The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on December 16, 2014, 11:32:42 pm
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/16/if-you-had-to-choose-jeb-bush-or-chris-christie-as-nominee/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/16/if-you-had-to-choose-jeb-bush-or-chris-christie-as-nominee/)
If you had to choose: Jeb Bush or Chris Christie as nominee?
posted at 4:01 pm on December 16, 2014 by Allahpundit
I asked this on Twitter and naturally 50 people instantly responded “SMOD.” Sorry, we’re not that lucky. With Jeb in the race, Christie very likely to get in, and Romney and Rubio now likely to pass, the field of loud-and-proud centrists appears to be set at two. And since the donor class loves centrists and the donor class tends to get its way in presidential primaries, that means one of these two guys is likely to be nominee. If it comes to that, whom do you prefer? And before you say “I’ll stay home,” let me note: (1) conservatives say that every time a moderate lands the nomination and every time they end up turning out for him in the general, and (2) I’m not asking whether you’ll vote for either of them. I’m asking who you’d rather see as president. Jeb, right? Bush has been louder than Christie has in pushing immigration reform but we’ll all be shocked if Christie is any less of a RINO on amnesty in practice than Jeb is. Meanwhile, Jeb at least is well regarded by the NRA; Christie’s relationship with the NRA is more contentious. But then, if you’re worried about electability, Christie has none of the baggage that comes with the Bush name. And Ben Shapiro is right that Jeb is more closely identified with amnesty among voters who pay attention, even if he and Christie doubtless share many of the same positions on the issue:
Ben Shapiro @benshapiro
Follow
GOP geniuses. In 2012, top issue was Obamacare, so we ran the Republican who invented it. In 2016, top issue is immigration, so we run Jeb?
10:28 AM - 16 Dec 2014
Follow-up question: If Jeb is serious about running a “truth-telling campaign” in the primaries aimed at marginalizing conservatives, how does that change Christie’s tactics? The irony of Jeb taking on the dreaded tea-party hordes is that it’s exactly the sort of thing you’d expect Christie to do. He’s the guy, after all, who built a national reputation for going toe to toe with his critics, including his critics on the right. Punching tea partiers on the stump would have been a shrewd way for him to earn the donor class’s love — except for the fact that it sounds like Jeb’s going to do the same thing, if not as combatively. So what does Christie do now? Plow ahead and throw roundhouses at the right anyway, hoping that centrist Republicans will quickly come to see him and not Jeb as the RINO warrior they’ve dreamed of? Or does he surprise everyone by changing direction and going after Jeb for trying to drive a wedge into a party that should be coming together to beat Democrats? Voters love unity pitches; and while defending tea partiers from Bush won’t get Christie votes on the right, it might earn him the respect he needs to get them to turn out for him in the general. That is to say, if Christie’s destined to be overshadowed by Bush and his mammoth donor-class support, the smart play might be to position himself early as the “Not Jeb” in the race. The more he can turn the campaign into a “Bush versus Christie” storyline, the more it would push other serious contenders like Walker and Paul out of the spotlight. There will, I think, be some burst of anti-Bush energy in the primaries, especially if Jeb looks strong early. Christie needs to figure out a way to harness it or else he’ll be an afterthought before he knows it.
One more follow-up because I can’t resist: If you had to choose between Jeb, Christie, and Romney, who would you choose? I’m guessing most readers would say Romney, partly because they found him acceptable enough once before to vote for him and partly because Romney, though famously stiff, is also the most likable of the three. Christie is boorish and Jeb, rightly or wrongly, will be seen as aloof and entitled because of his dynastic pedigree. Plus, Romney’s the only one of the three (so far) who’s tried to mend fences with the right. We all laughed at his “severely conservative” nonsense at CPAC a few years ago but at least the guy wanted our votes. That’s not nothing. Frankly, given Christie’s ever lengthening odds at winning and Romney’s obvious ambition, I wonder if the smart play for both isn’t to unite, have Romney challenge Jeb, and have Christie sit out with a tacit promise to land on the ticket as VP if Romney wins. I don’t think Christie would go for it, though: An ego as big as his won’t accept that he can’t be president unless he sees it for himself, and there’s really no reason to think “somewhat conservative” voters would prefer the retread Romney to the comparatively fresh-faced Bush, who’ll have lots of hype behind him. Why throw in with a guy who struggled early to win the nomination in a famously weak field last time and then ended up being blown out by a president with eight percent unemployment on his record? I think it’s Bush versus Christie in the center — unless, of course, Rubio shocks the world by jumping in anyway.
-
Jeb Bush, hands down. He would be a better President than either Christie or Romney IMHO. I'd prefer almost anyone else in the field, however.
-
If I was *forced* to choose... I think I'd kill myself...
