Dems hope for Cruz, fear Bush

[Bigun]

The primaries start with the Midwest, Northeast, and South.  Then it continues all around the Country.  I think it's pretty well spread around now. Republicans in large states like California complain that because of the makeup of the primary with small states participating early, the process is over before they can weigh in.

As for the actual Republicans, it's a fair point that there are a handful of open primaries.  A lot of voters express concerns about that.  But let's assume that in 2012 (and 2008 for that matter), there were no open primaries and all of the primaries were held on the same day.  Do you think the results would have been different?

I don't know but what I do know is that letting a few NE liberal states go first every time hasn't worked well for conservatives.

[aligncare]

Frankly I'm not in Jeb's camp yet either.  He has a lot going for him though which is why polls still show him in the first tier.  He's a successful former governor; he seems to have the ability to lead and bring in at least moderates from both sides of the aisle.  He certainly has a campaign team and war chest.  He can bring in the women's vote and the Hispanic vote, at least in greater percentages than recent nominees for the GOP.  He can work with the other side on major issues including tax and immigration reform. 

But he has some shortcomings.  He is a Bush.  He has already had to backtrack on an issue and any more such faux pas will not help him.  He has to get through a grueling campaign and as one of the front-runners will be a target for all the wannabes. 

I don't believe there's some huge conspiracy among the professional polls to put Bush in the lead just to help the Dems.  These same polling organizations frequently come up with poll results on issues not terribly favorable to the liberal side of politics.  But you're right.  It is very early.

Another negative in the Bush column: he lacks an upbeat personality. Obama had it.

That's a vital component for a candidate in the shallow political seas Americans are currently navigating.

He seems dour and often sighs before answering a press question. What's that about? He acts as if it pains him to answer a question.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You're painting with a very broad brush.  I certainly see liberalism as perpetual victimhood, since their entire philosophy is directed toward defining everyone as a victim of sorts and blaming society, money, race and conservatism as the culprits.

Let me narrow that brush.

Conservatism is, by the very definition of the word, the idea of "preserving" things. So generally speaking Conservatism opposes change. Now (all these of course are strictly my opinions) Constitutional Conservatism is the idea of preserving the Constitution as the primary focus of governance and a tool to control the government. Social conservatism tries to use the government as a tool to try ans stave off societal changes, and that's when things get ugly.

Societal changes are about as normal a process as the seasons, and societies tend to change by becoming more liberal (in a manner of speaking) or by knocking down barriers and taboos. When Social Conservatives try to enlist the help of government to stop these changes from happening, and run afoul of the law, as was the case with Prop 8, the definition of what is conservatism gets all unclear and muddled.

Being a Constitutional conservative is easy since all you have to do is agree with whether or not the solution to any issue was arrived at in a Constitutional manner, with little concern over what the actual issue is. After all, if the Constitution says it is OK to do it, then no laws can be enacted to the contrary, so just move along and learn to live with it.

Social conservatives appear to not be able to do that and appear to play that victim card a lot.

"Attacks" on religion... "attacks" on the traditional family... "attacks" on traditional marriage are not so much attacks, as they are societal changes that social conservatives oppose, pushing back against them.

At the end of the day, Christianity will survive as will the traditional family and traditional marriage. We will probably see changes in religion with some denominations being more liberal and accepting than others, but religion will survive. There will be both traditional families and non-traditional families, but families will survive, and there will be both traditional and non-traditional marriages, but marriage will survive.

The only thing that I truly, truly fear is the possible results of our class warfare and racial divisions. They are fabricated by politicians as a tool to achieve power.

A house divided cannot stand. 
 

[MACVSOG68]

Another negative in the Bush column: he lacks an upbeat personality. Obama had it.

That's a vital component for a candidate in the shallow political seas Americans are currently navigating.

He seems dour and often sighs before answering a press question. What's that about? He acts as if it pains him to answer a question.

Indeed, every one of the candidates has some negative.  I agree Bush doesn't display an exciting persona in front of cameras.  He tends to run questions around in his mind before formulating a response.  He has neither the wit nor the quickness in front of interviewers as did Reagan.  I don't think his brother was particularly adept in that area either.  I'm not sure yet who fits the bill.  I do prefer a governor for the experience.  But I also want someone who can convey his or her agenda effectively.

[truth_seeker]

And anyone who thinks that there isn't PLENTY of liberalism to go around in the Republican party is delusional as well!

Aren't you one of the those, often posting that conservatism is the victim of some powerful force? Like the oft cited GOPe for example?

IOW conservatives/conservatism just cannot seem to get a break, because of powerful forces CONSPIRING against it.

[MACVSOG68]

I don't know but what I do know is that letting a few NE liberal states go first every time hasn't worked well for conservatives.

New Hampshire is the only early NE state.  All the rest are from the Midwest, South, Southwest, until Super Tuesday. 

[MACVSOG68]

Let me narrow that brush.

Conservatism is, by the very definition of the word, the idea of "preserving" things. So generally speaking Conservatism opposes change. Now (all these of course are strictly my opinions) Constitutional Conservatism is the idea of preserving the Constitution as the primary focus of governance and a tool to control the government. Social conservatism tries to use the government as a tool to try ans stave off societal changes, and that's when things get ugly.

There are several variations of conservatism, but generally speaking conservatism doesn't oppose change.  Rather it demands a slow, thoughtful approach.  I know that GOP moderates are painted as either liberal or at best, not conservative.  Again though, moderation is the epitome of conservatism. 

Societal changes are about as normal a process as the seasons, and societies tend to change by becoming more liberal (in a manner of speaking) or by knocking down barriers and taboos. When Social Conservatives try to enlist the help of government to stop these changes from happening, and run afoul of the law, as was the case with Prop 8, the definition of what is conservatism gets all unclear and muddled.

But wasn't Prop 8 a popular and certainly constitutional way to push back at the perception of government's interference with society?  And it passed in ultra-liberal California.

Being a Constitutional conservative is easy since all you have to do is agree with whether or not the solution to any issue was arrived at in a Constitutional manner, with little concern over what the actual issue is. After all, if the Constitution says it is OK to do it, then no laws can be enacted to the contrary, so just move along and learn to live with it.

Conservatism is about preserving the Constitution, though many who call themselves constitutional conservatives decry the efforts at preserving the 14th Amendment in spite of rather plain language.  Perhaps the biggest mistake many of them make is assuming the intentions of the Founding Fathers.  They were simply not in agreement on much, and the Constitution arose out of bitter disputes, but at least a willingness to compromise.  The entire document was one compromise after another, and still, many at the time had very different ideas as to both implications and meanings. 

Social conservatives appear to not be able to do that and appear to play that victim card a lot.

"Attacks" on religion... "attacks" on the traditional family... "attacks" on traditional marriage are not so much attacks, as they are societal changes that social conservatives oppose, pushing back against them.

At the end of the day, Christianity will survive as will the traditional family and traditional marriage. We will probably see changes in religion with some denominations being more liberal and accepting than others, but religion will survive. There will be both traditional families and non-traditional families, but families will survive, and there will be both traditional and non-traditional marriages, but marriage will survive.

But aren't liberals just as guilty?  They live by preaching fear.  It would be nice if social change would take place in the social arena without government making those changes for us.  If the owner of a business has a religious objection to either abortion or gay marriage, public officials threaten them with sanctions.  Chick fil-A and Hobby Lobby were ridiculed by liberal mayors and told their businesses were not welcome in their cities.  Some fear is legitimate.

The only thing that I truly, truly fear is the possible results of our class warfare and racial divisions. They are fabricated by politicians as a tool to achieve power.

A house divided cannot stand.

I could not agree more with you.  And unfortunately our House is very divided at present.

