rephrase your question about Ted Cruz to "So we have to nominate the megalomaniacal idiot Ted Cruz to appeal to Hispanic voters?' There are many better choices.
@ Achillles That was a very different Republican majority from the one we have today. It was populated by a good number of "moderate" Republicans who could have just as easily been moderate Democrats. Those moderates have died or, rightfully, been retired.
Post a Comment