-
If I was *forced* to choose... I think I'd kill myself...
000hehehehe
-
If I was *forced* to choose... I think I'd kill myself...
LOL! I hear you, brother! :laugh:
-
If I was *forced* to choose... I think I'd kill myself...
:thumbsup2:
-
Jeb Bush, hands down. He would be a better President than either Christie or Romney IMHO. I'd prefer almost anyone else in the field, however.
That's exactly how I felt about Mitt Romney and I'm sick to death of being put in that position!
I'll do everything in my power to see that it doesn't come to that!
-
Title:
[[ If you had to choose: Jeb Bush or Chris Christie as nominee? ]]
I've already made my choice.
If it's either of them, I'll leave that spot on the ballot blank, and vote for the other candidates.
And... that's all, folks!
-
That's exactly how I felt about Mitt Romney and I'm sick to death of being put in that position!
I'll do everything in my power to see that it doesn't come to that!
So will I. But in my mind Jeb Bush is nowhere near as bad as Romney. He's squishy on immigration, that is true. And I absolutely hate common core. But his record as governor of Florida was quite conservative in comparison to Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts. Jeb Bush showed himself to be more conservative than either his father or his brother. I tend to evaluate politicians based on what they have actually done in office as opposed to what they say, so based on his record, Jeb Bush is a well-qualified conservative.
Politically, his name is a major obstacle, but then so is Hillary's. And his position on amnesty is toxic to Tea Party conservatives, that is for sure. But his record is mostly pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax, anti-debt. And you cannot say that about Romney (or Christie).
-
If you give one the value of -1, and the other the value of +1, I'd compromise. And go for 0.
-
I's be a no vote for the first time since I was able to vote many many years ago.
-
So will I. But in my mind Jeb Bush is nowhere near as bad as Romney. He's squishy on immigration, that is true. And I absolutely hate common core. But his record as governor of Florida was quite conservative in comparison to Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts. Jeb Bush showed himself to be more conservative than either his father or his brother. I tend to evaluate politicians based on what they have actually done in office as opposed to what they say, so based on his record, Jeb Bush is a well-qualified conservative.
Politically, his name is a major obstacle, but then so is Hillary's. And his position on amnesty is toxic to Tea Party conservatives, that is for sure. But his record is mostly pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax, anti-debt. And you cannot say that about Romney (or Christie).
I won't argue with a thing you said Victor but the immigration and Common Core crap are absolute killers for me!
-
So will I. But in my mind Jeb Bush is nowhere near as bad as Romney. He's squishy on immigration, that is true. And I absolutely hate common core. But his record as governor of Florida was quite conservative in comparison to Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts. Jeb Bush showed himself to be more conservative than either his father or his brother. I tend to evaluate politicians based on what they have actually done in office as opposed to what they say, so based on his record, Jeb Bush is a well-qualified conservative.
Politically, his name is a major obstacle, but then so is Hillary's. And his position on amnesty is toxic to Tea Party conservatives, that is for sure. But his record is mostly pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax, anti-debt. And you cannot say that about Romney (or Christie).
I beg to differ on this one. I live in Florida and "W" is definitely more conservative of the two. Jeb was a nightmare with his land grabbing S&L scandals, Common Core is a nightmare as well as his pro-amnesty stance. I took offense to being addressed in Spanish during his speeches. No thank you.
I would NOT vote for either Bush or Christie...UNLESS Wigwam Warren gets the nod. Then I would probably vote for a RINO. Otherwise I'd consider voting 3rd party.
-
I'd marry a Canadian and head north, where they know how to elect conservatives. (Who'd have thought that not too long ago?!)
-
Jeb Bush or Chris Christie??
That's an easy one: neither!!
-
Title:
[[ If you had to choose: Jeb Bush or Chris Christie as nominee? ]]
I've already made my choice.
If it's either of them, I'll leave that spot on the ballot blank, and vote for the other candidates.
And... that's all, folks!
In other words, you'll vote for the democrat ticket.
-
Of the two, Jeb Bush. I have serious reservations about whether he would win, but of the two I would prefer him.
-
I'll write in 'none of the above'
-
This is beginning to sound like 2012 all over again. Only instead of 0bama, many people here would help elect either Elizabeth Warren or hillary.
It does explain why so many like Ted Cruz. If you can't get perfection, you'd rather wallow in the mud than settle for most of what you claim to want. That's what Cruz does - and so far, that kind of tactic results in zero accomplishment (unless you count strengthening the dims an accomplishment).
**nononono*
-
If I was *forced* to choose... I think I'd kill myself...
And if you did choose one of those two, and they won, you'd be killing the country.
Not much of a choice.
-
Funny thing.
2008, the democrats won. They celebrated, we recriminated.
2012, the democrats won. They celebrated, we recriminated.
2014, the republicans won. And now we're recriminating.
What's wrong with that picture.
-
Funny thing.
2008, the democrats won. They celebrated, we recriminated.
2012, the democrats won. They celebrated, we recriminated.
2014, the republicans won. And now we're recriminating.
What's wrong with that picture.
The Democrats pushed a candidate that their base loved.
The Republicans push candidates the base can't tolerate, and show general contempt for conservatives.
THAT is what's wrong with the picture.
I haven't given up on the newly elected Republican Congress. I said I'd give them 6 months to a year. However, the early returns aren't good. I've already heard Republicans saying they can't do much with both chambers, but give them the presidency and Congress, and then they'll make things happen. Ugh.
-
This is beginning to sound like 2012 all over again. Only instead of 0bama, many people here would help elect either Elizabeth Warren or hillary.
It does explain why so many like Ted Cruz. If you can't get perfection, you'd rather wallow in the mud than settle for most of what you claim to want. That's what Cruz does - and so far, that kind of tactic results in zero accomplishment (unless you count strengthening the dims an accomplishment).
**nononono*
The only ones helping warren or hillary would be the gop trying to force dem lite down the throat
-
Oceander wrote above:
[[ In other words, you'll vote for the democrat ticket. ]]
I don't vote for democrats. I would stop voting entirely before I'd vote for a democrat again. I will admit that in my foolish younger years I behaved differently, but I came around. Even us dumb guys learn after a while.
But I'm simply tired of voting for politicians who are nothing more than Republican impersonators with democratic hearts.
If that's all we're going to get, as far as I'm concerned the whole government can go to h*** (it's pretty much there already). I'll go out and ride the Harley as long as I can still afford some gas and have strength enough to get on it.
-
Since 1932 only one GOP president makes the grade as "conservative."
-
Since 1932 only one GOP president makes the grade as "conservative."
You don't say??
And we wonder why we are where we are!!!
-
Since 1932 only one GOP president makes the grade as "conservative."
As far as I am concerned, the last great president was Calvin Coolidge. It's been pretty much downhill from there. I do think Reagan was the best president in my lifetime, not so much for his policies (which were uneven), but because of his leadership capabilities. Eisenhower was not a bad POTUS. He was the leader of the country during the greatest economic expansion in the country's history, and no one gives him credit because he didn't do much. No one stops to think that maybe the expansion was BECAUSE he didn't do much. In that respect, Eisenhower is the post WWII president most like Coolidge.
-
As far as I am concerned, the last great president was Calvin Coolidge. It's been pretty much downhill from there. I do think Reagan was the best president in my lifetime, not so much for his policies (which were uneven), but because of his leadership capabilities. Eisenhower was not a bad POTUS. He was the leader of the country during the greatest economic expansion in the country's history, and no one gives him credit because he didn't do much. No one stops to think that maybe the expansion was BECAUSE he didn't do much. In that respect, Eisenhower is the post WWII president most like Coolidge.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on Silent Cal! Excellent other points as well, Vic! Kudos!!
-
People who don't vote for President can not consider themselves the "base" of any party. Presidential candidates do - and should - spend most of their time attracting regular voters. A lot of people who consider themselves independents are more likely to vote than the Tea Party conservatives are.
Maybe it is time to have a third party. If Tea Party Conservatives aren't willing to vote for whoever the GOP nominee is, then maybe they should have their own party. After all, they wouldn't be taking votes away from the GOP. And the GOP nominee could be chosen for qualities like competence, executive experience, leadership skills and foreign policy knowledge, all of which are more important to accomplishment than just making speeches.
-
I would pick a definite winner
-
People who don't vote for President can not consider themselves the "base" of any party. Presidential candidates do - and should - spend most of their time attracting regular voters. A lot of people who consider themselves independents are more likely to vote than the Tea Party conservatives are.
Agreed.
-
Funny thing.
2008, the democrats won. They celebrated, we recriminated.
2012, the democrats won. They celebrated, we recriminated.
2014, the republicans won. And now we're recriminating.
What's wrong with that picture.
Exactly. We need to make our voices heard NOW with the RNC .... letters, e-mails, faxes and refuse to send $$$.
-
People who don't vote for President can not consider themselves the "base" of any party. Presidential candidates do - and should - spend most of their time attracting regular voters. A lot of people who consider themselves independents are more likely to vote than the Tea Party conservatives are.
Maybe it is time to have a third party. If Tea Party Conservatives aren't willing to vote for whoever the GOP nominee is, then maybe they should have their own party. After all, they wouldn't be taking votes away from the GOP. And the GOP nominee could be chosen for qualities like competence, executive experience, leadership skills and foreign policy knowledge, all of which are more important to accomplishment than just making speeches.