[truth_seeker]

New Hampshire is the only early NE state. 

"One" is included in the definition of "few." Just sayin...

[MACVSOG68]

"One" is included in the definition of "few." Just sayin...

Yeah, one is singular; the other plural. 

[truth_seeker]

Yeah, one is singular; the other plural.

I could argue the defining quality of "few" is "small quantity or number thereof" as in few, not many.

"One" would therefore qualify within that definition of "few," not many.

Just playin around. Of course this illustrates why we need lawyers, backup copies, etc.

[MACVSOG68]

I could argue the defining quality of "few" is "small quantity or number thereof" as in few, not many.

"One" would therefore qualify within that definition of "few," not many.

Just playin around. Of course this illustrates why we need lawyers, backup copies, etc.

Of course the poster who said "letting a few liberal NE states go first" wasn't thinking of just one...

[truth_seeker]

Of course the poster who said "letting a few liberal NE states go first" wasn't thinking of just one...

And his position would have been made stronger, had he said "just one NE state," instead of "few."

It is weird sitting in California, which in recent years has written off. We gave America Nixon and Reagan, and provided retirement residences for Eisenhower and Ford.

Since that write-off, the GOP has lost the popular vote 5 of 6 times. Makes me wonder what came first, the write-off or the loses?

The GOP is increasingly defining itself in regional and religious terms. Heard much about Governors Martinez or Sandoval lately?

I believe a stronger GOP could be built, with greater recognition of the entire country and its citizens.

[kevindavis007]

I'm pretty sure most of us will vote for whoever the candidate ends up being - I voted for Romney, but unfortunately there will always be those purists who won't vote for a candidate they don't like. 

Jeb Bush is NOT our candidate yet, he hasn't even announced.  The point I was making is that, once again - we are seeing agenda driven polls pushing people to believe that Bush is the foregone candidate and that the Democrats are terrified of him. 

I laugh at that premise!  These polls are mostly jokes.  My worry, and I'm sure the worry of many of us - is that the RNC is going to actually hire a lot of people that are saying this junk - to ADVISE them.  They are going to buy these people's advice - hook, line and sinker.

Why don't we just let the PEOPLE decide who their nominee will be without trying to rig the system by steering everyone toward a certain candidate that seems to be the establishment favorite? 

I don't know who is being polled, but in my everyday contacts with acquaintances and on the Internet - I haven't talked to very many people at all that want Jeb Bush as our nominee.  It's just not there!

I think the left wants Bush to be the nominee.. As for Cruz, if he is the nominee, I just don't see him getting the independent vote..  Flame suit on.

[truth_seeker]

I think the left wants Bush to be the nominee.. As for Cruz, if he is the nominee, I just don't see him getting the independent vote..  Flame suit on.

The oft repeated claim is that unless the GOP has a hard right candidate, millions of voters will stay home.

Over and over if the hard right doesn't prevail in primaries, something is rigged, etc. They mistakenly call closed primaries, open primaries.

They would never admit that IF the candidate is hard right, that millions of voters won't vote for him. That would be the Barry Goldwater scenario, which the GOP denies. It happened before, and it could happen again. And it will if polls are accurate.

The biggest voter bloc is Independent. They are all over the map, but the one thing they are NOT is hard right. If they were, they would be in the GOP.

[Bigun]

New Hampshire is the only early NE state.  All the rest are from the Midwest, South, Southwest, until Super Tuesday.

Texas voted in May four years ago. It will vote in early March this time around. We'll see if that makes a difference.

[Bigun]

The oft repeated claim is that unless the GOP has a hard right candidate, millions of voters will stay home.

Over and over if the hard right doesn't prevail in primaries, something is rigged, etc. They mistakenly call closed primaries, open primaries.

They would never admit that IF the candidate is hard right, that millions of voters won't vote for him. That would be the Barry Goldwater scenario, which the GOP denies. It happened before, and it could happen again. And it will if polls are accurate.

The biggest voter bloc is Independent. They are all over the map, but the one thing they are NOT is hard right. If they were, they would be in the GOP.

Goldwater was thrown to the wolves in a year when there was no possibility of ANY republican winning right after Kennedy was assassinated and the left wing of the GOP has been using it to their advantage ever since!

"See! That's what happens when you nominate a CONSERVATIVE!"  It's TOTAL BS!

[MACVSOG68]

And his position would have been made stronger, had he said "just one NE state," instead of "few."

It is weird sitting in California, which in recent years has written off. We gave America Nixon and Reagan, and provided retirement residences for Eisenhower and Ford.

Since that write-off, the GOP has lost the popular vote 5 of 6 times. Makes me wonder what came first, the write-off or the loses?

The GOP is increasingly defining itself in regional and religious terms. Heard much about Governors Martinez or Sandoval lately?

I believe a stronger GOP could be built, with greater recognition of the entire country and its citizens.

I'm missing your point about what the poster may have been thinking.  He did believe that the NE area was overrepresented in the early primaries.  It's not worth debating.

We might have heard about Martinez and Sandoval had they expressed an interest in running.  And Nevada is a relatively early primary state. 

I'd like to see a stronger Republican Party too.  There are several factions within the Party, and I believe they are all represented in an already overpopulated group of hopefuls.  But the Religious Right cannot be written off any more than the fiscal and national security conservatives.  Nor for that matter can the increasingly growing libertarian bloc.

But I at least agree that the GOP is going to have to address some significant issues including immigration, a growing wealth gap, tax policy, an out-of-control debt, energy, and US foreign policy in a world far from that in Reagan's time.  And they should reject being dragged into racial, women's equality and LGBT issues. 

Within the Party, Republicans should keep away from any more divide and conquer.  Attempting to turn the term "conservative" into some disparaging term is doing little to move the Party ahead.  The Republican Party is the conservative party regardless of differences of opinion on specific issues.
 

[MACVSOG68]

Texas voted in May four years ago. It will vote in early March this time around. We'll see if that makes a difference.

And with two candidates.  It will be interesting to see how Texas handles that.

[Bigun]

And with two candidates.  It will be interesting to see how Texas handles that.

Yes it will! And that points out yet another MAJOR problems conservatives have!  They all want to go to the same place but all want to be the driver of the bus that takes us there as well resulting in NONE of them getting near the driver's seat.

[kevindavis007]

Well I just hope there is no Todd Akin moment like there was in 2012..

[MACVSOG68]

I think the left wants Bush to be the nominee.. As for Cruz, if he is the nominee, I just don't see him getting the independent vote..  Flame suit on.

If Cruz cannot get the independent vote, why would the left want Bush, who would certainly be able to cut into voting blocs Democrats are counting on?

[kevindavis007]

If Cruz cannot get the independent vote, why would the left want Bush, who would certainly be able to cut into voting blocs Democrats are counting on?

They want Bush to be the nominee cause of the last name Bush.. Guilt by association.

[Bigun]

Well I just hope there is no Todd Akin moment like there was in 2012..

Yet another good example of a  "moment"  manufactured by the media!

[MACVSOG68]

Well I just hope there is no Todd Akin moment like there was in 2012..

There will be, just as there will be with the Democrats.  The difference comes in the reporting of it.

They want Bush to be the nominee cause of the last name Bush.. Guilt by association.

And Clinton doesn't have the same issues?  Still, Bush would be eating into the blocs the Dems are counting on.  I believe they would much rather have a Republican candidate who doesn't endanger those blocs.

[kevindavis007]

There will be, just as there will be with the Democrats.  The difference comes in the reporting of it.
And Clinton doesn't have the same issues?  Still, Bush would be eating into the blocs the Dems are counting on.  I believe they would much rather have a Republican candidate who doesn't endanger those blocs.

Remember Clinton is trying to run as the first woman President..