This is exactly why so many of us conservatives feel as we do about John Boehner!He might not please "true conservatives" all the time, but nobody that would, could be elected, either.
Jeb Bush would make a TERRIBLE president and most everyone knows it!
The GOP didn't want Reagan and he got in.
Jeb Bush will not get elected in 2016. A three-fer dynasty is not something most Americans are willing to accept even in principle, and everyone seems to have forgotten that a lot of people voted against Bush when they voted for Obama in 2008. Jeb Bush would give the democrats pure manna from heaven to run on another "vote against Bush" tirade.
That so many supposed power-brokers in the GOP cannot fathom these basic facts indicates that the tenure system that brought us McCain in 2008 - because it was his "turn to have it" - is still alive and well and that it's now Jeb Bush's "turn to have it" and the electoral consequences be damned.
If we're going to be dynastic about this, why not wait until one of GWB's kids is old enough to be president, then at least we'd be getting the generational thing correct.
If the dumbocrat nominee is Hillary then I will still vote for Jeb Bush, but it will be with a heavy heart because I know my vote will be meaningless. On the other hand, if the dumbocrats come up with someone sufficiently more palatable than Hillary, then I may not vote 'R' ... I didn't vote for GWB in 2004 because I felt he'd gone too far, that Kerry would at least be of basic competence and that Lieberman would provide some much-needed ballast to such an administration.
In short, if the GOP nominates Jeb Bush, then my vote will be for the democrats to lose.
I will not vote for Jeb Bush under any circumstance!
There! I said it!
It seems we have travelled from Reagan's wisdom and common sense, to a position today whereby "true conservatives" claim they are only interested in all, or nothing. Won't vote, etc.I think we're a lot further gone from the days of Reagan. Debt's much bigger, government programs (with the exception of straight welfare) are more pervasive, morals are collapsing, and so on.
I think we're a lot further gone from the days of Reagan. Debt's much bigger, government programs (with the exception of straight welfare) are more pervasive, morals are collapsing, and so on.
I hate to say it, but the only way the problems are going to be fixed is if we go "all in."
I think we're a lot further gone from the days of Reagan. Debt's much bigger, government programs (with the exception of straight welfare) are more pervasive, morals are collapsing, and so on.
I hate to say it, but the only way the problems are going to be fixed is if we go "all in."
I think we're a lot further gone from the days of Reagan. Debt's much bigger, government programs (with the exception of straight welfare) are more pervasive, morals are collapsing, and so on.
I hate to say it, but the only way the problems are going to be fixed is if we go "all in."
City Republicans back Jeb Bush for president at gala
By Aaron Short
New York Post (http://nypost.com/2014/05/13/city-republicans-back-jeb-bush-for-president-at-gala/)
May 13, 2014 | 7:07am
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was lauded by fellow Republicans as a potential candidate for president at an appearance in Manhattan Monday night.
“I think people want an adult in the room, a dose of reality and leadership, and I think Jeb Bush is unquestioned on that,” said Republican gubernatorial candidate Rob Astorino.
Ex-mayoral candidate John Catsimatidis even compared Bush to conservative icon President Ronald Reagan.
“We’ve got standing room only in this room,” Catsimatidis said. “Who’s the last Republican to win New York? Was it Ronald Reagan? I think [Bush is] capable of doing it.”
And former Mayor Rudy Giuliani all but endorsed Bush.
“He’d make one heck of a leader,” he said, introducing Bush to the crowd at the Manhattan Institute gala. “I hope we get a chance to find out.”
Bush tried selling his family’s brand of compassionate conservatism.
“If we stay our current course with our tepid economic growth and the deep pessimism that this country believes that we’re on the wrong track . . . our future is not that bright,” he said.
“Thankfully, there is a clear path for the United States to once again be the indispensable nation that we have always been.”
He also touted his record of lowering taxes and raising student test scores as governor.
Why would it surprise anyone that a VERY moderate republican in name only endorse another moderate republican in name only?
Bigun, help me out. How is someone who's going to run for president as a republican and has been a republican his entire adult life, has been a republican governor is a RINO, but a voter who claims to be conservative, but won't vote for a republican against a democrat isn't?
I mean if I may or may not vote republican in a general election, wouldn't I be a republican in name only?
People can call themselves anything they whatever they want but them calling themselves this or that does not make it so! Never has and never will!
You are dealing with an unrepentant southern CONSERVATIVE with me and I will NEVER give in to political correctness or democrat lite! NEVER EVER again!!
Well as you say, calling oneself whatever doesn't make it so. It works both ways. Hang in there.
This is another one of those threads. Establishment types come in, and lecture the rest of the heathens, trying to educate the blood thirsty savages.
At least that's how it appears.
I'm often cast into the conservative camp. It's ok, I really don't care, but the fact is, I'm more of a libertarian, and on some things I'm not very conservative. The only reason I state my position is that I think there are a lot of people like me. My best friend is a left leaning moderate. We get along because we don't get emotional about our views. We see many things the same, and where we diverge, it really doesn't matter. In the long run, we educate each other.
So, my point is, what is it that would compel someone to vote Republican? Republicans almost never publicize or elaborate on alternatives. There is no cohesive message. The number one thing that Republicans tout is that they will stop Obama, (which they aren't doing). In most cases, I see very little difference between sides. The biggest difference I see is Democrats are committed to their agenda, and some will even fall on their sword to advance the cause, as they did passing obamacare. Republicans seem to be quite happy to be in a minor role as obstructionists without being required to have vision, or be accountable for a plan.
EDIT: As for Jeb Bush? Anyone who thinks someone named Bush could be elected president in the next 20 years, needs to do some more thinking. Pat Paulsen is more likely to be elected, and he's dead.
This is another one of those threads. Establishment types come in, and lecture the rest of the heathens, trying to educate the blood thirsty savages.
At least that's how it appears.
I'm often cast into the conservative camp. It's ok, I really don't care, but the fact is, I'm more of a libertarian, and on some things I'm not very conservative. The only reason I state my position is that I think there are a lot of people like me. My best friend is a left leaning moderate. We get along because we don't get emotional about our views. We see many things the same, and where we diverge, it really doesn't matter. In the long run, we educate each other.
So, my point is, what is it that would compel someone to vote Republican? Republicans almost never publicize or elaborate on alternatives. There is no cohesive message. The number one thing that Republicans tout is that they will stop Obama, (which they aren't doing). In most cases, I see very little difference between sides. The biggest difference I see is Democrats are committed to their agenda, and some will even fall on their sword to advance the cause, as they did passing obamacare. Republicans seem to be quite happy to be in a minor role as obstructionists without being required to have vision, or be accountable for a plan.
EDIT: As for Jeb Bush? Anyone who thinks someone named Bush could be elected president in the next 20 years, needs to do some more thinking. Pat Paulsen is more likely to be elected, and he's dead.
I think it's called giving one's opinion, even though it might differ from yours. Or is this just a bash-Bush thread?
Some say the same thing about Clinton, but in fact, Americans have always embraced political dynasties. Probably a holdover from our British heritage. :pondering:
Is it that you can't help yourselves? Or do you see condescension as the proper way to address the heathens? Or, is it possible you don't see the condescension in your reply? I'll refrain from giving you my gut reaction, but thank you for reinforcing my initial observation.
Yep, Americans tend to desire a de facto royalty. However, the Bush name has been beaten, and abused. It's my opinion that there is no way, absolutely no chance, that Jeb Bush could be elected president, and I'd bet money on that.
Excuse me......but pointing out that 'you' are merely offering an opinion (which is what this forum is all about) is not condescension.
How in God's name can you be anymore diplomatic than MAC was in his response.
How about you show what words you would have used responding to BIGUN's post....insulting and calling him a RINO.
This is EXACTLY the type of horseshit that quickly got out of hand when Rap was here modding and leading the gang of posters in here that always seem to hold the position that his/her brand of Conservatism trumps or invalidates all others.
Stop taking everything personally. Geez......
How about you show what words you would have used responding to BIGUN's post....insulting and calling him a RINO.
This is EXACTLY the type of horseshit that quickly got out of hand when Rap was here modding and leading the gang of posters in here that always seem to hold the position that his/her brand of Conservatism trumps or invalidates all others.
Thank you DC. You no doubt stepped in at the right time. Perhaps I should choose my threads more wisely. :nometalk:
You shudda been a mod... :beer:
I don't hold any such position and never have! But I do have strong opinions and WILL continue to express them for so long as the owners of this site allow it!
What? Strong opinions? I never noticed. :laugh: :beer:
Wait, what? You need help when posting on a forum? Ok, whatever works for you sunshine.
Here's my contribution, in addition to choosing threads more wisely, choose your words more wisely.
With respect to the little skirmish that has broken out in this thread.
I think that "names" or "labels" are a real problem of late (in some ways, always have been, but I think more pronounced as time goes on). We all throw them around, and in our minds we pretty much understand what we think that they mean, but how others read them is totally dependent on their points of reference, personal history, and point of view.
To me, one of the most confusing labels at this point in time is "RINO," Republican In Name Only. OK, I get the obvious part, a person using the label to describe someone means that, in their opinion, the person is not really a "Republican," but is just using the party name as a (most likely) convenient label. But that really begs the question, what exactly does it mean to be a "Republican" in today's context?
If I look at how the Republican party has conducted itself in recent history, then it would seem to me that a person like a Jeb Bush or a Rudy Giuliani is actually a real "Republican," not merely in name. So at this point, the label "RINO" almost has no meaning to me.
The same goes for a lot of the other labels we use: Conservative, "True" Conservative, "Tea Party," Establishment, and so forth.
I actually believe that these labels have become so laden with connotation at this point, that they are effectively useless. Sure, I suppose in any given population (this forum as an example), there probably are some folks that labels like "Tea Party guy/gal" or "Establishment guy/gal" probably come pretty close to describing his/her overall perspective on things, at least on a majority of issues. But I think for the most part, those labels are pretty meaningless, especially since they often conjure up a caricature of someone that is likely to be very exaggerated, especially around the edges.
Leaving aside the other main question of what exactly does "Democrat" mean in this day and age, just think about 3 notable Republicans:
- Rand Paul: sure he has been elected to the US Senate as a Republican, but I think <L,l>ibertarian is probably the most descriptive label.
- Ted Cruz: again, US Senate Republican, but I think Constitutionalist is probably more accurate.
- Peter King: long time Republican US Rep from NY, but corrupt, war mongering, extreme authoritarian is probably closest to the mark.
We seem to have here a couple of main camps that are usually described as the "Tea Party" and "Establishment" camps. But what exactly do they mean? While we could probably settle around a few main points for each, I think that the real meanings are as varied as the number of posters expressing opinions. Very individual in nature. That being the case, I don't really think that they remain all that useful (and probably cause a lot of indigestion for the readers and posters in many threads!!).
Without the benefit of actually knowing any one here personally (and not being a mind reader), all that I can go on when I read people's posts is my interpretation of the words that they have chosen to use in their posts. But, I think that all of us tend to "read a bit more into" others' words, we almost can't help it, we process everything through our own filters.
Because of this, I think that there are often a lot of extraneous (and very often, untrue) positions, opinions, wants, and desires attached to all of us based on our posts. Let me try to be more clear by way of example: I don't think that the gals/guys here that everyone assumes are in the Establishment camp want bigger government, like the out of control spending, and favor the increasing hardening of the soft tyranny that has taken hold. Nor do the Tea Party gals/guys all want gubmint to enforce morality, have their candidates/representatives making inane speeches about social ills that are of no concern of gubmint, or support an overnight draconian reduction of gubmint to a level that would paralyze the nation.
I actually believe that there is a different point of view that separates a fair number of us into two "camps." I believe that a great deal of the separation can be found along the lines of one's perspective on the following:
- those that believe that the current "system" is salvageable, using the ballot box, over time we can halt the decline and re-set the course of the nation back onto a more sustainable path... these are the people that believe that they still have a team on the field, the Republicans, and that by electing enough of them to create majorities in the legislative branches, and even regaining the presidency, the nation can be saved before it all comes crashing down. And because of these beliefs, we tend to pack all of these folks into the "Establishment" camp, regardless of how close the fit, or not.
- those that believe that the current "system" is no longer salvageable, that it is highly unlikely that the ballot box remains an effective remedy, that for all intents and purposes we no longer have a team on the field (if we ever really did, but that's fodder for another thread!), and that is no longer matters which of the "teams" are in control except for the most meaningless details around the edges, and perhaps the length of time that the decline lingers on. And because of these beliefs, we tend to pack all of these folks into the "Tea Party" camp, regardless of how close the fit, or not.
Yes, I've taken up the bulk of my lunch time typing this in...... I hope that it has some meaning for someone aside from my now hungry self!! lol
Point well made and well taken Katz!
I think the use of all those labels is due to our personal time constraints and our tendency toward laziness. Instead of taking the additional time necessary to think through and type out the reasons for our having taken the position we have on this or that candidate we just throw out a label and let that suffice. I know I have been guilty of that and will do my best to avoid it in the future but not going to make any guarantees.
Mac, DCP... kudos. I am too late to the dance to add or detract.
Yes, I've taken up the bulk of my lunch time typing this in...... I hope that it has some meaning for someone aside from my now hungry self!! lol
Thanks, Bigun!
That's all anybody can ask....do your best, with no guarantees. :laugh:
I want a smaller, less intrusive government. I also want to see a more fiscally prudent government and that means for me, reducing our debt dramatically. It isn't for my grandchildren to assume, it's for us. We created it; we need to fix it.
No Relic, you missed my point. DC was observant enough to know how I would have responded to you, and wanted to keep the thread alive and moving. You aren't all that clever, so don't invite a pissing contest you can't win.
I believe that there is near universal agreement with that sentiment on this forum. Our problem seems to be that we can't agree on which vehicle to ride in to get there.
We might not agree on the means to achieve that, but it should be debatable. There are a lot of contentious issues out there that are important to conservatives regardless of how one defines that term. The national debt, immigration, the size of government, tax policy, the role and size of our military are some of those issues. We have to be able to debate them among ourselves, or how can we do so with the more liberal factions of America?
Ok, but you made my point. Arrogance and condescension thy name is MACVSOG68.
If you were cede that I am what I say I am, a libertarian with some moderate views, then what does it say about your postings that you rankle someone such as me? Want to make inroads? Do you have a point worth making? Try to do so without being insulting. Could it be that you're the one trying to prove that you're the smartest person in the room? I never claimed to be.
Ok, but you made my point. Arrogance and condescension thy name is MACVSOG68.
If you were cede that I am what I say I am, a libertarian with some moderate views, then what does it say about your postings that you rankle someone such as me? Want to make inroads? Do you have a point worth making? Try to do so without being insulting. Could it be that you're the one trying to prove that you're the smartest person in the room? I never claimed to be.
Relic, I respectfully submit that I don't see the reason for your ire. Admittedly, I am rushed and a bit thick-headed today but I don't see it. At least not on this thread.
Point well made and well taken Katz!
I think the use of all those labels is due to our personal time constraints and our tendency toward laziness. Instead of taking the additional time necessary to think through and type out the reasons for our having taken the position we have on this or that candidate we just throw out a label and let that suffice. I know I have been guilty of that and will do my best to avoid it in the future but not going to make any guarantees.
I don't know what the answer is, only that I have found that I have a hard time really discerning what some posts/posters actually mean, as opposed to what my gut level reaction (often to names/labels used) tells me that they mean!! I think that one of the most useful things that I have learned here, is that trying to react less often to a single post (by trying to understand the broader context of a poster) is more peaceful. Case in point, I never thought that I would ever agree with anything that Sink posted, but just this week I think I saw 2 or 3 of his posts that I totally agreed with!! lol
We are all on the same side more or less. I participated in team sports in High School, and I can tell you for a fact, being on the same team doesn't necessarily mean you like each other.
Katzenjammer wrote:
Katz, I think you did a pretty nice job there, and hope you finally got your lunch.
This is heading into the primary season, which IMO should generate the internal debates on both philosophy and candidates. You may be right as to the two camps, I'm not sure as I haven't been around here for a while. I certainly fit into the camp of the ballot box. Whether the system is salvageable or not, the alternative to the ballot box is, for me, unthinkable. But yes, I want a smaller, less intrusive government. I also want to see a more fiscally prudent government and that means for me, reducing our debt dramatically. It isn't for my grandchildren to assume, it's for us. We created it; we need to fix it.
But like you say, it's for another thread. This one has likely run its course.
Again, nice post and really well thought out. :beer:
Whether the system is salvageable or not, the alternative to the ballot box is, for me, unthinkable.
It isn't for my grandchildren to assume, it's for us. We created it; we need to fix it.
I agree that we can and should debate them. Hell! we have been debating them for as long as I can remember.
Truth_seeker wrote:Conservatives need to educated voters, how Obama's socialism harms them and their futures.
[[ I can also conclude that a more conservative option would/will probably not be elected in America, now... ]]
Well.... if not now.... when.....?
C'mon, answer honestly.
I dare ya!
Over and over our civil society and government is being relentlessly destroyed by the steady application of a form of the Hegelian Dialectic (Problem - Reaction - Solution), over and over. Just in the recent decade or so we have seen it applied in several major ways:
- (War on) Terror - Protect Us! - Patriot Act (wholesale destruction of personal freedoms and liberty, and monstrous deficit spending to beat the band!)
- Financial Crisis - Save Us! - Dodd-Frank (just wait to see the destruction that will flow from this rarely discussed behemoth!)
- Healthcare Crisis - Heal Us! - 0bamacare (still watching this one unfold!)
- Immigration Crisis - Reform Us! - {fill in the blank at this point}
I realize that at some point in the past decades (I can't really be sure of when I became fully cognizant of it) that I began to see that our nation was in a steady decline, from virtually every point of long-term measure or comparison. And I realize that in some ways, it has been that way since I was born, but I certainly never saw it until much later in life. Now the reason that I can say with some certainty that the overall decline has been with us for my whole life, is that I believe that a great deal of what we are living with and through now, was really set in motion around 100 years ago. This period is often traced as the start of the "Progressive" movement in this country. (The scope of this movement and the ills it has introduced are far beyond a post in this thread, but as a quick shorthand, I point to the establishment of the Income Tax, the creation of the Federal Reserve (and movement to a fiat currency), and the 17th Amendment as an unholy trio that emerged in 1913.)
Mac I have but one question for you . I'm asking it sincerely and I hoe you will answer it honestly.
Have you ever seen a government bureaucrat actually solve the problem he was hired to solve?
Bigun, I answer all questions sincerely and as best as I can, honestly. Every politician who goes to Washington, and to state houses, finds they have to try to solve a variety of issues, many of which have opposing solutions. Add to that ideological differences among the problem solvers which require give and take, and you wind up with a hodge-podge of results. I'm not begging out of your question Bigun, just giving you the reality I see.
And any politician looks at what it is Americans want, which of course adds to the complexity. And the elected representatives have to start with where they (we) are at, not where they wish we were. For example, we can't just ditch Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Nor can we get rid of interest on the debt. We obviously can't just end most discretionary programs, though we can and should start to turn those costs and associated regulations downward. That's simply a reality. Can we start working on solutions to them? Sure, and we should.
Having said that, I continue to prefer a republican in place of a democrat, any time, anywhere, or these will never get addressed. And I'll say it again. Winning an election is everything. And promises even those formalized by signed pledges aren't worth spit when the winner heads to Washington.
And that's simply my opinion, nothing more.
Thanks for the honest reply Mac!
I wasn't asking so much about politicians (you could not hold a gun on me and make me vote for a democrat) but the actual people who we hire to implement the things the politicians put in place to try and solve perceived problems through government. What I'm trying to get at is the FACT that no government bureaucrat has any incentive at all to actually FIX the problem they were hired to fix and have instead EVERY incentive to exacerbate the problem and thus make their on little fiefdom even bigger. Once you come to realize the truth of that you quickly realize that government is not capable of "fixing" much of anything and I think history bears me out on that. Most of the problems our country faces today would have long since been solved if the government had stayed the hell out of them and left it to the marketplace to solve them.
I'm not at all saying that there are not things that the government should legitimately be doing. There certainly are but those things were correctly identified and laid out by the founders in our constitution and the government should IMHO stick to it's knitting and leave the rest alone!
Katz, you are obviously a tremendously intelligent and thoughtful poster. Like Luis, Sinkspur, and several others here, you make your points in a cogent and powerful manner.
Let me simply address a couple of areas you hit on.
With each of those, the problems were real...and are real. Conservatives tend to reject the solutions, and to be fair, should push back. The war on terror is real, and in hindsight, we have seen numerous assaults on our freedoms resulting from that. Should we go back to September 10. Not for most Americans, no.
The financial crisis was real, but was Dodd-Frank the answer. As with liberals, too much isn't enough. But make no mistake, some of the financial issues Dodd-Frank was designed to address did...and still do exist.
Even Republicans and most Americans agree our health care system needs some care. It's problematic on many levels. But was Obamcare the answer? It appears not, but efforts to simply repeal the entire law ignores what the right answers are. It may be a thorn in the side of Democrats, but Republicans are going to have to find ways to address and fix it. Simply calling for repeal might play well in some areas, but not most.
Immigration reform is going to happen, and unfortunately not with the benefits conservatives were offered in 2007. We still have the same issues we had then, and by the time Obama leaves office, he may well have achieved the only thing Democrats wanted in that area. Conservatives may walk away with nothing.
You mentioned the $100 trillion of unfunded obligations. You are absolutely right. I've seen those analyses for several years now. But that is something Congress can address. The laws which lead to those calculations can be changed. Would it be popular? Probably not. But someone has to take the lead.
You made so many good points that I should address, but perhaps another time or another thread. Again though, good job!
With each of those, the problems were real...and are real.
WOW! Great post Katz!
The first step in solving any problem is to admit that a problem exists (I have observed this to be quite a difficult thing for many in in Washington) and the second step is to correctly identify the problem. You quite adequately did that with the following:
If I could be granted but one wish regarding the future of this nation it would be the undoing of that single year in the history of the United States! Those three things you mention fundamentally changed the entire structure of our form of government and certainly NOT in a good way!
Katz... thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful post.
Interesting point on bureaucrats. They probably aren't much different from other employees for the most part. Organizational theory suggests that all organizations attempt to grow, associations, religious affiliations, business organizations and of course government groups at all levels. I think most employees go into government for different reasons, certainly including security and retirement as well as the monetary benefits. But just because someone chooses to work in the private sector doesn't make them any more ethical or moral, as we found out in the crash of 2007-08.
But governmental organizations are inherently ahead of the political curve for one reason. Most politicians aren't that well schooled in the art of the budget. Recalling the sequestration brouhaha, remember when all sorts of outrageous things happened, like in the National Park Service? Every agency has financial managers whose job includes not only keeping the spending levels they currently have, but growing them. Each year, Congress asks for the president's request as well as the impact of a ten percent cut. Each year, the agency picks out the most painful area and puts that in the budget request as the impact of a cut. But many congress critters especially the new ones have no clue. Those who do, have favorite programs and have likely already cut a deal with someone who likes another program, and it goes from there.
Every agency that exists, including most of the Department of Defense could easily cut 20% with absolutely no pain or loss in mission objectives. Congressmen come and go, but agencies take years to solidify and improve their protective shields. Even presidents try to reform their executive agencies and usually fail. Part of the problem is that federal agencies are managed by political appointees frequently put in place because of their "help" in getting the right party elected, but just as frequently having little to no technical knowledge of an agency's operations and goals.
But the problem with cutting a department or agency is that each has its supporters in Congress, and even if one party was in absolute control, you'd still see the give and take. Turning all that around isn't going to be easy. A lot of folks have tried.
JMHO of course.
You are more than welcome, Lando! I often wish I had more time to get engaged in the conversations beyond the level of spitting out a guttural reaction and moving along!!
What is happening to the Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram is tragic. The sinking of the Titanic, the fall of Saigon, the British defeat at Gallipoli, the Dred Scott decision — tragedies all.
You can go on all day and all night listing terrible calamities and even lesser injustices, misfortunes and other evidence that life isn’t fair. But you will probably collapse from exhaustion before you reach Jeb Bush’s difficulty becoming the third President Bush.
The New Yorker cartoons write themselves. Bush, in all his blue-blazered glory, sitting next to, well, just about anyone at a bar (or standing in front of the Pearly Gates, or lying on a psychiatrist’s couch, or visiting the complaints department) lamenting that he never got his turn.
Or maybe he’d wear a shirt saying, “My Dad and My Brother Lived at the White House and All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt.”
Of course, that’s not actually all Bush got.
He was a successful two-term Florida governor (a much tougher job than being governor of Texas, particularly for a Republican). He has a lovely family. He’s made a bundle in the private sector, and he’s a respected voice in lots of policy debates. But he hasn’t checked the last and most important box on his to-do list.
And I doubt he ever will.
It’s well known that Republicans tend to pick the candidate whose “turn” it is. Except for 1964 and 2000, the guy who came in second the last time or who in some way was perceived as next in line got the nomination. Barry Goldwater was a special case because of the rise of the conservative movement and the sense that JFK’s assassination made LBJ unbeatable.
George W. Bush was a special case for completely different reasons. There really wasn’t anyone next in line that year, but “Dubya” came the closest because the GOP felt his dad had been robbed in 1992 by Bill Clinton (and Ross Perot).
This raises an important challenge for Jeb Bush. It should be obvious that, even among Republicans, nostalgia for George W. Bush doesn’t run nearly so high as it did for his father. This is a key difference between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush; Democrats are nostalgic for Clinton, Republicans aren’t for Bush.
But all this misses the main source of Jeb Bush’s trouble. Contrary to a lot of pseudo-psychological analysis, Republicans don’t go for the guy whose “turn” it is because they are hard-wired to be hierarchical and orderly.
They do it because the guy who came in second last time spends the next four years wooing the conservative base.
For instance, George H.W. Bush led the moderate wing in 1980. For eight years as vice president, he courted the Reagan wing. Bush beat Robert Dole in 1988 by claiming to be the better Reaganite. George the Younger had it a bit easier being a born-again Christian from Texas, but he didn’t coast on the Bush name either.
Just ask Mitt Romney, Dole or John McCain: You don’t have to win over the whole of the GOP base, but you do need a big enough share of conservatives that when they are added to the more moderate voters already on your side, you have enough to win. (Reagan did this in reverse: He had the base largely locked up and then worked assiduously to reassure the moderates.)
This is a lesson many on the right seem incapable of learning, which is why every primary season we see half a dozen right-wingers battling for the title of “purest conservative,” while the moderate candidates fight merely for the title of “conservative enough.”
And that’s Jeb Bush’s problem. He’s antagonized the base on hot-button issues such as immigration and the Common Core curriculum, without trying to persuade anyone he’s conservative enough.
He even presented Hillary Clinton with an award on the eve of the first anniversary of the Benghazi attack.
Reasonable people can debate his stances, but trust me when I say the base feels decidedly unwooed.
His brother and his father understood that the GOP is a conservative party, and they maneuvered accordingly. Jeb Bush doesn’t seem to care, which is why he’ll probably get the T-shirt.
Good thread... I'm late to the party.
A few years back, in one of these forums I started a thread by asking a very simple question.
"How do you define conservatism?"
The difference being that with private organizations there is this thing called making a profit which does not come into play in government organizations.
And that’s Jeb Bush’s problem. He’s antagonized the base on hot-button issues such as immigration and the Common Core curriculum, without trying to persuade anyone he’s conservative enough.
And I would add one more thought to this before I take my leave.
If we had a government in which all the participants honored the oaths they swear and strictly followed the Constitution it would't matter much who the president was! In fact he would likely be much more like the president of Switzerland who rides to work on public transport and no one knows his name.
According to whose definition of what the Constitution means?
Lots of good stuff here.
The definition of conservatism is an interesting one. I find extremes to be off putting. The "true conservative" raises a red flag with me, almost as much as a hardcore leftist. I figure if someone is rigidly, dogmatically adhering to an ideology, they likely aren't giving it the thought it deserves.
I have a fairly naive view of conservatism. I am a conservative person in my personal life. That is, careful, pragmatic, generally risk averse, and I attempt to be analytical. To me, a "real conservative" in the political realm, is someone who acknowledges we were given an amazing platform to work with, (the constitution). That platform is to be respected, and modified or circumvented with very serious deliberation. Finances? Approach them as I do my personal finances, avoid debt where possible, spend only what you have, unless there is an exceptional situation. Social engineering is a disaster, be careful, and very deliberate with any social programs or changes. Back to the constitution, and my libertarian leanings, the federal government should have defense as it's primary goal. The federal government can and should consult with the states to do "big things". I am a fan of the space program that Obama euthanized. I know a true conservative would prefer a private solution. Having said that, the federal government should be careful, pragmatic, and analytic when contemplating "big things".
The federal government is not our parent. The federal government should provide for defense, coordinate doing big things, and leave us the heck alone.
I know that's nebulous, but it is a bit like trying to nail jello to a tree.
The bulk of the GOP membership lies closer to the middle of the ideological divide between left and right, than to the right edge of it. "
Exactly.
Here's a thought on your post...
Social engineering is a disaster.
What exactly IS social engineering?
Many would say that it is the act of artificially restricting the normal changes in society, or to try and diminish the natural transition of society away from how things used to be and be done by engaging the force of government.
Here's a rather simplistic view of right vs. left political activity.
Generally speaking, the left spends its energy trying to make people do things they don't want to do, and the right spends theirs trying to stop people from doing things they want to do.
That's very general in scope, but we can fit damned near every social issue that's being debated today into those two boxes.
You make good arguments Luis but they aren't worth much when the postulate you base them on is wrong as I believe it is in this case!
I think it just the opposite in fact and that is with forty years of perspective from within the beast.
I think you're right Bigun. I think the problem "the conservative base" has is fundamentally tied to our philosophy of INDIVIDUALISM. The very nature of it means that we each have our own strong ideas and we don't necessarily "run in packs". We are each more of the lone wolf type and it is difficult to keep us from fighting each other for power struggles, etc.
It is what makes us strong, while at the same time it is what makes us weak.
According to the men who wrote it's definition and there is PLENTY of material to enable us to learn what they intended!
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Federal Defense of Marriage Act:
Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Constitution of the United States
Article IV, Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
Social engineering is the science of trying to get people to conform to norms that whatever group prescribe and I have no problem with it at all UNTIL they start to use the tools of government to do it! THEN it becomes a HUGE problem!
You make good arguments Luis but they aren't worth much when the postulate you base them on is wrong as I believe it is in this case!
I think it just the opposite in fact and that is with forty years of perspective from within the beast.
Any Republican is preferable to any democrat.
You mean like one group of people using government to stop another group of people from marrying each other because the greater group as more political power?
Yeah?
Then why can't conservatives win Presidential primaries?
The proof that you're wrong lies in the fact that you can't win what is essentially a consensus of right-wing political opinion.
Pretty broad statement and not even close to being true. There are plenty of lousy Republican candidates out there....and Jeb Bush is one of 'em.
Soy un perdedor!
No, it's true. Any Republican will add to the GOP Caucus in each House, thus furthering Republican and conservative efforts.
To vote for a Democrat (any Democrat) is to enable Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
Never, ever, EVER vote for a Democrat.
We have the power to amend the Constitution Luis. We were given that in the document itself but there is a prescribed procedure to follow so edicts from on high won't cut it!
To properly understand what the Constitution means require a maximum of two things! The ability to read and properly interpret the English language as it was used at the time the document was written and the ability to define the intent of the writers from the historical record of the writing of the document.
Because of the way the primaries are currently structured and the fact that there are so many of them vs the non conservatives! Simple as that!
Yep! I personally don't care what tow people decide to do privately but I care a great deal when they try to shove THEIR choices down MY throat via the government!
I was married 46 years ago Luis! In a CHURCH by my own choice and did not nor do not now expect anyone to provide me anything as a result of that action.
I suspect that most people would have little problem with what two people chose to do IF that choice did not obligate THEM to pay for the results of their choices!
You make good arguments Luis but they aren't worth much when the postulate you base them on is wrong as I believe it is in this case!
I think it just the opposite in fact and that is with forty years of perspective from within the beast.
The issue at hand is exactly whose understanding to use when fixing the meaning of the Constitution.
Who is making you pay for a gay wedding Bigun?
As Luis mentioned, the nominations of Romney, McCain, Bush, Dole, Ford, and yes even Reagan show that Republicans want their candidates to appeal to moderates. You have to go back to Goldwater, IMO, to find one who had limited appeal to the middle of the political spectrum.
NOW you are reverting to the throw up some chaff to confuse the issue tactic Luis!
YOU know very well what I am talking about! It is just a wedding!
AGREED!!!
You could not make me vote for one at ANY level if you held a gun on me! That does not mean that I have to vote FOR someone else! I think we saw exactly that in the last presidential election!
You and Luis are, of course, entitled to you opinions. In this case I disagree with them and have already stated my reasons!
I'm sorry, but placing your own principles FIRST....before the welfare of the nation, is nuts.
For what reason? So, you don't slit your neck while looking at yourself in the mirror while shaving?
For example: " 'I' withheld my vote.....'I'm' not responsible if the RAT wins!.....it's the other rubes who didn't vote for my chosen candidate"
In case 'you' haven't noticed, the contrast between the parties is SO clear...good vs. evil.....that there's NO EXCUSE for not voting for the eventual Republican candidate.
It doesn't mean you supported him....it means you support the concept that the other side is so treacherous to our way of life...that it's preferable to [vote for] the one the GOP puts up.
As MAC is now inclined to say...."JMHO"!
At the risk of 11513 if those on the right wing of the Party are in the majority, why don't they just change the rules?
What part of "they want us to pay for the results of their choices" do you not understand Luis?
Carefully utilized ['I'] to denote that you actually didn't speak the quote.
Maybe you didn't 'see' it.
But Bigun......I can read and most of the time I can comprehend.
You're not voting for a moderate Republican in a POTUS election to assuage your own principles and standards. You'll abstain.
....take it from there, sir. :shrug:
OK! How about I've seen the result of doing that for forty plus years and do not like what I see! Not even a little bit!
The current environment we're in cancels out EVERYTHING you've gotten pissed off about the past forty plus years...despite there being a kernel of truth that the GOP sometimes exacerbates the situation.
Right now....we're 'living' in 1930's Germany. You can believe it or not.
This isn't the time to pacify your own anger. Country first, buddy! :patriot:
Right now....we're 'living' in 1930's Germany. You can believe it or not.
What part of "they want us to pay for the results of their choices" do you not understand Luis?
The part that you seem incapable of explaining.
I'm sorry, but placing your own principles FIRST....before the welfare of the nation, is nuts.
For what reason? So, you don't slit your neck while looking at yourself in the mirror while shaving?
For example: " 'I' withheld my vote.....'I'm' not responsible if the RAT wins!.....it's the other rubes who didn't vote for my chosen candidate"
In case 'you' haven't noticed, the contrast between the parties is SO clear...good vs. evil.....that there's NO EXCUSE for not voting for the eventual Republican candidate.
It doesn't mean you supported him....it means you support the concept that the other side is so treacherous to our way of life...that it's preferable to [vote for] the one the GOP puts up.
As MAC is now inclined to say...."JMHO"!
Imagine that there's a war going on.
Imagine that in this war, the home armies are trying to defeat and remove an invading army from their soil.
Imagine that the sort of conservative that you just addressed in your post makes up one of the divisions in that home army.
The army at large wants to go after the invading army wherever they are, while the conservative division believes that the best plan is to pick a strong defensible spot at the beachhead where the invaders first made landfall, dig in and wait for the invaders to come to them.
The army splits up, the main body goes after the invaders while the conservative division digs in at the beach where the invaders landed, believing that was the best spot to defeat them, and wait there.
The main body finds the invaders, engages them, and drives them back to the beach.
Once the battle gets to the beach, the conservative division jumps in and the invaders are defeated and driven from the country.
The conservative division will then stand up and take claim to the defeat of the invaders because their plan to wait for them at the beach was proven right.
The problem is that the ONLY reason that the invading army was at that beach, is because the main body pushed it there.
That, in a nutshell, is the whole "I won't vote for a non-conservative" thing boils down to.
The day that a sufficiently conservative candidate is balloted, it will be because the moderate faction of the GOP has swung that pendulum enough to the right to finally reach the entrenched, non-budging conservative division, and NOT due to the actual efforts of the conservatives.
They want us to pay for their treatment for AIDS!
They want us to bake them a wedding cakes whether we want to or not!
They want us to take pictures at their weddings whether we want to or not!
Is that enough or should I continue?
They want us to bake them a wedding cakes whether we want to or not!
They want us to take pictures at their weddings whether we want to or not!
AIDS is now prevalent among non-homosexuals as well as homosexuals.
Yet another CLASSIC strawman from you Luis!
No company - no SQUAD in fact - is composed of any one anything Luis!
One of the glaring things they are forcing on some of us are things like making private business owners bake cakes and photograph their weddings, even if it goes against their personal beliefs.
All you do is attack the individual posting.
Is it that you can't help yourselves? Or do you see condescension as the proper way to address the heathens? Or, is it possible you don't see the condescension in your reply? I'll refrain from giving you my gut reaction, but thank you for reinforcing my initial observation.
Yep, Americans tend to desire a de facto royalty. However, the Bush name has been beaten, and abused. It's my opinion that there is no way, absolutely no chance, that Jeb Bush could be elected president, and I'd bet money on that.
Sigh...
Bigun...
Gay marriage will probably reduce the incidents of AIDS.
People who wish to enter into a marriage don't want to continue the reckless sexual habits that lead to AIDS. You and Mrs. Bigun have an immensely reduced risk of contracting any sexually transmitted disease as a result of your commitment to your wedding vows.
The same will hold true for same-sex couples.
The nation at large wants us to pay for health care, that is a problem with the entitlement system, not with same-sex marriage.
But they don't want to force you to pay for either, which is what you claimed.
According to teh US Constitution, that argument should be settled in the laboratory of the States, and in the courts.
NOPE! That's just how you take it!
Yet another CLASSIC strawman from you Luis!
How does that translate into making "us" pay for anything?
That is a classic situation to be settled by the States and the Courts.
Private business owners are already forced to do tons of things that they would rather not do, and those things are not necessarily unconstitutional just because they don't want to do them.
No Bigun, that is what you do, and that is how others see it as well.
THAT is a personal attack on me, and no response to the post. It adds nothing to the debate.
It is below you, as a Mod in this forum, to behave in that manner.
What else would you have me call the constructs you build on a false premise Luis?
Be honest and say it is the fact that I can identify them for what they are that annoys you!
Being forced to do something that is against your religious beliefs is a "cost" to that individual. The price you pay is not always monetary.
Again, you attack me but fail to give one reason WHY you claim my premises false, other than the fact that you think them false.
Saying that I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong Bigun... even if it's you saying it.
I'm done with you and your posts.
Imagine that the sort of conservative that you just addressed in your post makes up one of the divisions in that home army.
No company - no SQUAD in fact - is composed of any one anything Luis!
It is below you, as a Mod in this forum, to behave in that manner.