In my humble opinion, let's not allow the GOP establishment, liberals and the media to redirect us away from what should be our focus right now: STOPPING OBAMA and his agenda. We will soon have a new Congress ... they need to work for us not against us. Then we can worry about who's running for President in 2016.
With that being said, this has always been a difficult one for me. I refused to vote for McCain over Obama and voted 3rd party and look what happened. However, I voted my conscious. The two largest 3rd parties are the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party of which they normally only get a fraction of the votes. IF TEA were to form their own party and run I feel that they would do better but perhaps not well enough to secure the oval office ... it depends on how well they campaign and how quickly they can get on the ballot in all 50 states and how well the GOP is able to change things now that we will have the majority.
We also need to consider two things; who is the opposition on the liberal side. Wigwam Warren would be worse than Obama and I would vote against her RINO or not. Secondly, a lot is going to ride on if 4,000,000 (more like 20,000,000) are indeed granted amnesty. We already have thousands of teenagers (illegal dumped just recently) who will be of voting age by 2016.
We will soon have the majority in BOTH houses ... we need to fully take advantage of that. We can win in 2016, but it depends on how we play our cards.
-
Would you rather have salmonella or listeria? :shrug:
-
In my humble opinion, let's not allow the GOP establishment, liberals and the media to redirect us away from what should be our focus right now: STOPPING OBAMA and his agenda. We will soon have a new Congress ... they need to work for us not against us. Then we can worry about who's running for President in 2016.
With that being said, this has always been a difficult one for me. I refused to vote for McCain over Obama and voted 3rd party and look what happened. However, I voted my conscious. The two largest 3rd parties are the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party of which they normally only get a fraction of the votes. IF TEA were to form their own party and run I feel that they would do better but perhaps not well enough to secure the oval office ... it depends on how well they campaign and how quickly they can get on the ballot in all 50 states and how well the GOP is able to change things now that we will have the majority.
We also need to consider two things; who is the opposition on the liberal side. Wigwam Warren would be worse than Obama and I would vote against her RINO or not. Secondly, a lot is going to ride on if 4,000,000 (more like 20,000,000) are indeed granted amnesty. We already have thousands of teenagers (illegal dumped just recently) who will be of voting age by 2016.
We will soon have the majority in BOTH houses ... we need to fully take advantage of that. We can win in 2016, but it depends on how we play our cards.
Who is "we"? The GOP will have the majority in Congress, and there are a lot of people opposed to 0bama. But neither group is really homogeneous. There are different groups of conservatives - libertarians, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, etc. All of them have some things in common. Opposition to 0bama in general, and to 0bamacare and to his foreign policy are the biggest. But the different groups also have different opinions on other matters. When you label the GOP establishment as a group that doesn't belong to the "we", you are eliminating some of the strongest opposition to 0bama and his policies. And you are eliminating some of the people with the most power to do something about it.
The Tea Party didn't do very well in this year's primaries. The establishment candidates won almost every contest, and they won almost every seat in the general. If you do think that the focus should be on defeating the dims now and in 2016, then you should be uniting with the most electable anti-0bama candidates, and those are not all Tea Party candidates or candidates that you would agree with on every issue. It's a matter of priorities, and if you think it's most important to make 0bama powerless, it might be worth aligning with everyone who has enough power to help in that cause, whether you agree with them on every other issue or not.
-
Might I remind everyone ahem Thanks to Chris Christie's nation building campaign strategy.
The establishment candidates won almost every contest, and they won almost every seat in the general.
:chairbang:
-
Might I remind everyone ahem Thanks to Chris Christie's nation building campaign strategy. :chairbang:
He did do a good job this election cycle, didn't he? :patriot:
-
Personally, I don't think there are many members of the Freshman class in the 2015 congress that Tea Partiers are going to be uncomfortable with. Most of them may have won with the imprimatur of the establishment, but few of them were challenged by the Tea Party, and most are quite conservative.
http://www.rollcall.com/features/Freshman-Priorities_Policy-Briefing/policy_briefings/-203839-1.html (http://www.rollcall.com/features/Freshman-Priorities_Policy-Briefing/policy_briefings/-203839-1.html)
-
Personally, I don't think there are many members of the Freshman class in the 2015 congress that Tea Partiers are going to be uncomfortable with. Most of them may have won with the imprimatur of the establishment, but few of them were challenged by the Tea Party, and most are quite conservative.
http://www.rollcall.com/features/Freshman-Priorities_Policy-Briefing/policy_briefings/-203839-1.html (http://www.rollcall.com/features/Freshman-Priorities_Policy-Briefing/policy_briefings/-203839-1.html)
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: