"Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney are scheduled to meet privately this week in Utah, raising the possibility that the two former governors will find a way to avoid competing presidential campaigns that would split the Republican establishment next year, two prominent party members said Wednesday night."
The NYT reports.
So... they are trying to "find a way"? Can you help? Assume you want to. I mean, I'm sure some of you would like to see the Republican establishment wrecked by a split, leaving the nomination to someone more tea-partyish — either because you like that sort of thing or because you think it's easier for the Democrat to beat. But let's examine this from the Jeb-and-Mitt point of view: What arrangement should they make?
२२ जानेवारी, २०१५
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८७ टिप्पण्या:
A contract that the one that's ahead at time X throws all his support to the other.
"What kind of an arrangement should Jeb and Mitt make?"
Pistols at dawn. Hopefully they will recover from their wounds sometime in 2017.
Preface: I don't particularly like either candidate.
I think the only possible arrangement would be Jeb as Pres and Mitt as VP. I think that would be a formidable ticket this early on. They'd suck up all the money and make it extremely difficult for any other candidate.
Jeb offers Mitt a new Caninet-level position, something like Secratary of Cleaning Up Obama's Stupid Shit, if Mitt endorses Jeb early. This allows Mitt to define the position and make it grand, but he would end up marginal as intended.
Mitt makes Jeb head of the Dept. of Education to implement Common Core, which Mitt tells Jeb he can use to win the POTUS in 2024, if Jeb endorses Mitt.
Neither is interested in V. P. and that would be true even if they wouldn't be following the joke Joey Biden.
Of course the incestuous nature of Ivy finance would remain unabated, continuing to enrich both men.
An arrangement, you say? Well, it should be pretty clear by now which is the daddy and which the baby...
Its clear that Mitt has agreed to be the forerunner who has enough big contributors tied to him until the point that Jebbie has gathered the rest of them. This assures and no support wave can be built for another man, like Walker, until Mitt graciously bows out on cue and sends his supporters over to Jebbie.
The GOP Establishment, like the Clintons, sees politics as the art of assembling a mass of campaign money. That IS how W was selected and eventually elected by 399 Florida votes and 1 swing SCOTUS vote when Gore had forgotten to carry Tennessee.
Let them play a game of "Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock" to determine which one of them gets to run.
In the run-up to the 2000 campaign, the GOP decided early that it was going to unite behind one candidate, and it picked GWB. Yes, McCain ran also, but he didn't have the funds and backing that W did. I suspect the GOP wants to avoid a repeat of 2012, with a fractured and infighting field of candidates. I wouldn't be surprised to see a "unity" ticket or some such arrangement eventually come out of this.
Zzzzzzz.
A nation bows its head in slumber.
On a Jeb/Mitt ticket, Romney would follow Cheney, not "Slow Joe."
A "unity ticket" happens at the end of a primary season, not the beginning. Paul, Cruz, Walker, Jindal, et al. aren't going to simply roll over Mitt/Jeb 2016.
IF you were going to have a unity ticket with Establishment up top, you'd need something like Mitt/Jindal or Jeb/Paul that could fight on both fronts.
One promises the other an important cabinet post. Plus, they come to a meeting of the minds regarding legislation that affects the economy-- immigration, tax reform, etc.
One promises the other an important cabinet post. Plus, they come to a meeting of the minds regarding legislation that affects the economy-- immigration, tax reform, etc.
I seem to recall hearing what a deep bench the Republicans have, yet here we have these two old warhorses sitting around the table carving up the Republican party like a Thanksgiving turkey.
As the cheese-eating surrender monkeys might say, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
At least there is a table and a turkey.
The Democrats? Not so much. May have to draft a sacrificial candidate.
This is fantasy, but I would like to see Romney as a Cabinet-level head of the Office of Management and Budget, in charge of making the government work properly and getting rid of the parts that don't or can't, or shouldn't be there at all. Someone of Presidential stature who clearly spoke for the President might actually get something done in this regard.
Hagar said...
At least there is a table and a turkey.
Thanks to Obama - $2 gas and the best economy in the western world.
Jeb and Mitt will draw straws to see who meets with Hillary to draw straws.
Then they'll go over the script.
AReasonableMan said...
Hagar said...
At least there is a table and a turkey.
Thanks to Obama - $2 gas and the best economy in the western world.
What precisely did Obama do to cause $2 gas? Please be specific.
They should agree to campaign from day one as a Pres/VP ticket with the younger person (Bush?) as VP.
I said at Patterico's several days ago that I think Mitt is the stalking horse. They tell the major centrist/establishment donors that Jeb is their guy and Mitt will run interference and try to siphon off votes and money from the "true conservatives" by running to he right of Jeb. Then if Jeb gets the nomination, Mitt will be his VP. During the convention, they announce the VP will be strong. Not a ceremonial putz job like Biden has. Something even stronger than Cheney, with real authority bordering on a co-presidency along the lines of what almost happened with Reagan and Ford in 1980. Of course, they won't call it a co-presidency because that would violate the Constitution, so Jeb would technically always be President, but Mitt will have a major say in certain aspects of policy. He fancies himself a foreign policy guru now, so maybe he'll be VP and Secretary of State. Or VP and Secretary of Defense. Or VP and Treasurer. Something along those lines. The point is that I think Jeb and Mitt are - and have been - conspiring to figure out how to freeze out the "true conservatives".
That's what Bush's do.
It's too much to hope that they both agree not to run.
Since Romney's last name is not Bush, he has the better argument to run.
If Jeb doesn't understand that, he is more out of touch than Obama. What money donor does not understand that there will never be another Bush as president.
One of them should be put in charge of creating another legislative branch whose sole role is to revoke laws that were found ineffective, that created undesirable side effects outweighing their benefits, laws who have outlived their original intent, etc.
We need a legislative branch who can't create laws but instead can only revoke them. Our nation has advanced to such a point that after 240 years there needs to be this new house of congress.
It's critical to us improving as a country.
I think Jeb is running interference for Ted Cruz.
Larry J said...
What precisely did Obama do to cause $2 gas?
He 'let freedom ring'*.
*copyright estate of Martin Luther King, Jr.
I'm using my NYTimes Decoder Ring:
raising the possibility that the two former governors will find a way to avoid competing presidential campaigns that would split the Republican establishment next year, two prominent party members said Wednesday night
In which party are the members prominent?
The only place this possibility has been raised, I suspect, is in the Editorial Room of the NYTimes.
"In which party are the members prominent?"
Does anyone think the Times has spoken to as many as two republicans in the past 10 years?
part of your problem, arm, is that you are perfectly, randomly insincere. It is quite difficult sometimes to tell whether you mean any given thing you say. The trouble is that it makes what you say quite worthless. Should take the long view and conduct yourself not in the way that you think will get the most votes for your party were the most aggrandizement, but in the way that make you / let you be the best person that you can be. I think that your style has got to impose upon your personality and twist you, I must of course the posting is just the kind of a twisted personality. Sorry for any typos, this is stupid Android voice to text and I can't bothered to go back over it. Thanks for listening.
Mitt gives Jeb his blessing and endorsement -- and his donors. Jeb allows Mitt to have whichever post he wants in the Bush administration. Mitt isn't Veep material. I actually don't know what that would be. I doubt he wants State or Defense, and he isn't qualified for Attorney General.
Maybe Treasury?
Maybe Jeb can create for Mitt a new "efficiency czar" post to deal with the entire federal bureaucracy?
"What kind of an arrangement should Jeb and Mitt make?"
I'll write and send an arrangement of "Let's Call The Whole Thing Off" for any ensemble they choose, from solo banjo to symphony orchestra.
Gratis.
If they both want to campaign for Palin...I accept.
Basically, I think it's a sort of non-aggression pact, with an outline/schedule for determining when one or the other bows out and endorses the one who remains. They don't want to hurt each other.
How about:
Mitt agrees to step aside so Jeb gets the nomination, and in return Jeb lets Mitt marry his daughter.
I'd like to think that both will end up concluding that interests of the country are best served by neither of them running.
I think that both have a lot to offer to the nation, even if I don't share all of their respective views.
The country has been lacking in statesmanship. We could do a lot worse than having these find a way to work together in a semi-formalized way as advisors, shades of The Wise Men. Let's get Condi Rice in the mix, too.
@ARM
Thanks to Obama - $2 gas and the best economy in the western world.
I don't know where you've been purchasing gasoline.
During the years 2008-2013, I saw the price of gas below $3/gal for one week. (In January 2009. Before most Obama policies which might affect the price of gasoline began.)
During the year 2014, the price of gas did not dip below $3/gal until early fall.
Which Obama policy kept gasoline above $3/gal during the years 2009-2013?
Which Obama policy caused the price of gasoline to drop after summer 2014?
(Note: I've got a spreadsheet on my home computer containing every purchase of gasoline, with date/gallons/cost, since 2002. If you want long-term trends in gasoline prices, I can give you lots of data over the past decade.)
Doesn't this violate some sort of Monopoly law? Seems just about as "unholy".
Does anyone else think that garage has hacked ARM's account?
At least ARM used to be somewhat coherent; now he's just a caricature.
From their point of view, or the point of view of the GOP as a whole, it really should be a gentleman's agreement regarding attacks on other primary opponents. Some attacks of course are good for the party--they can innoculate the nominee from future attacks the Democrats will use, or can expose a candidate's weakness which may demonstrate he shouldn't be the nominee, or at least should address that weakness. But ultimately a real mudfight can leave voters reluctant with the nominee and unwilling to come out to vote in the general.
Where to draw that line is impossible to say, though, as one man's "fair game" is another's "below the belt."
@ Ignorance is Bliss
Granddaughter.
Thanks to Obama - $2 gas
No OPEC will kind of do that to the price.
Hey ARM -- THE MARKET FUCKING WORKS, EH?!
I've got a spreadsheet on my home computer containing every purchase of gasoline, with date/gallons/cost, since 2002. If you want long-term trends in gasoline prices, I can give you lots of data over the past decade.
Mine goes back to 1996! But it's not on a computer, it's on a little notebook -- a couple of them -- in the glovebox in the car.
"Thanks to Obama - $2 gas and the best economy in the western world."
Earth to ARM. We all know that Obama failed in his quest for 9 dollar gas but I'm surprised to see him brag about it. Not really. Fantasy is strong in these people.
Love you, Jeb. I'll vote for you.
Vicki from Pasadena
Mine goes back to 1996! But it's not on a computer, it's on a little notebook -- a couple of them -- in the glovebox in the car.
So when was the last time gas was below $1/gal? My spouse says he remembers around 99, but I'm skeptical and believe it was before that.
A Jeb-Mitt ticket would be awesome, since it would deprive the party of the dynasty issue, the age issue and the Obamacare issue all at once!
Geniuses.
"Mine goes back to 1996! But it's not on a computer, it's on a little notebook -- a couple of them -- in the glovebox in the car."
Pretty sure I can go back to 1977, when I bought my first car. Also little notebooks (one for each car).
At that, I would be interested to hear if there is any policy - from whatever government or NGO - behind the less than $2 gasoline prices we see at the moment. I think there surely would have been some government or NGO action to counteract the price drop if it was not deliberate.
But what is the purpose? Trouble for Russia and/or Iran?
Break up the domestic wildcatters?
Just what is going on here?
Perhaps the best arrangement they can come to is "nothing." If word gets out that they are trying to freeze out "outsiders," it could destroy both of their candidacies.
BTW, weren't federal election laws supposed to take "big money" out of politics? Will any candidate have to courage to call for major repeal?
"What precisely did Obama do to cause $2 gas? Please be specific."
He signed off on extending the Bush Tax Cuts.
Oil and gas extraction on federal government land has fallen during Obama's presidency.
Which Obama policy caused the price of gasoline to drop after summer 2014?
While most of the credit for the low gas prices goes to Bush/Cheney polices, I have to give President Obama some credit. He's had both feet on the brakes of the economy since he took office. No doubt this has decreased the demand for gas, and consequently, the price.
"Basically, I think it's a sort of non-aggression pact,"
I tend to agree, if in fact there was some sort of agreement.
Obama's effect on the economy has got to be his only action to lower gas prices. You only have to drive to the welfare office once a week in Obamaland.
My spouse says he remembers around 99, but I'm skeptical and believe it was before that.
It was 89.9 back in the 90s. 1999 might be right. It might be a bit earlier than that.
In the early 1960s the price for regular was 32.9 cents/gal., which is equal to $3.29+/- per gallon today, depending on who is counting.
If Obama wants to tout low gas prices, can he explain anything he did that caused them to drop?
Far as I can tell, his DOT may have bumped up CAFE standards but I believe those regs haven't taken effect yet. "Cash for Clunkers" and whatever green energy pork from his stimulus bill aren't likely to have reduced demand for oil by any significant amount, and frankly prices seem to be dropping at the same time consumption has been rising due to the recovery, so more likely this is a result of increased oil production going on the market and speculators taking that into account.
Does Obama want to take credit for the increased production and drilling, or the magical price fairy?
Jeb: So it's agreed, we will run as a President-Vice President ticket!
Mitt:Great! Call the media!
Jeb and Mitt in unison: I am fortunate and honored to be running with [Mitt/Jeb} by my side as my vice-president.
Mitt and Jeb: Uh oh!
Something involving broadswords would be nice.
Mitt should just buy Jeb a country to be President of.
Like (say) Texas.
He would have to raise some capital to pull it off, but Mitt knows how to do that.
Re: gas prices
The best Obama can say is that he recently gave the green light to the Saudis to flood the market and kill domestic production in red states like Texas and North Dakota.
With cheap oil, Obama wins in three ways: Venezuela, Iran and Russia are hit hard, and even Cuba is feeling the pain; the US enjoys an overall economic lift, with the pain being felt only in pockets, like the energy sector; and the economic rationale for fracking is undermined. All said, a nice tidy win.
The only downside for Democrats is that people now have less reason to abandon fossil fuels. Ah -- but even the downside can be made into a positive, since that can be fixed by more government subsidies to green energy companies, of course, and carbon taxes down the line. Cheap oil provides an excellent rationale for extensive, active government involvement in the economy.
Mitt to Jeb: "Bugger off"
ARM doesn't give a flying booger about $2 gas. Working class people who commute to jobs care about that issue, and he is contemptuous of these people.
He also seems to think the current $2 price is permanent, regardless of what anybody does. This is the default Democrat position. They claimed that ANWR would not affect prices for a decade, two decades ago. So OPEC was sitting there on the verge of collapse, and we trusted the Democrats and didn't give them a push.
You can never trust a Democrat on energy. They don't care about it, it is a working people issue.
The arrangement they make should be decided by net present value calculation of current assets and current and expected cash flows as well as a Moneyball style quantitative valuation of current human capital in their respective camps, then utilize two participant game theory and Nash equilibria to arrive at a probability distribution of failure/success and the optimal outcome for each participant.
In other words, all the stuff we hate private equity guys for.
A suicide pact.
To hell with them both.
Obama has managed to reduce production of oil in the Gulf.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Big-Oil-Going-Big-in-the-Gulf-of-Mexico.html
That was his part to try to drive up gas prices.
Whatever Republican we elect, they won't stand in the way of energy security.
".....doughboy"
How about a double suicide pact?
I read Mitt and Jeb but my mind thinks Mutt and Jeff.
Dueling pistols at 20 paces; winner announces he will not run.
I'm thinking the kind of arrangement that Gregor Clegane had with Oberyn Martell.
A corrupt bargain, no doubt. Good thing no-one would mistake our day for the Era of Good Feelings, right?
They should both drop out and support Ted Cruz.
As most of the comments above involve Mitt and Jeb committing joint suicide and endorsing some Palin/Cruz unity ticket, there is a worthwhile question here--should any or all of the GOP presidential candidates have some sort of agreement going into the primaries that would benefit the ultimate nominee and the party going into the general election? Considering how the primaries often turn into a circular firing squad babooon poop contest, leaving the party in a postiion where it can only win if the Democrats nominate someone with the charisma of John Kerry, are there any "gentlemans agreements" that might be worthwhile?
A VP could act as a de facto sec of state or defense, but it is prohibited by the constitution for an officer of the United States to hold more than one official position. This was written in the constitution to avoid what Augustus did in Rome. He claimed to have restored the Roman Republic but maintained autocratic control by having the Senate appoint him to multiple constitutional positions--Imperator (commander in chief), Tribune, Censor, Consul, Proconsul, Princeps (first citizen), and Pontifex Maximus (chief priest).
How about a coin flip?
In fact, why not use a coin flip for the election. Or rock, paper, scissors?
The results can't be worse that the Obama electionS. And think of all the campaign money saved.
Mary Beth said...
I read Mitt and Jeb but my mind thinks Mutt and Jeff.
Haha...
I can't find my old car records. The first tank of gas we put in the current car was Dec 26, 1998. It cost $1.02 and 9/10. That was the lowest price in the record.
The Bush boys, both Jeb and George are a oontinuation of the Franklin Pierce (D-NH) political dynasty, through their mother, Barbara, if I remember correctly. We all know what a one-term wonder Pierce was. His legacy was the, "Kansas-Nebraska Act," which he actively supported, which abolished the "Missouri Compromise," and led to the foundation of the Republican Party. He was also a friend (Harvard Classmates) of Nathaniel Hawthorne, the writer, who died while on a walking excursion through New Hampshire, with Pierce.
Since the Republicans are convinced the presidency is theirs for the taking, there will be no deal. But Romney is such a pussy that Jeb will get the nomination.
Wow, Original Mike.
You've had your current car since 1998? I'm guessing you bought it new? I suppose that's the only way I'd buy a brand new car---to drive it until the bitter end.
The car is a Saab 9-3. I bought it new late 1998. It has 60,000 miles on it.
What do you do, drive it around the block once a month?
We live a mile from work, so no daily commute. We walk. We do have a second vehicle; a 3 year old Toyota Tacoma with 7,000 miles on it. Mainly use it to go camping or haul the telescope to a dark site.
I've always kept my cars a long time. Car before the Saab was a VW Jetta I kept for 13 years. Why throw away something that works?
Original Mike,
I'm VERY envious of your commute. I'd keep my cars as long as you if mine were that short (27 miles one way).
I Callahan,
We don't have to worry about driving through ice and snow. And, it's a nice walk through an established, wooded neighborhood, too. It's pretty nice.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा