Bush 45

The Republicans would be just insane enough to try for a third Bush presidency. This time with Jeb:

Mr. Bush is said by friends to be weighing financial and family considerations — between so many years in office and the recession his wealth took a dip, they said, and he has been working hard to restore it — as well as the complicated place within the Republican Party of the Bush brand.

After Mitt Romney’s defeat by a Democratic coalition built around overwhelming support from Hispanics and other fast-growing demographic groups, many Republicans are looking for a candidate who can help make the party more inclusive without ceding conservative principles — and no one is the subject of more speculation at this point than Mr. Bush.

To his supporters, Mr. Bush is the man for the moment. His wife, Columba, was born and raised in Mexico. He speaks Spanish and favors overhauling the immigration system in a way that would provide a route to citizenship for people already in the country illegally but otherwise law-abiding.

I hope Liz Cheney hasn’t planned anything for 2016. I wonder if they can find a new Rumsfeld and a new Ashcroft. Pick up right where they left off.

This is the operative sentence: “make the party more inclusive without ceding conservative principles.” You can’t really have both, given the current status of conservative principles — for example, how do you “include” more single women when most Republican legislatures are actively working to oppress and subjugate them?

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Election 2016 and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://twitter.com/TyJuanOn Kari Hope

    So because his wife was born in Mexico, and he speaks Spanish—it’s going to make this Latina vote for another Bush?? GTFO!! I would NEVER vote for a Republican if my life depended on it.

    • BD

      Even if your Democrat ruler murders innocent Afghanis, Iraqis and Libyans? Even if your Democrat ruler is a puppet sponsored by Wall Street (especially Goldman-Sachs)?
      What should be realized is that these criminals you decide to cheer for, albeit your decided team, are the same. The trick is that they make you believe that there is a difference.

      • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

        “What should be realized is that these criminals you decide to cheer for, albeit your decided team, are the same”

        The obligatory libertarian response. Thanks for adding nothing to the conversation.

        • BD

          Thanks for not addressing the content of the response and reacting with protective dismissal. If there is one thing a statist hates, it’s someone pointing out the illegitimacy and corruptions of the system they worship.

  • http://rob.yurkowski.net/ Rob Yurkowski

    Like the common refrain goes, they haven’t won an election in a long time that didn’t have a Bush or Nixon on the ticket. I can understand that too; whatever you might say about the Bush boys, they’re nothing if not charismatic.

    Makes me wonder how different the election would have been if Perry had been the nominee, instead.

    • bphoon

      …whatever you might say about the Bush boys, they’re nothing if not charismatic.

      Yeah, charismatic is sooo much better than competent.

      Makes me wonder how different the election would have been if Perry had been the nominee, instead.

      Obama would have won by more.

      • http://rob.yurkowski.net/ Rob Yurkowski

        Yeah, charismatic is sooo much better than competent.

        Whoa. Same side.

        What I’m saying is that many previous Republican presidential nominees and vice presidential nominees have been rather empty suits. Few of them have real appreciation of policy or notable leadership skill. In the absence of both, charisma is about the only thing they can offer, and those candidates who are the most charismatic and genuine tend to do the best for the Republicans. George Bush, for all his flaws, was an affable guy that you could either want to buy a beer or crack a joke about. He had a casual relatability that made very cynical voters vote for him.

        President Bush needed Al Gore to reject having President Clinton campaign for him.

        That was a silly choice, despite Clinton’s mixed baggage. Clinton is one of the most charismatic political figures we’ve seen in American politics in recent memory. His excellent performance during this 2012 election is proof positive. Gore, despite his impressive acumen for policy, was not particularly charismatic or relatable.

        Kerry was, of course, as relatable as a basset hound.

        Let’s be clear: the candidates the Republicans have presented, dating back all the way to Nixon, have been nearly uniformly terrible with the exception of Nixon himself and Bush Sr.. But they’ve also enjoyed a greater success than they deserve to have enjoyed, and it’s because Democrats have handed victories over:

        – In 2004, we were unprepared for the degree to which Kerry’s sterling military record would be impeached;
        – In 2000, we failed to deploy our loudest and most echoable spokesperson for our candidate, failed to make a convincing argument on the basis of shared values, and let the Floridian brouhaha cap it off;
        – In 1988, our candidate was nailed by a soundly unfair debate question that nevertheless illustrated a lack of appreciation of shared value with voters;
        – In 1984, our candidate stood at the base of a mountain of charisma;

        And so on, and so forth.

        We would all prefer if our candidates on both sides of the aisle were as policy-minded as President Obama. But to say that candidates who are competent are more likely to win elections than those who are charismatic is just patently false. Relatability wins elections. ‘Shares my values’ is the key metric.

        Now, there’s a few fantastic figures that are going to impact the next few elections. We have all exulted at the broadening coalition that voted for Obama. But we would be well-served to remember that those voters don’t belong to us. They’ll vote for the person whom they think best serves them, and if they’re not the sort that are inclined to vote in the first place, the absence of relatibility will keep them home.

        Obama would have won by more.

        Do you really think so?

        Mitt Romney had the charisma of a damp sock. He was an intelligent candidate, but he was also notably sociopathic.

        Even Rick What’s-my-middle-name-again Perry would have been a better choice.

        I can’t really fault President Obama for anything he did in his campaign; I think his team executed flawlessly, and their GOTV apparatus has been vindicated. But by the same token, I can’t actually give Mitt Romney credit for anything. And yet the result was closer than it deserves to be, and I point to the ‘shares my values’ metric as the best proof of that.

        Let’s not delude ourselves that this was a slam-dunk for Obama. The Republicans lost this one in the same way that we lost 1980. This wasn’t a round repudiation of the neoconservative agenda. This was a victory of a great candidate over a shockingly poor one, the validation of the most advanced GOTV apparatus in history, but a narrow victory in a country that’s increasingly polarized and very clearly not post-racial.

        • bphoon

          I don’t disagree with you, far from it. I certainly understand the charisma dynamic in an election. Most people do, in fact, tend to base their voting decision on who they “feel” better about. I get that, but we saw how that worked out for us during ’01-’09. Charisma is important but it’s not the only factor; it has to be accompanied by some level of demonstrable comptence. More voters are tuning into that. I believe that’s why the President was re-elected. He’s both personable and competent.

          As for Perry, he may be personable but he’s a painfully obvious moron. That’s why he failed to be taken seriously by even Republican primary voters and was run out of the race for the nomination as early as he was.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

    Latinos are smarter than that.

  • Lazarus Durden

    It’s where the GOP is right now. It’s not about policy. That’s not the problem it’s the messaging. The GOP acts like they’re a brand, and for them it means they can sell any shitty product as long as the ad campaign is good enough.

    They’re not too far off if you only look at the PV which is what they’re doing. They aren’t thinking about the future right now which looks even worse for them then the electoral map.

    At some point they will have to deal with reality. They’re just not ready yet.

    • incredulous72

      What Laz said.

      If they don’t get their heads out of their collective ass, they will most definitely go the way of the whigs. No amount of pandering to Latinos with the policy positions they hold is going to win them a city council seat anytime soon; except maybe in Texas.

      “It’s your policies, STUPID.”

  • muselet

    “I have this terrible feeling of déjà vu!”

    –alopecia

    • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

      Didn’t somebody just say that? ;-)

      • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

        Wait, where have I heard that before?

  • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

    This may be the only time I can give the GOP credit for recycling!
    Cosmetic ideas, denial of reality and failed policies, but recycling nontheless.

  • agrazingmoose

    So Jeb is weighing whether he can take time off from hoarding wealth to run for public office.

  • Victor_the_Crab

    NO MORE BUSHES! Hasn’t the country had enough of this family already?

  • CMiner

    Did you really think they would go away? This would be making history! And Jeb was supposed to be the presidential son anyway. Oh no, they are nowhere near done. And they have new generations to push into office . . .

  • BD

    Here’s a little list to show you all that Obama is hardly any different from Bush. Enjoy! (Submitted by Treg on Sun, 01/29/2012)

    “Bush Tax Cuts vs Obama Resigns Bush Tax Cuts
    Bush Patriot Act vs Obama resigns Patriot Act
    Bush starts Gitmo vs Obama Keeps Gitmo (America’s own gulag)
    Bush signs FISA vs Obama Votes for FISA
    Bush signs MCA vs Obama resigns Military Commissions Act MCA
    Bush creates TSA vs Obama keeps and enhances TSA
    Bush stays in Iraq vs Obama TRIES to stay in IRAQ (wanted new Agreement with Iraq but couldn’t)
    Bush invades Afghanistan vs Obama ADDS troops to Afghanistan
    Bush attacks with drones vs Obama attacks with MORE drones in Yemen, Pakistan, and Iran
    Bush Wanted a war with Iran vs Obama launches a not so secret War on Iran (one drone caught)
    Bush gets Libya to give up its nukes vs Obama invades and bomb Libya (bypasses Congress!)
    Bush signs No Child Left Behind vs Obama keeps No Child Left Behind (dept of Education gets $)
    Bush signs Drug Benefit Prescription program vs Obama keeps its and adds ObamaCare.
    Bush grows the Military vs Obama grows the Military
    Bush really grows Spending vs Obama REALLY grows Spending
    Bush gives tax payer money for the bank bailout vs Obama doesn’t audit tax payer money to banks!
    Bush is for Real ID act vs Obama is for the Real ID act
    Bush is for Internet regulations vs Obama is for Internet Regulations and gets one signed with UN!!
    Bush expands American military bases vs Obama gets a new military base in Australia !!!
    Bush signs “jobs bill” vs Obama begs Congress for “jobs bill”. (PORK)
    Bush spends more on the Drug War vs Obama cracks down on legal pot in California
    Bush gets tax payer money for private businesses vs Obama gets tax payer money for private businesses (CRONY CAPITALISM)”

    http://www.dailypaul.com/209439/pres-bush-vs-pres-obama-the-similarities-are-endless

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      Only a complete moron would call a Jobs bill “Pork” in a recession.

      • BD

        It is completely moronic to believe that government can create jobs because they write something on paper. The government creates nothing which it does not steal. All they do is shuffle the cards while the rest of us try to sort them back out in the economy.
        Please give an example of a job created by government without funding from public theft

      • BD

        …and out of that disgusting list the only thing you can comment on is the notion that bureaucratic legislature is is “pork” spending.
        You serve your master well