Son: George H.W. Bush wants Jeb to run

[MACVSOG68]

Oceander wrote: "Jeb Bush suffers from similar issues."

I believe there are differences between Bush and Romney, looking back at the 2012 campaign.  Romney was not able to distance himself from Obamacare for obvious reasons.  The Obama campaign was very successful in painting Romney and his business experience as the 1% against the rest of us.  Romney did make some blunders and gaffs especially after his successful first debate.  Like McCain before him, he really didn't fight back well.

Should Bush win the nomination (obviously still a long shot), he would come across as a more personable and down-to-earth candidate than did Romney.  Yes, his biggest downside is the Bush name, and maybe in the end that will be enough for him to forego a run.

But what the hell do I know.  I liked Newt in 2012 

[MACVSOG68]

Oceander wrote:  "Honestly, I know that politicians generally try to keep their base pumped up for elections, which is generally done by pandering to the base; however, given the polarization in today's politics I don't think the core base of the GOP really needs to be coddled, seduced and pandered to; I think it's the, shall we say, non-traditional potential republicans - the non-aligned moderates - who have to be seduced this time around.  Mind you, the base cannot simply be ignored, but the fact remains that for the 2014 and 2016 elections the traditional GOP base is not going to abandon the GOP en masse just because the wooing wasn't seductive enough.  There are, certainly, conservatives who will sit on their hands this time around and in 2016 because the GOP's nominees won't be pure enough, but that group is relatively small and I think that most will hold their noses and vote for the GOP because they will ultimately realize that if they don't vote for the GOP they might as well have cast a vote for the DNC."

Wise words. And with the non-aligned, Paul will have some appeal.  One of his problems is he has some history of saying things that get people shaking their heads.  I'm not sure he's really thought out a realistic foreign policy yet, but he does have plenty of time.  Sometimes he makes good sense, and sometimes he comes across like his dad.  The libertarian wing will probably take to him quicker than other segments of the right. 

[Oceander]

Oceander wrote: "Jeb Bush suffers from similar issues."

I believe there are differences between Bush and Romney, looking back at the 2012 campaign.  Romney was not able to distance himself from Obamacare for obvious reasons.  The Obama campaign was very successful in painting Romney and his business experience as the 1% against the rest of us.  Romney did make some blunders and gaffs especially after his successful first debate.  Like McCain before him, he really didn't fight back well.

Should Bush win the nomination (obviously still a long shot), he would come across as a more personable and down-to-earth candidate than did Romney.  Yes, his biggest downside is the Bush name, and maybe in the end that will be enough for him to forego a run.

But what the hell do I know.  I liked Newt in 2012 

you know a lot more than you sometimes give yourself credit for.

[Oceander]

Oceander wrote:  "Honestly, I know that politicians generally try to keep their base pumped up for elections, which is generally done by pandering to the base; however, given the polarization in today's politics I don't think the core base of the GOP really needs to be coddled, seduced and pandered to; I think it's the, shall we say, non-traditional potential republicans - the non-aligned moderates - who have to be seduced this time around.  Mind you, the base cannot simply be ignored, but the fact remains that for the 2014 and 2016 elections the traditional GOP base is not going to abandon the GOP en masse just because the wooing wasn't seductive enough.  There are, certainly, conservatives who will sit on their hands this time around and in 2016 because the GOP's nominees won't be pure enough, but that group is relatively small and I think that most will hold their noses and vote for the GOP because they will ultimately realize that if they don't vote for the GOP they might as well have cast a vote for the DNC."

Wise words. And with the non-aligned, Paul will have some appeal.  One of his problems is he has some history of saying things that get people shaking their heads.  I'm not sure he's really thought out a realistic foreign policy yet, but he does have plenty of time.  Sometimes he makes good sense, and sometimes he comes across like his dad.  The libertarian wing will probably take to him quicker than other segments of the right. 

I agree.  Rand has a lot of attractive characteristics, but he is also still a little green and could stand a little more aging, politically/philosophically speaking.  That being said I think that there is a lot of potential there, I just hope that it doesn't get wasted.

[DCPatriot]

you know a lot more than you sometimes give yourself credit for.

It's called tact.   

[Oceander]

It's called tact.   

"Tacked"?  I thought that was when the teacher sat down on a thumbtack some troublemaker put on his chair?

[massadvj]

Which part, immigration reform or averting foreign military adventures?

The part about appealing to moderates.  It is a deeply flawed logic.  OPapaDoc completely understands that you need not appeal to moderates to win elections.  What you must do is hold together the traditional GOP constituencies and bring new people into your sphere.  For GWB the new people were apolitical evangelicals who believed in his story of personal salvation.  At this point Jeb Bush has no such natural constituency, although there may be some potential for him with hispanics.

The one guy in the field who could be a game-changer is Rand Paul.  He brings in young, left-leaning libertarians who now make up a significant part of the Dem base.  The question is whether he can bring them in without antagonizing traditional conservatives.  It is quite a tightrope, but so far Rand Paul seems to be traversing it.  There is more common ground there than people imagine.

Personally, as far as positions on issues, i can live with Jeb Bush.  But he represents the country club wing of the party and fair or not, that combined with his name make him not viable.

[Fishrrman]

MAC wrote:
[[ Well...to be frank, almost anyone with a chance at beating Hillary will alienate the alleged "conservative base". ]]

OK I'm gonna call you out on this one.

Who among the potential pool of Pubbie candidates do you think -could- beat Hillary ??

And who do you think would be destined to lose from the get-go ??

Names ??

[Fishrrman]

MBB1984 wrote above:
[[ Any GOP candidate that enthusiastically endorses Immigration reform, better known as Amnesty, will cause many true Conservatives to vote third party or stay home. ]]

I'm one of them.

I just don't feel like votin' for an "amnesty candidate". Not one of them.

Why help the hangman tie the noose with which to string you up?

I don't foresee this sentiment as changing before election day.

By the way, I will -never- vote for a democrat again. Never. Just so we're clear on that...

[Howie66]

MBB1984 wrote above:
[[ Any GOP candidate that enthusiastically endorses Immigration reform, better known as Amnesty, will cause many true Conservatives to vote third party or stay home. ]]

I'm one of them.

I just don't feel like votin' for an "amnesty candidate". Not one of them.

Why help the hangman tie the noose with which to string you up?

I don't foresee this sentiment as changing before election day.

By the way, I will -never- vote for a democrat again. Never. Just so we're clear on that...

At this juncture, I am planning on supporting Governor Rick Perry in the 2016 Primary Season. I'm still hoping that General James Mattis will step up, too.

[MACVSOG68]

The part about appealing to moderates.  It is a deeply flawed logic.  OPapaDoc completely understands that you need not appeal to moderates to win elections.  What you must do is hold together the traditional GOP constituencies and bring new people into your sphere.  For GWB the new people were apolitical evangelicals who believed in his story of personal salvation.  At this point Jeb Bush has no such natural constituency, although there may be some potential for him with hispanics.

The one guy in the field who could be a game-changer is Rand Paul.  He brings in young, left-leaning libertarians who now make up a significant part of the Dem base.  The question is whether he can bring them in without antagonizing traditional conservatives.  It is quite a tightrope, but so far Rand Paul seems to be traversing it.  There is more common ground there than people imagine.

Personally, as far as positions on issues, i can live with Jeb Bush.  But he represents the country club wing of the party and fair or not, that combined with his name make him not viable.

While I agree with you that the winning party must hold together the base, I disagree about moderates and Obama.  He won the self identified moderate vote by 60% to 40%, while Romney won over the independents, but still managed to lose the election, for obviously a number of reasons.  People are kicking around Paul's name these days, and he's made it pretty obvious he'll be in the race.  But as you say, he's walking a tightrope with issues.  You simply can't be all things to all people.

If Bush does jump in, in spite of his mom's wishes, I would suggest it'll be in part to offer an alternative to Christie, who's got problems of his own. 

[MACVSOG68]

MAC wrote:
[[ Well...to be frank, almost anyone with a chance at beating Hillary will alienate the alleged "conservative base". ]]

OK I'm gonna call you out on this one.

Who among the potential pool of Pubbie candidates do you think -could- beat Hillary ??

And who do you think would be destined to lose from the get-go ??

Names ??

Well obviously I've already named Jeb.  If Christie didn't have some issues he has to get past in New Jersey he could beat her.  Before Superstorm Sandy, he would have been a hands-down favorite to win both the nomination and the election.  I also think both Walker and Paul have outside chances.  Like it or not, personality with both would be an issue.

I think any of the also-rans in 2012 and Ted Cruz at this point have little to no chance.  But I certainly admit that this early, no prediction is worth a pinch of salt.  IIRC this time in 2006 Obama wasn't even on the long list.

[olde north church]

While I agree with you that the winning party must hold together the base, I disagree about moderates and Obama.  He won the self identified moderate vote by 60% to 40%, while Romney won over the independents, but still managed to lose the election, for obviously a number of reasons.  People are kicking around Paul's name these days, and he's made it pretty obvious he'll be in the race.  But as you say, he's walking a tightrope with issues.  You simply can't be all things to all people.

If Bush does jump in, in spite of his mom's wishes, I would suggest it'll be in part to offer an alternative to Christie, who's got problems of his own.

In spite of "mom's" wishes?  Don't believe that for single second.

[massadvj]

While I agree with you that the winning party must hold together the base, I disagree about moderates and Obama.  He won the self identified moderate vote by 60% to 40%, while Romney won over the independents, but still managed to lose the election, for obviously a number of reasons.  People are kicking around Paul's name these days, and he's made it pretty obvious he'll be in the race.  But as you say, he's walking a tightrope with issues.  You simply can't be all things to all people.

If Bush does jump in, in spite of his mom's wishes, I would suggest it'll be in part to offer an alternative to Christie, who's got problems of his own.

Obama won the moderates, but he did not do so by APPEALING TO the moderates.  He ran as a leftist, trusting that moderates would come along because of his authenticity.  Given the polarization and marketing savvy of the electorate these days, there is no longer a significant "center."  The great American middle class is disappearing.  To win a plurality, a candidate has to stitch together a unique combination of constituency groups.  The failures of McCain and Romney strongly suggest that the traditional coalition the GOP has always counted on can no longer win a national election.  New votes have to come from somewhere.

Some people think we should pander for the Hispanic vote.  The trouble with this strategy is that it is a quest for a minority within a minority.  The GOP is never going to be popular with a majority of Hispanics.

On the other hand, there are enough swing votes out there in the anti-establishment libertarian movement that, if it could be combined with the traditional GOP-leaning core of the party, can swing the party back into a majority.  And it's built on a more solid foundation, standing for personal liberty as opposed to handouts.  And since it is youthful, it could be sustainable.

Now, many will claim that there simply is not enough common ground between the religious right and libertarians.  But I think there might be so long as everyone feels their own freedom is at stake.  Religious people feel they are under attack.  Gays and lesbians feel they are under attack.  Recreational drug users feel they are under attack.  Small businessmen feel they are under attack.  Doctors, lawyers, nurses, Realtors and especially working men and women feel they are under attack.  If someone just came along and said "Live and Let Live" and was trusted, and not pressed too much on the details of what that might mean, it could win a national election.

Personally, I think Romney could be president today had he chosen Rand Paul as his running mate.  Paul would have appealed to voters in OPapaDoc's center: the young, energetic, pierced and tatoo'd crowd that just wants its pot and Internet, and doesn't want to be hassled.  Instead, he picked the safe choice, Paul Ryan, who could not even deliver Wisconsin.

You can't just keep thinking the same old way and expect a different result.

[MACVSOG68]

Obama won the moderates, but he did not do so by APPEALING TO the moderates.  He ran as a leftist, trusting that moderates would come along because of his authenticity.  Given the polarization and marketing savvy of the electorate these days, there is no longer a significant "center."  The great American middle class is disappearing.  To win a plurality, a candidate has to stitch together a unique combination of constituency groups.  The failures of McCain and Romney strongly suggest that the traditional coalition the GOP has always counted on can no longer win a national election.  New votes have to come from somewhere.

Some people think we should pander for the Hispanic vote.  The trouble with this strategy is that it is a quest for a minority within a minority.  The GOP is never going to be popular with a majority of Hispanics.

On the other hand, there are enough swing votes out there in the anti-establishment libertarian movement that, if it could be combined with the traditional GOP-leaning core of the party, can swing the party back into a majority.  And it's built on a more solid foundation, standing for personal liberty as opposed to handouts.  And since it is youthful, it could be sustainable.

Personally, I think Romney would be president today had he chosen Rand Paul as his running mate.  Paul would have represented an attack on OPapaDoc's center: the young, energetic, pierced and tatoo'd crowd that just wants its pot and Internet, and doesn't want to be hassled.  Instead, he picked the safe choice, Paul Ryan, who could not even deliver Wisconsin.

You can't just keep thinking the same old way and expect a different result.

You paint an interesting scenario Mass.  I wouldn't call recognizing that the Hispanic vote could carry an election pandering.  Almost every plank in a platform could be described as pandering to various ideological segments of the GOP.  GWB was able to put together 44% of the Hispanic vote which shows they are less committed to the left than are blacks.

But if you look at the campaign to kill off immigration reform in 2007, you will see that it was far more of an attack on Latinos as a group than it was the illegals.  That is what Hispanics saw, and how they view the GOP today.  Organizations like Numbers USA and The Center for Immigration Studies were instrumental in creating enough stories to scare hell out of the senators who ultimately held together the filibuster.  I won't dwell on this issue, but Jeb Bush's support for a reasonable and balanced immigration reform plan combined with his ability to reach out and communicate with the Latino community would at least turn around that segment for the GOP.

One thing in your scenario that could be an issue is that libertarians and those leaning libertarian, especially from the left side of the aisle will have a lot of difficulty in seeing much common ground with some segments of the GOP base.  But again, it's an interesting proposition.

[massadvj]

You paint an interesting scenario Mass.  I wouldn't call recognizing that the Hispanic vote could carry an election pandering.  Almost every plank in a platform could be described as pandering to various ideological segments of the GOP.  GWB was able to put together 44% of the Hispanic vote which shows they are less committed to the left than are blacks.

But if you look at the campaign to kill off immigration reform in 2007, you will see that it was far more of an attack on Latinos as a group than it was the illegals.  That is what Hispanics saw, and how they view the GOP today.  Organizations like Numbers USA and The Center for Immigration Studies were instrumental in creating enough stories to scare hell out of the senators who ultimately held together the filibuster.  I won't dwell on this issue, but Jeb Bush's support for a reasonable and balanced immigration reform plan combined with his ability to reach out and communicate with the Latino community would at least turn around that segment for the GOP.

One thing in your scenario that could be an issue is that libertarians and those leaning libertarian, especially from the left side of the aisle will have a lot of difficulty in seeing much common ground with some segments of the GOP base.  But again, it's an interesting proposition.

Personally, I have no problem with immigration reform.  But a significant portion of the GOP base does, and we are at the point where the rubber meets the road on this issue.  GWB was able to finesse the issue.  But today, not even a red state conservative like Rick Perry can get away with appearing to be soft on illegal immigration.

I also don't like the pandering aspect of every immigration proposal.  It's one thing to allow people to stay and work, it's another to make them eligible for public assistance and citizenship.  All of the proposals that have come forward so far have a price tag and advance our country further toward socialism.

The middle ground on immigration is freedom.  Come here and be free, like the rest of us.  But don't expect a handout.  This is Rand Paul's position, but he frames it in a way that is very palatable to the conservative base.

That aside, if Jeb Bush or anyone else would just say "screw you" to the anti-amnesty crowd I'd have a lot more respect for them.  Instead, they say something that's pro-amnesty and then walk it back time after time.  It's typical moderate BS, and the public recognizes that.

[MACVSOG68]

Personally, I have no problem with immigration reform.  But a significant portion of the GOP base does, and we are at the point where the rubber meets the road on this issue.  GWB was able to finesse the issue.  But today, not even a red state conservative like Rick Perry can get away with appearing to be soft on illegal immigration.

I also don't like the pandering aspect of every immigration proposal.  It's one thing to allow people to stay and work, it's another to make them eligible for public assistance and citizenship.  All of the proposals that have come forward so far have a price tag and advance our country further toward socialism.

The middle ground on immigration is freedom.  Come here and be free, like the rest of us.  But don't expect a handout. 

That aside, if Jeb Bush or anyone else would just say "screw you" to the anti-amnesty crowd I'd have a lot more respect for them.  Instead, they say something that's pro-amnesty and then walk it back time after time.  It's typical moderate BS, and the public recognizes that.

There's no doubt that immigration reform will play a role in 2016, and yet may be totally ignored in 2014.  But as long as the reform opposition can reduce an extremely complex proposition to one word--"amnesty", they can and will use that to strike fear in candidates.

I agree with you completely on the handout issue. It's one reason I supported the failed bill from 2007.  The successful pathway to legalization included a provision that no form of welfare could be used.  Any bill coming out on immigration would have to contain a similar measure.  Failure of the illegal to continue working would remove his provisional status.

I'm not sure where Perry comes down these days on the issue.  Everyone knows that nobody is going to seriously try to deport eleven million illegals, and by now it should be obvious that the employee tightening that has been done hasn't seen them scurrying back home.  So doing nothing may be the final answer for candidates who don't want to stand up and be counted.  But letting it continue to fester isn't a conservative approach and certainly won't turn Hispanics back toward the GOP.