Author Topic: WHISTLING PAST THE JUNKYARD: THE ESTABLISHMENT’S ATTEMPT TO MAKE JEB SEEM INEVITABLE  (Read 1018 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 386,117
  • Let's Go Brandon!
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/04/whistling-past-the-junkyard-the-establishments-attempt-to-make-jeb-seem-inevitable/

by C. EDMUND WRIGHT4 Jan 2015

For several weeks now, the mainstream Jurassic media has been up to their old psychological warfare tricks, and naturally, the Republican establishment is falling for it hard. They always do, and this includes “the architect,” Karl Rove.

This time it’s the media’s attempt to get Jeb Bush the Republican nomination for President in 2016. Articles that fawn over Jeb, either from a formidability standpoint or in the vein that he’s a “reasonable” conservative are everywhere. There has also been a release of meaningless polls touting Jeb’s strength atop the potential Republican field. These have all surfaced from many of the same quarters that tried to sell the country similar notions about John McCain in 2007-08, Mitt Romney in 2011-12, and to some extent even Jon Huntsman.

Naturally, the GOP establishment was all in for McCain in ’08 and Mitt in 2012 as the two “most electable” Republicans, because they would appeal to the independents. They were not and did not. The establishment was wrong again. They always are. (More on that later).

From the Jurassic media standpoint, this is a fairly transparent attempt to soften the battlefield of ideas with shallow psy-ops by warning Republicans and conservatives what they must do to keep their party from becoming extinct. Consider some history: this is the same media that told us Romney was actually “too Republican and too conservative” in 2007-08. Some tried to assure us the Democrats really feared Huntsman more than anyone else in 2011-12. Later, we were told Romney was inevitable and that Newt Gingrich only appealed to “fans of cock fights,” racists, and “Tea Party extremists.” We were told soccer moms in Ohio didn’t want us to criticize Obama because he was so personally popular.

The establishment agreed with all of it. They savaged Newt, Sarah Palin’s pick, as the devil for six months—and then turned around and assured us “Obama is a nice guy who is just over his head.” Setting your opinion of Newt aside for a second, how well did this strategy work out? The establishment is so out of touch they failed to realize that Obama was “personally popular” because they were too frightened of the charge of racism to criticize him.

We’ve also been warned not to oppose amnesty, not to repeal ObamaCare, not to read anything into the 2010 election results, that the 2014 election means only that Republicans had better work with Obama to get things done, and that we better not support Ted Cruz and any more government shutdowns. Taking a look further back, this is the same media that warned Republicans not to nominate Reagan in 1980 and not to push the Contract with America in 1994. All of this based on the idea that Republicans must moderate to survive.

The GOP establishment is all in on all of this too. Which begs the question: how does the establishment continue to ignore history and get everything wrong?

Keep in mind that all of these warnings come from politicians, pundits, and consultants whose main goal in life is to destroy the Republican Party, especially the conservative wing. They know this is all awful advice. And yet, the GOP establishment falls for it every time. The big money and the big names in the GOP have all bought into this in spite of the lessons of history, not to mention the motivations of those dispensing with this advice. This includes the Bush machine.

Speaking of which, this group’s last major effort was an epic failure. It was Team Bush that got behind the efforts of moderate Kay Bailey Hutchison in her primary challenge for Governor against Rick Perry, as well as Tea Party candidate Debra Medina. The results would have embarrassed Team Bush, had they any shame. Hutchison, a popular sitting Senator who had never lost a statewide race or even come close, was routed and only tallied 30% of the primary vote. Perry finished with 51% and Medina 19%. Do the math: the conservative anti-Hutchison/Bush vote was 70%.

Remember, this was a GOP Primary in Texas, the Bush organization’s center of power and with an electorate they are supposed to know and understand. They clearly did not. This includes Karl Rove. I submit they do not understand the national electorate, either.

The last 35 years of history proves that Republicans win big in both general and midterm elections when there is a clear, distinct, and wide ideological gap, or perceived ideological gap, between the parties and candidates. This was the case in 1980, ’84, ’88, ’94, 2002, 2010, and 2014. Democrats win big when there is ideological confusion or a decidedly small gap. This is what happened in 1992, ’96, ’98, 2006, 2008, and 2012. In years where the ideological gap is neither large nor small, elections are always very close and can go either way.

Somehow, McCain and Romney managed not to illustrate any kind of philosophical contrast, even against a radical opponent. They ignored the last three-plus decades—but instead ran scared of Goldwater’s 1968 effort. What is it about moving inside the beltway that destroys critical thinking?

With respects to Bush candidacies, George H. W. Bush won handily in 1988 over far-left liberal Michael Dukakis because the perception was four more years of Reagan. In 1992, when Bush’s moderate colors had re-emerged—and Bill Clinton (and Ross Perot) muddied the differences between the candidates—Bush’s 38% was an all time low percentage for an incumbent. George W. Bush’s nondescript campaign needed the Electoral College to win by a whisper in 2000 and won by less than 3% as an incumbent in 2004. Had he not had the fortune of running against the two weakest Democrats in modern history, he would have failed, also.

With the liberal failures of Obama and ObamaCare on full display, the terrain is ripe for Republican victory in 2016. Campaigns and ideology matter, however, and it is clear that a Jeb Bush candidacy would follow the lead of his father in 1992, Dole-Kemp in 96, McCain in 2008, and Romney in 2012. He’s already reached out to McCain for advice on how to win without the base, and it’s an open secret that he occupies the same ideological space and donor base as does Romney. For good measure, Romney has indicated he would abdicate to Jeb but would fight Cruz tooth and nail to “save the party and the country.”

This is a recipe for disaster for Republicans, even as the Washington establishment remains convinced otherwise. Nominating candidates like Jeb is how the establishment loses, again and again.
Proud Supporter of Tunnel to Towers
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
-Matthew 6:34

Offline Formerly Once-Ler

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 0
Hilarious fiction piece.  I especially liked the part where the establishment went after patriot and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.  I LOLed when Gingrich was pretending to be one of the little guys during the primary, but I had forgot about it over last few years.  Good times.

Offline Atomic Cow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,221
  • Gender: Male
  • High Yield Minion
Hilarious fiction piece.  I especially liked the part where the establishment went after patriot and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.  I LOLed when Gingrich was pretending to be one of the little guys during the primary, but I had forgot about it over last few years.  Good times.

You're not even good at trying to be an agent provocateur for the left.

The only reason you want Jeb is because you want a leftist, staitst with a "R" after his name because he will be "your guy."  The only difference in Jeb from Warren, Webb, Clinton or any other Democrat is that "R".
"...And these atomic bombs which science burst upon the world that night were strange, even to the men who used them."  H. G. Wells, The World Set Free, 1914

"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." -Lord Acton

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
Quote
The only difference in Jeb from Warren, Webb, Clinton or any other Democrat is that "R".

So basically Jeb Bush is a Marxist now?

It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline Formerly Once-Ler

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 0
You're not even good at trying to be an agent provocateur for the left.

The only reason you want Jeb is because you want a leftist, staitst with a "R" after his name because he will be "your guy."  The only difference in Jeb from Warren, Webb, Clinton or any other Democrat is that "R".

I don't want Jeb.  I'd like Gov Perry, Gov Kasich, Gov Walker, Sen Rand Paul, or Gov Nikki Haley better, but I'm pretty sure it will be Bush or Christie.

And Jeb is not a leftist or statist.  Other than that, your political observations are uncannily accurate

Offline mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 386,117
  • Let's Go Brandon!
Quote
I don't want Jeb.  I'd like Gov Perry, Gov Kasich, Gov Walker, Sen Rand Paul, or Gov Nikki Haley better, but I'm pretty sure it will be Bush or Christie.

I would like to see Walker run....don't know what his chances are though..
Proud Supporter of Tunnel to Towers
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
-Matthew 6:34

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,021
  • Gender: Female
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Right now, my ideal ticket would be Perry/Walker.  Perry on the top of the ticket, because he has the most experience - and Walker as VP because he is young enough to ensure a continuity legacy as president after Perry. 

Both men would be excellent as president!

Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,364
  • Gender: Male
Based on my knowledge of his record, Jeb Bush is far more acceptable as a nominee than John McCain or Mitt Romney.  I could easily vote for him.  My objection to him is that I do not think he can win. My favorite ticket at this point would be:

Walker/Paul

However, I don't believe Walker or Kasich will run.  I predict they'll make their deal with the Bushes and stay out, along with Romney.  I think Perry will win in Iowa with Rand Paul in second.  Then Paul will take New Hampshire.  Then Ted Cruz will win South Carolina.  Jeb Bush will set up his firewall in Florida and not campaign much in the early primaries.

