6 Reasons Jeb Bush Will Make a Great President (please don't barf up your Christmas dinner)

[Luis Gonzalez]

6 Reasons why he isn't the right guy for the time
He isn't conservative
He's on the wrong side of the immigration issue
He supports big government like his father and brother
He was popular a decade ago before the rise of the TEA Party and is now to the left of the entire conservative base
He is just like Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney all establishment Republicans who lost badly because they couldn't excite the base to vote and drag their friends and families to vote.
He's part of the power corrupted establishment GOP that is in serious decline losing dozens of seats to the TEA Party caucus in the last 5 years.
Based on voting record for the Continuing Resolution the TEA Party caucus now makes up 20 seats in the Senate and 67 seats in the House. The TEA Party caucus will only grow larger in 2016.

Right there... that should tell you everything that you need to know.

The alleged base has moved to the right of itself?

How do you become more conservative that you were before and be a conservative then as well as now?

So the conservative base was not conservative back when they called themselves the base and Jeb was Governor?

What a joke.

[mountaineer]

The alleged base has moved to the right of itself?

How do you become more conservative that you were before and be a conservative then as well as now?

That's not at all what was said. We get it, Luis, you like Jeb.

[Luis Gonzalez]

That's not at all what was said. We get it, Luis, you like Jeb.

I don't "like" politicians. I support some, I don't get emotionally involved.

Having said that. I lived in Florida when Jeb was Governor, and I not only supported him but I worked his campaign.

Jeb's politics are pretty much the same today as they were back then. Common Core did not exist then and his ideas on illegal immigration are not all that different today than they were then. Yet, then he was touted as a conservative Republican by conservatives.   

So if his politics haven't changed all that much but he's to the left of the "base" then the only logical conclusion is that the "base" moved right.

[massadvj]

Personally, I think Jeb Bush is smarter and more conservative than either his father or his brother.  I think he is far more conservative than John McCain or Mitt Romney.  I think he is not electable because of his name, but that would not stop me from voting for him if he were the nominee.  His position on "amnesty" is, in some respects, to the right of mine, so that doesn't bother me too much.  I hate Common Core, but that is not a deal breaker.

In the end, I think we could do a lot worse than Jeb Bush.  Mitt Romney, for example.  John McCain, for example.  To just paint with a broad brush and call people GOPe, or assume the GOPe is one massive conspiratorial entity, is too simplistic.  Things are much more complex than that.  However, if (as I suspect) the deck is cleared for Jeb -- by that I mean Mitt Romney does not run and Scott Walker does not run -- then I will have to re-evaluate my assumptions about the conspiratorial GOPe.

Finally, I will say that I do not think anyone who is pro-amnesty can win the GOP primaries.  If Jeb is to win the nomination he will need to finesse this issue, and the trouble with it is that immigration has been sliced and diced so many ways in the past that pledging to enforce our current laws has become a litmus test for "purity."  It will not do for Jeb to simply insult the base.  He is going to have to figure something out or his campaign will never get off the ground.

There are at least four people I will support ahead of Jeb Bush: Paul, Walker, Perry, Carson.  I'd easily take Bush over Cruz and any of the other contenders.  I'd also be shaking my head at the stupidity of the GOP in nominating him.
   

[mountaineer]

Finally, I will say that I do not think anyone who is pro-amnesty can win the GOP primaries. 

That was my point. He is perceived as pro-amnesty by the base. I believe the base does not support amnesty.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Personally, I think Jeb Bush is smarter and more conservative than either his father or his brother.  I think he is far more conservative than John McCain or Mitt Romney.  I think he is not electable because of his name, but that would not stop me from voting for him if he were the nominee.  His position on "amnesty" is, in some respects, to the right of mine, so that doesn't bother me too much.  I hate Common Core, but that is not a deal breaker.

In the end, I think we could do a lot worse than Jeb Bush.  Mitt Romney, for example.  John McCain, for example.  To just paint with a broad brush and call people GOPe, or assume the GOPe is one massive conspiratorial entity, is too simplistic.  Things are much more complex than that.  However, if (as I suspect) the deck is cleared for Jeb -- by that I mean Mitt Romney does not run and Scott Walker does not run -- then I will have to re-evaluate my assumptions about the conspiratorial GOPe.

Finally, I will say that I do not think anyone who is pro-amnesty can win the GOP primaries.  If Jeb is to win the nomination he will need to finesse this issue, and the trouble with it is that immigration has been sliced and diced so many ways in the past that pledging to enforce our current laws has become a litmus test for "purity."  It will not do for Jeb to simply insult the base.  He is going to have to figure something out or his campaign will never get off the ground.

There are at least four people I will support ahead of Jeb Bush: Paul, Walker, Perry, Carson.  I'd easily take Bush over Cruz and any of the other contenders.  I'd also be shaking my head at the stupidity of the GOP in nominating him.
 

Do you recall when Paul was a TEA Party darling?

Now he's a pariah.

Give Cruz a few  more years in Congress and he too will be dropped by the "base" for selling out to the establishment.

Talking and telling those whose votes you need to get yourself elected  whatever it is that they want to hear, is far easier than governing and getting anything done in a bicameral body made up of as many ideological packages as there are members, whith each and every one of those members having an agenda of their own to promote. Specially when you need to secure votes to push legislation through.

Negotiation is a dirty word for those wishing to pick their politicians based on ideological purity, yet negotiation is the very heart of governing in our political system.

[Oceander]

Every one of those points applied just as equally to former Texas gov. Perry.  Look at where it got him:  he couldn't even make it out of the primaries.


Jeb Bush is pissing into the wind if he thinks he is going to be able to overcome the "Bush" moniker and the incipient dynasty.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Every one of those points applied just as equally to former Texas gov. Perry.  Look at where it got him:  he couldn't even make it out of the primaries.


Jeb Bush is pissing into the wind if he thinks he is going to be able to overcome the "Bush" moniker and the incipient dynasty.

Perry joined the race late, had a crappy campaign management team and came across like an uninformed, unadulterated moron in the debates.  He out-Nixoned Nixon in Nixon v Kennedy.

You can bet your derrière that Jeb will be the exact opposite of that when he hits the ground. He has a solid machine, experience, and money

In all likelihood, both candidates are going to be fighting issues with last names and accusations of dynasty-making in the 2015 race.

Bush, Romney, Christie and Walker (in no particular order) will make better Presidents than Clinton or Warren.

The list gets shorter beyond that, and while I find no GOP choice as being a potentially worse President than Warren, I find some Republicans as being potentially a bigger disaster than Clinton.

Being what I define as the true base of the GOP, I will vote for the Party's nominee irrespective of who that turns out to be.

[Oceander]

Perry joined the race late, had a crappy campaign management team and came across like an uninformed, unadulterated moron in the debates.  He out-Nixoned Nixon in Nixon v Kennedy.

You can bet your derrière that Jeb will be the exact opposite of that when he hits the ground. He has a solid machine, experience, and money

In all likelihood, both candidates are going to be fighting issues with last names and accusations of dynasty-making in the 2015 race.

Bush, Romney, Christie and Walker (in no particular order) will make better Presidents than Clinton or Warren.

The list gets shorter beyond that, and while I find no GOP choice as being a potentially worse President than Warren, I find some Republicans as being potentially a bigger disaster than Clinton.

Being what I define as the true base of the GOP, I will vote for the Party's nominee irrespective of who that turns out to be.

If Jeb is the GOP nominee then I will vote for him, notwithstanding that I know he will lose.  Whatever machine he has will certainly be up to the task of winning the nomination, but I do not think it will be strong enough to overcome the BDS that he will get hit with.

Jeb Bush will lose, not because he wouldn't be a competent president - the current twerp has set the bar so low most fifth graders would be better - but because he is a Bush.

Salvoes of "King Bush" will score much better hits than salvoes of "King Obama" have.

[Fishrrman]

MAC wrote above:
[[ 4.  If Bush cannot connect with Hispanics, who can? ]]

Perhaps no Republican.
How many times must they lose before they begin to learn?

Right now, the Republican party should be thinking little of trying to win "the Hispanic vote" and thinking hard about how to win more of "the Euro vote".

...because that's why they just won the majority they did:
"The Euro vote".

[Fishrrman]

Luis wrote above:
[[ Sealing the border does not stop the people that are already here from being here. ]]

It cannot, nor should such an action intend to do that.

Sealing the border -- that is to say, building a full-length border barrier and controlling the access points -- is essential to provide the equilibrium and stability that must exist BEFORE any actions can be taken towards those already here.

You can't fix the ship until you get the watertight bulkheads sealed, stop the inflow of water, assess the damage, and then start to undertake repairs.

[Fishrrman]

mass wrote above:
[[ Personally, I think Jeb Bush is smarter and more conservative than either his father or his brother.  I think he is far more conservative than John McCain or Mitt Romney.  I think he is not electable because of his name, but that would not stop me from voting for him if he were the nominee. ]]

It will stop me.

I voted for both Bushes.
But "two of them in a lifetime" is enough for me.

I won't be votin' for another.
No way.
No how.
Forgeddaboutit.

Aside:
Because I reside in a state which will probably never "go Republican" again in a presidential election, I realize I have the luxury of making such a statement.
My vote doesn't count anyway!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Luis wrote above:
[[ Sealing the border does not stop the people that are already here from being here. ]]

It cannot, nor should such an action intend to do that.

Sealing the border -- that is to say, building a full-length border barrier and controlling the access points -- is essential to provide the equilibrium and stability that must exist BEFORE any actions can be taken towards those already here.

You can't fix the ship until you get the watertight bulkheads sealed, stop the inflow of water, assess the damage, and then start to undertake repairs.

"Sealing the borders" is a metaphor. It can't be done.

Our borders include thousands of miles of beaches and shorelines, islands off the coast, airports, seaports, the border with Canada. We don't need to look like a concentration camp, we need a solution to the reasons why people are here illegally.

Fencing is not it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

mass wrote above:
[[ Personally, I think Jeb Bush is smarter and more conservative than either his father or his brother.  I think he is far more conservative than John McCain or Mitt Romney.  I think he is not electable because of his name, but that would not stop me from voting for him if he were the nominee. ]]

It will stop me.

I voted for both Bushes.
But "two of them in a lifetime" is enough for me.

I won't be votin' for another.
No way.
No how.
Forgeddaboutit.

Aside:
Because I reside in a state which will probably never "go Republican" again in a presidential election, I realize I have the luxury of making such a statement.
My vote doesn't count anyway!

The best and surest way to lose a fight is to believe that putting up a fight is futile.

Hundreds of millions of people in this world don't get to exercise the precious right that is a vote, that is your true luxury.

[MACVSOG68]

MAC wrote above:
[[ 4.  If Bush cannot connect with Hispanics, who can? ]]

Perhaps no Republican.
How many times must they lose before they begin to learn?

Right now, the Republican party should be thinking little of trying to win "the Hispanic vote" and thinking hard about how to win more of "the Euro vote".

...because that's why they just won the majority they did:
"The Euro vote".

A couple of points.  First of course, whether anyone here likes it or not, the demographics of the Nation are changing, and whites are becoming a smaller voting block.  Since they are not reproducing, they will be a minority within 30 years.  If you are suggesting that conservatism and the Republican Party have nothing to offer anyone but white Europeans, you are very sadly mistaken.  The Republican Party has a history of protecting the rights of everyone, from its inception in 1854.  But the Democrats whose history embraced slavery, Black Codes, Jim Crow, lynchings and segregation have managed to ignore their disgusting and racist history and within a few years attach it all to the GOP.

Instead of fighting back, the Republicans simply shrug and say, I guess we lost.  We can't recover the minority vote because the Democrats have them all neatly under their wing.  And anyway, the GOP is the party of white Europeans.

If we cannot show how conservative principles and a strong market system can help everyone,  then perhaps we should all just fold it up and wait for the inevitable political death throes.

One thing is for sure.  Nominating someone who's agenda is comprised of a narrow range of issues most Americans disagree with does little more than confirm the lies Democrats have been tossing at the GOP.  If a political party cannot represent all of the people, it won't succeed in trying to represent only a subset of the people.

[massadvj]

First of course, whether anyone here likes it or not, the demographics of the Nation are changing, and whites are becoming a smaller voting block. 

If being pro-amnesty is necessary for the achievement of the Hispanic vote, perhaps you can explain how Greg Abbott managed to capture 40 percent of Hispanics in the Texas governor's race.

[Luis Gonzalez]

If being pro-amnesty is necessary for the achievement of the Hispanic vote, perhaps you can explain how Greg Abbott managed to capture 40 percent of Hispanics in the Texas governor's race.

The majority of the "Hispanic" vote in Texas is coming from voters whose Texas roots precede Texas' entry into the Union. The true question about that vote is why are those voters still classified culturally as anything but American when their cultural roots in Texaa are deeper than those who arrived to the State (and maybe the nation) much later?

Irish immigrants who arrived in the US after Texas gained its independence are thought of as ethnical and cultural Americans. People with a Spanish last name are never allowed full cultural and ethnical allowed entry into that elite classification.

[MACVSOG68]

If being pro-amnesty is necessary for the achievement of the Hispanic vote, perhaps you can explain how Greg Abbott managed to capture 40 percent of Hispanics in the Texas governor's race.

"Amnesty" is just a buzzword meant by many to close off debate on the real issues of immigration.  It's used by some for the same reasons the left uses "racism" or "homophobia". 

I would suggest looking up Jeb Bush's actual position on immigration reform.  As for Abbott, he's against repeal of the DREAM Act and not only favors stronger borders, but has expressed a willingness to discuss a position on overall immigration reform.  In addition Abbott has reached out to Latinos throughout the state in addition to launching a voter registration campaign aimed at minority voters.  He's doing what he should...showing minorities that the GOP and conservatism can work for them.

[massadvj]

The majority of the "Hispanic" vote in Texas is coming from voters whose Texas roots precede Texas' entry into the Union. The true question about that vote is why are those voters still classified culturally as anything but American when their cultural roots in Texaa are deeper than those who arrived to the State (and maybe the nation) much later?

Irish immigrants who arrived in the US after Texas gained its independence are thought of as ethnical and cultural Americans. People with a Spanish last name are never allowed full cultural and ethnical allowed entry into that elite classification.

I don't agree with you.  I own a winter home in Texas, and went to college there.  I think I know the place pretty well.  I am also half-Hispanic from California.  My own sense of things is that many Hispanics do not place an amnesty litmus test on politicians.  Maybe a majority do.  But the Hispanic vote, unlike the African-American vote, is not monolithic.  There are many considerations, including (as you point out) how long one's family has been here, how they got here, and whether one's parents taught one (as mine did) that America is the greatest nation on earth and one should be proud to call oneself an American, without qualification, or hyphens.

Many, many Hispanics recognize that the Latin American socialist corruption model doesn't work.  When they see politicians pandering to them with promises of government payouts, they recognize it as the same basic social poison that Castro, Chavez, the Sandinistas et al have been administering for a century.  They came to this land for freedom, including the freedom to practice their religion and to raise their families without interference.  That, plus the fact that they could not fathom Wendy Davis' anti-family, abortion on demand platform, is why so many of them voted for Abbott.

That said, I do think Bush would be successful with Hispanics.  However, because of his amnesty position and his thumbing his nose at anyone (including me) who disagrees with his open purse approach to immigration reform, he is toxic to conservatives.  Add to that the fact that he is toxic to the low information crowd based on his last name, and you end up with a rather quixotic and foolhardy pursuit of the presidency.  Both of these problems are surmountable for him, but he had better damned well change his tune from the one he has been singing lately.

The number one thing that people will want in a president after 8 years of OPapaDoc is authenticity.  An authentic conservative or an authentic liberal will be preferable to a plastic banana politician.  And yet all the money will be behind the two plastic bananas: Bush and Clinton.  I predict neither will be their party's nominees for the simple reason that both parties have become more ideological as the non-affiliated independents grow and grow.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I don't agree with you.  I own a winter home in Texas, and went to college there.  I think I know the place pretty well.  I am also half-Hispanic from California. My own sense of things is that many Hispanics do not place an amnesty litmus test on politicians.  Maybe a majority do.  But the Hispanic vote, unlike the African-American vote, is not monolithic.  There are many considerations, including (as you point out) how long one's family has been here, how they got here, and whether one's parents taught one (as mine did) that America is the greatest nation on earth and one should be proud to call oneself an American, without qualification, or hyphens.

Many, many Hispanics recognize that the Latin American socialist corruption model doesn't work.  When they see politicians pandering to them with promises of government payouts, they recognize it as the same basic social poison that Castro, Chavez, the Sandinistas et al have been administering for a century.  They came to this land for freedom, including the freedom to practice their religion and to raise their families without interference.  That, plus the fact that they could not fathom Wendy Davis' anti-family, abortion on demand platform, is why so many of them voted for Abbott.

That said, I do think Bush would be successful with Hispanics.  However, because of his amnesty position and his thumbing his nose at anyone (including me) who disagrees with his open purse approach to immigration reform, he is toxic to conservatives.  Add to that the fact that he is toxic to the low information crowd based on his last name, and you end up with a rather quixotic and foolhardy pursuit of the presidency.  Both of these problems are surmountable for him, but he had better damned well change his tune from the one he has been singing lately.

The number one thing that people will want in a president after 8 years of OPapaDoc is authenticity.  An authentic conservative or an authentic liberal will be preferable to a plastic banana politician.  And yet all the money will be behind the two plastic bananas: Bush and Clinton.  I predict neither will be their party's nominees for the simple reason that both parties have become more ideological as the non-affiliated independents grow and grow.

The point that I obviously failed to make is frustration at the fact that people whose ethnic and cultural roots in Texas precede the ethnic and cultural roots of not only subsequent arrivals to the US but in many cases the creation of the nation are still culturally lumped in with illegal aliens.

How many generations of my branch of the Gonzalez family have to be buried in this soil before we are no longer Hispanics, but simply Americans?

From the example of Texas, I don't know that it will ever happen.

Those Texan "Hispanics" that you're talking about think the way they do because they're Americans, irrespective of their last name, cultural traditions and cuisine and they shouldn't be subdivided from mainstream American thought under any circumstances.

As a nation we don't segregate Italians, Irish, Scotsmen and Norwegians into a subculture after one generation in this country, why do that to Hispanics?

My kids don't even speak Spanish, and they resent being labeled Hispanics.   

That was my point.

[massadvj]

How many generations of my branch of the Gonzalez family have to be buried in this soil before we are no longer Hispanics, but simply Americans?

My kids don't even speak Spanish, and they resent being labeled Hispanics.   

My father was Lebanese Christian and my mother was Mexican (although her father, who came from Mexico, always called himself Castillian because he wanted to make it clear he did not have Indian blood).  Both of my parents were born in California, and neither were taught their parents' native tongues as children for the simple reason that my grandparents wanted their children to be Americans.  They wanted their children to marry Americans, and they wanted American grandchildren.  That was the melting pot model, and it was a very good one.  In fact, we'd all be better off if there had been more cross-breeding in previous generations.

Now, interestingly, I find myself studying Spanish in my old age. 

Yo no se la razon, exactamente.  Pero la idioma es en mi DNA y quiero encontrarla.  Yo prefereria estar llamado un Norteamericano, pero si me llamen Hispanic, entonces que sera sera.  Que me llamo es la cosa importante.

(Hopefully, I didn't butcher it too profoundly)

[truth_seeker]

Many ethnic and national groups continue to retain some of their "identity" for generations.

My wife is 100% Italian,  born in California, speaks virtually no Italian. The family tries to keep some traditions, such as seafood meal for Christmas Eve. My wife and her sisters wear "Italian" shirts. They have 1st cousins in Italy, and stay in touch. Their father served proudly in combat in WWII.

My Swedish ancestors founded a community in Minnesota, referred to as Chisago Lakes; a few small towns. There were historical books written about the immigrant settlers, statues, etc. I expect a few locals still speak Swedish for fun.

I grew up in an Orange County suburb, with a significant Mexican population. Went to school with them. Many of them lived in somewhat segregated circumstances. There had been "campos" for agriculture seasonal workers. Eventually some people stayed year round, in neighborhoods built specifically for year round agr. workers. Very modest homes, rented or sold to workers.

Many still reside in the area, and retain a degree of ethnic self-identity, which I believe is common to VARYING degrees among American Hispanics all across the land.

One my family side, and my wife's family side we have relatives that are intermarried with Hispanic identity people.

New Mexico has a fairly unique history, as do Florida, Arizona, Texas and California etc.

I don't lump everybody together, because I want to hear their unique stories, if they have an interest in telling what they know. Many are flattered and even surprised that a gringo is even interested.

Nativist critics of immigration, illegal immigration etc. raise the claim that these people don't "assimilate." Many of these critics are highly ignorant about history, period. If retaining language is their measure, they should be reminded of the controversy about using both English and German for the US founding documents.

And thank God for the Navaho Code talkers.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Many ethnic and national groups continue to retain some of their "identity" for generations.

My wife is 100% Italian,  born in California, speaks virtually no Italian. The family tries to keep some traditions, such as seafood meal for Christmas Eve. My wife and her sisters wear "Italian" shirts. They have 1st cousins in Italy, and stay in touch. Their father served proudly in combat in WWII.

My Swedish ancestors founded a community in Minnesota, referred to as Chisago Lakes; a few small towns. There were historical books written about the immigrant settlers, statues, etc. I expect a few locals still speak Swedish for fun.

Yes, and neither you nor your wife will ever be classified as anything BUT Americans. On the other side of the coin are my brother and sister-in-law, both born here, yet my nieces are classified as Hispanic, WHICH IS A CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC CLASSIFICATION.

My children and my nieces have retained about as much of a Hispanic cultural identity as you and your wife, yet they are tied to a cultural identity different than yours.

[truth_seeker]

Yes, and neither you nor your wife will ever be classified as anything BUT Americans. On the other side of the coin are my brother and sister-in-law, both born here, yet my nieces are classified as Hispanic, WHICH IS A CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC CLASSIFICATION.

My children and my nieces have retained about as much of a Hispanic cultural identity as you and your wife, yet they are tied to a cultural identity different than yours.

I get your frustration, or even resentment. I've heard related feelings, from others. A cousin by marriage has a Spanish surname. He said it has been his life experience that SOME think he might be an illefal immigrant, because of his name.

He is very conservative, yet expressed disappointment with the nativist branch of so called conservatism (and by extension the GOP), that brands all immigrants, or Hispanic immigrants as probably illegal, and "less than."

His family traces to the early 1800s when California was a colony of Spain, before Mexico.

When people ask me where my surname originates, I like telling the story. I think my Hispanic friends enjoy it too. At least around here, it is okay to be interested in and proud of our roots.

SoCal today is probably among the world's most diverse melting pots. I used to make the mistake of mistaking Asian appearance, with immigration. I know Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Indonesian, etc.

I totally get the thing with first generation immigrants who are strongly proud. Did I say my mother-in-law is one such person? And her brother was, too. BTW he traveled from Italy to visit his sister, who was married via an old world arranged pairing (my mother in law).

He met a young woman while here, fell in love etc. He hung out in Mexico, and came to see her as a short term tourist for awhile. He went to Veneauela because he heard he might get into the states from there. Then he heard it was better to go to Cuba. Apparently he did go to Cuba in the early 50s, and then to the states. Married the woman, lived happily ever after.

They lived very well because she was a doctor, and they went to Italy almost every year to see family and enjoy it.

In his dying days, he stressed how proud he was to be a legal immigrant, and US citizen. Interesting life. Drafted into the Italian Army, taken POW, escaped etc. Some law school before the states.

[Oceander]

English/Swedish/Scotts/Austrian, and a smidge of Cherokee reputedly someplace in the woodpile.