Ultimately, I think it will come down to Bush, Perry and Paul.  I think the ticket may well end up Bush/Paul as Rand Paul will have demonstrated a capability to reel in the youth vote.  The GOP will be gambling on a strategy of weaving together a coalition of party faithful, Hispanics and Millennials against the traditional Democrat strongholds plus women.

At the end of the day we are going to discover that the American public can vote for a guy whose middle name is Hussein, but can't bring itself to vote for a guy whose last name is Bush. 

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,625
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Quote
Respected Ronald Reagan biographer Craig Shirley told the Washington Examiner recently that Jeb Bush is the latest in a line of Bushes who oppose Reaganism. Radio host Mark Levin has dismissed Florida's former governor as "a very good moderate Democrat," while pioneering conservative activist Richard Viguerie for at least two years has been trashing Bush as a dangerous, big government Republican.

Meanwhile, much of the speculation about the 2016 presidential race lately centers on whether a moderate is a viable contender for the Republican nomination.

Jeb Bush, a moderate squish?

The governor who treated trial lawyers and teachers union leaders as enemies of the state? Who stripped job protections from civil servants? Who slashed taxes? Whose passion for privatization included enacting the nation's first statewide private school voucher program and extended to privatizing health care for the poor, prisons and child protection services?

This "very good moderate Democrat" defied court after court to try to force the reinsertion of feeding tubes for brain-damaged Terri Schia­vo and consistently backed more restrictions on abortions and fewer on gun ownership. He fought for reduced entitlement spending and, deriding nanny-state impulses, repealed the helmet law for motorcyclists in Florida and vetoed a GOP-backed bill requiring booster seats for kids in cars.

"For us who live in Florida, who experienced the eight-year Jeb Bush governorship, it's almost laughable and maybe even hysterical for people who live outside of Florida to claim that he's a moderate," said former House Speaker Will Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel, himself a conservative Republican who led the opposition to Florida accepting federal money to expand Medicaid to more than 800,000 people.

"This is a guy who probably has as conservative a record as governor as anybody I've ever seen," Weatherford said, "and he has one of the most successful records as governor of anybody I've ever seen."

The specious perception of Bush outside of Florida reflects both a fundamental misunderstanding of the man, probably due to assumptions based on the presidential records of his father and brother, and also how far rightward the Republican Party has shifted since Bush left the Governor's Mansion in 2007.

"He is thoughtful and informed, but there is nothing liberal about Jeb Bush. He is an arch-conservative," said Dan Gelber, who as a Democratic leader in the Legislature respectfully and constantly fought most of Bush's agenda. "He might have been moderate now and again, but even then it was probably by accident."

Bush was not just a successful Republican governor politically; He was a conservative activist governor who relished pushing the envelope on policy. Conservative activists elsewhere may revile the Bush name, but in America's biggest battleground state this Bush is like a Milton Friedman or Barry Goldwater in terms of promoting conservatism.

"(The) mere fact that he was able to propose and implement a sweeping change in Florida government during his two terms remains a notable achievement in state governance. It is also a notable achievement for the conservative movement, because Bush showed that conservatives could do more than offer tax cuts; they could also change government in fundamental ways," University of North Florida political scientist Matthew Corrigan writes in his new book, Conservative Hurricane: How Jeb Bush Remade Florida.

And yet Bush, 61, may be too moderate to win over today's GOP primary voters.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/adam-c-smith-jeb-bush-a-moderate-squish-florida-knows-different/2209187

You are all insane.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,386
  • Gender: Male
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/adam-c-smith-jeb-bush-a-moderate-squish-florida-knows-different/2209187

You are all insane.
It is just like an echo chamber; get rid of Boehner, no to Bush, because the forum's other participants are saying it. Just like the Fresno site.

For kicks I surveyed recent polls. Without Romney, Bush is the clear leader.

The majority of those polled favor successful two term Governors, and the only a small minority favor firebrands-Cruz is consistently at or near 5% and he polls the worst against Hillary.
 
"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln