The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on April 25, 2014, 12:42:21 pm
-
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=747D22AD-C343-4DDD-B6DA-9EBDEA641081 (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=747D22AD-C343-4DDD-B6DA-9EBDEA641081)
Son: George H.W. Bush wants Jeb to run
By: Maggie Haberman
April 24, 2014 09:43 PM EDT
Barbara Bush may believe her son Jeb should pass on a 2016 bid because there have been enough Bushes in the White House already. But her husband, former President George H.W. Bush, disagrees and thinks Jeb should go for it.
So revealed Jeb’s younger brother, Neil Bush, in an interview with CNN on Thursday that shed additional light on the conflicting sentiments within the former first clan about another potential Bush presidential run. Neil Bush spoke about his father’s desire to see another son seek the White House and said Barbara Bush’s cautionary words won’t affect Jeb Bush’s decision.
The comments from Neil Bush came amid feverish speculation about what the former Florida governor will do and were among the most candid, on-the-record assessments from someone inside the close-knit family.
Neil Bush described the reaction from his family when his mom said ahead of an event at the George W. Bush presidential library in Texas that there had been “enough Bushes” in the White House.
“We’re sitting in the waiting room of the hotel waiting to go to the Bush library event, and mom said that, we were all watching Jeb standing over in the corner nervously, just, like, what’s your response to that?” Neil Bush, an investor, said. “But it’s not going to affect Jeb’s decision. If you ask dad, if you ask dad the same question, should Jeb run? He’d say yes.”
When CNN chief political analyst Gloria Borger asked if he’d asked his dad that, Neil Bush replied, “I’ve heard him answer that question.”
Neil Bush also insisted that the Bush “name and brand to me shouldn’t be a handicap.”
“So it’s not like it’s automatically a benefit to have a famous name, but it clearly gets Jeb off the starting blocks much quicker,” he said.
-
Me too.....if only for the entertainment. :whistle:
-
Two too many presidents have already come forth from Bush loins. Jeb might be better than the first two, but I'd just as soon he did not run.
-
Two too many presidents have already come forth from Bush loins. Jeb might be better than the first two, but I'd just as soon he did not run.
Running and being the Nominee of the Party are two different things to me. I would like to hear Jeb speak about the issues unfiltered.
He may just be that proverbial pony in that dirty stall we're all 'looking' for.
-
A lot of the rest of us don't.
-
Running and being the Nominee of the Party are two different things to me. I would like to hear Jeb speak about the issues unfiltered.
He may just be that proverbial pony in that dirty stall we're all 'looking' for.
Agreed.
-
I don't know. There wasn't any problem with a shitload of Kennedy's was there?
-
I don't know. There wasn't any problem with a shitload of Kennedy's was there?
There wasn't? There was as far as I am concerned!
-
There wasn't? There was as far as I am concerned!
Lamestreamers had Kennedygasms.
-
Lamestreamers had Kennedygasms.
Still do... **nononono*
-
Bush is the democrat's perfect candidate. He will alienate the Conservative base, repel the non-interventionist Republicans, and remind everyone of Bush II's fiascos. The last thing we need is another country-club Republican, promoting amnesty and bellowing out neocon propaganda.
-
Agreed.
Hillary agrees.
-
Bush is the democrat's perfect candidate. He will alienate the Conservative base, repel the non-interventionist Republicans, and remind everyone of Bush II's fiascos. The last thing we need is another country-club Republican, promoting amnesty and bellowing out neocon propaganda.
Well...to be frank, almost anyone with a chance at beating Hillary will alienate the alleged "conservative base". As for immigration reform, I'm not sure how that would be a negative for Bush in a general election. I do believe anyone who runs in 2016 will distance himself/herself from promotion of yet more foreign military adventures, regardless of what rhetoric they may be using today. Whether one might personally favor Bush or not, he is one of the few potential candidates who can appeal to moderates of both parties as well as various shades of independent. I doubt Hillary would like to see him in the Fall of 2016.
-
Well...to be frank, almost anyone with a chance at beating Hillary will alienate the alleged "conservative base". As for immigration reform, I'm not sure how that would be a negative for Bush in a general election. I do believe anyone who runs in 2016 will distance himself/herself from promotion of yet more foreign military adventures, regardless of what rhetoric they may be using today. Whether one might personally favor Bush or not, he is one of the few potential candidates who can appeal to moderates of both parties as well as various shades of independent. I doubt Hillary would like to see him in the Fall of 2016.
Any GOP candidate that enthusiastically endorses Immigration reform, better known as Amnesty, will cause many true Conservatives to vote third party or stay home. (What good are any of the Conservative issues if Amnesty is passed and a horde of democrat voters is subsequently assured to institute Marxism in the future?) Moderates in the party tend to be less enthusiastic than the ideologues and without the core enthused, look for a lackluster turnout. For independents, fair or unfair, the legacy of Bush II will shroud Bush III. Bush II remains a very unpopular President. Bush III will bear the neocon mantle as his brother did and likely will engage in neocon rhetoric, causing independent and especially youthful voters to vote democrat. Finally, many Americans abhor political dynasties, particularly when they come from privileged, elite families and the suitor obviously is not someone who pulled himself up by his boot straps. Combine an unenthusiastic base, a foreign policy repugnant to American voters, and the pathetic legacy shrouded upon him by his brother, and you have the quintessential candidate made for democrat victory.
-
Any GOP candidate that enthusiastically endorses Immigration reform, better known as Amnesty, will cause many true Conservatives to vote third party or stay home. (What good are any of the Conservative issues if Amnesty is passed and a horde of democrat voters is subsequently assured to institute Marxism in the future?) Moderates in the party tend to be less enthusiastic than the ideologues and without the core enthused, look for a lackluster turnout. For independents, fair or unfair, the legacy of Bush II will shroud Bush III. Bush II remains a very unpopular President. Bush III will bear the neocon mantle as his brother did and likely will engage in neocon rhetoric, causing independent and especially youthful voters to vote democrat. Finally, many Americans abhor political dynasties, particularly when they come from privileged, elite families and the suitor obviously is not someone who pulled himself up by his boot straps. Combine an unenthusiastic base, a foreign policy repugnant to American voters, and the pathetic legacy shrouded upon him by his brother, and you have the quintessential candidate made for democrat victory.
A few comments MBB. Please don't take this personally, but IMO, many "true conservatives" miss out on the essence of true conservatism, an ideology that spans over two centuries and survives despite repeated attempts to redefine it. Those who would vote third party or stay home and invite yet another leftist administration to lead our Nation because the GOP candidate hasn't signed enough pledges may be politically involved, but are hardly conservative.
To some, providing a path to legalization for even one illegal regardless of any other favorable provisions that would strengthen the borders, toughen up employer mandates, end chain migration, and revise other parts of the immigration law is simply unforgivable. To most Americans it makes perfect sense as almost every poll shows.
If you follow any of the liberal forums at all, you can see that for a long time, the liberal base has been unhappy with Obama, believing him to have given up on the issues of importance to them. Yet in the end, they stuck with him, just as they'll stick with Hillary even though they want someone more like themselves such as Pocahontas (Elizabeth Warren).
The time for ideologues to act is during the primary season. The time to come together is during the general election. I'm not suggesting that Jeb Bush is the ideal candidate. But he is one of only a handful I see right now that would give Hillary a run for her money.
The candidate whoever that is will and must disavow the neoconservatism that has dominated the GOP since the Cold War days. The combination of Obama's disastrous foreign policy, our misled, if well intentioned efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have soured most Americans on military adventures at least for a while. But we cannot pull back from the rest of the world and repeat the mistakes of the 1930s. That will be the foreign policy challenge for the candidates.
And finally, Americans may abhor political dynasties. They just don't vote like that going all the way back to Adams.
-
Running and being the Nominee of the Party are two different things to me. I would like to hear Jeb speak about the issues unfiltered.
He may just be that proverbial pony in that dirty stall we're all 'looking' for.
I believe that Jeb Bush has already said quite enough as it is. He really needs to STFU and disappear.
-
Bush is the democrat's perfect candidate. He will alienate the Conservative base, repel the non-interventionist Republicans, and remind everyone of Bush II's fiascos. The last thing we need is another country-club Republican, promoting amnesty and bellowing out neocon propaganda.
:thumbsup:
-
Well...to be frank, almost anyone with a chance at beating Hillary will alienate the alleged "conservative base". As for immigration reform, I'm not sure how that would be a negative for Bush in a general election. I do believe anyone who runs in 2016 will distance himself/herself from promotion of yet more foreign military adventures, regardless of what rhetoric they may be using today. Whether one might personally favor Bush or not, he is one of the few potential candidates who can appeal to moderates of both parties as well as various shades of independent. I doubt Hillary would like to see him in the Fall of 2016.
I don't think it's the conservative end of the GOP we need to worry about; I think it's the middle of the roaders, the so-called "independents", and the non-aligned moderates we need to worry about, and a lot of them are turned off by the thought of another Bush in the White House. For better or worse, many of them do not feel GWB did a very good job - a point that has merit to it - and they do feel that his administration was too gung-ho about getting us into Iraq and Afghanistan the way he did - with neo-con visions of nation-building - and also just do not like the idea of a dynastic presidency.
That is why I think Rand Paul deserves some consideration, if for no other reason than to cherry-pick from his playbook, because he does seem to be better at speaking to moderates, indies, and squishies who are disappointed in, and tired of, Obama and the top democrat leadership, but who are wary of republicans who seem to be fulfilling the democrats' worst description of republicans by being strident and anti- (anti-this, anti-that) without pausing to offer something positive that appeals to more than just the narrow base.
Honestly, I know that politicians generally try to keep their base pumped up for elections, which is generally done by pandering to the base; however, given the polarization in today's politics I don't think the core base of the GOP really needs to be coddled, seduced and pandered to; I think it's the, shall we say, non-traditional potential republicans - the non-aligned moderates - who have to be seduced this time around. Mind you, the base cannot simply be ignored, but the fact remains that for the 2014 and 2016 elections the traditional GOP base is not going to abandon the GOP en masse just because the wooing wasn't seductive enough. There are, certainly, conservatives who will sit on their hands this time around and in 2016 because the GOP's nominees won't be pure enough, but that group is relatively small and I think that most will hold their noses and vote for the GOP because they will ultimately realize that if they don't vote for the GOP they might as well have cast a vote for the DNC.
-
Well...to be frank, almost anyone with a chance at beating Hillary will alienate the alleged "conservative base". As for immigration reform, I'm not sure how that would be a negative for Bush in a general election. I do believe anyone who runs in 2016 will distance himself/herself from promotion of yet more foreign military adventures, regardless of what rhetoric they may be using today. Whether one might personally favor Bush or not, he is one of the few potential candidates who can appeal to moderates of both parties as well as various shades of independent. I doubt Hillary would like to see him in the Fall of 2016.
Ladies and gentlemen, presenting the logic that got us Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Like the logic of liberalism, it never dies in spite of the mountain of evidence against it.
-
Running and being the Nominee of the Party are two different things to me. I would like to hear Jeb speak about the issues unfiltered.
He may just be that proverbial pony in that dirty stall we're all 'looking' for.
Here are the questions about Jeb Bush that need to be answered by him: Is he the President best able and most willing to reverse our national course and return us to a Constitutional Republic with fiscal restraint? Is he the President most willing and able to return us to a position of international respect and power?
I'm pretty close to checking the "no" box for both questions. Proverbial ponies be damned.
-
A few comments MBB. Please don't take this personally, but IMO, many "true conservatives" miss out on the essence of true conservatism, an ideology that spans over two centuries and survives despite repeated attempts to redefine it. Those who would vote third party or stay home and invite yet another leftist administration to lead our Nation because the GOP candidate hasn't signed enough pledges may be politically involved, but are hardly conservative.
To some, providing a path to legalization for even one illegal regardless of any other favorable provisions that would strengthen the borders, toughen up employer mandates, end chain migration, and revise other parts of the immigration law is simply unforgivable. To most Americans it makes perfect sense as almost every poll shows.
If you follow any of the liberal forums at all, you can see that for a long time, the liberal base has been unhappy with Obama, believing him to have given up on the issues of importance to them. Yet in the end, they stuck with him, just as they'll stick with Hillary even though they want someone more like themselves such as Pocahontas (Elizabeth Warren).
The time for ideologues to act is during the primary season. The time to come together is during the general election. I'm not suggesting that Jeb Bush is the ideal candidate. But he is one of only a handful I see right now that would give Hillary a run for her money.
The candidate whoever that is will and must disavow the neoconservatism that has dominated the GOP since the Cold War days. The combination of Obama's disastrous foreign policy, our misled, if well intentioned efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have soured most Americans on military adventures at least for a while. But we cannot pull back from the rest of the world and repeat the mistakes of the 1930s. That will be the foreign policy challenge for the candidates.
And finally, Americans may abhor political dynasties. They just don't vote like that going all the way back to Adams.
I agree with the first part, but I have to disagree with the second. I do not believe that Jeb Bush could succeed against the democrat nominee in 2016. Romney is a good example. He was in many respects a really good nominee: he had fairly centrist views on many issues - after all, he did invent Romneycare in Massachusetts - he had already proven himself a capable executive as governor of that state, and he had the business and financial experience needed to start getting this country turned around - experience he had used to good effect in Massachusetts - and yet he lost to an Obama who was already looking rather thread-bare. Putting aside issues of electoral fraud and vote-stealing by democrats, I think he lost because, essentially, he wasn't able to reach out to the non-aligned moderates, many of whom rightly or wrongly felt that they were part of the "47%" Romney disparaged at that private meeting.
Jeb Bush suffers from similar issues.
-
Ladies and gentlemen, presenting the logic that got us Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Like the logic of liberalism, it never dies in spite of the mountain of evidence against it.
Which part, immigration reform or averting foreign military adventures?
-
Bush is the democrat's perfect candidate. He will alienate the Conservative base, repel the non-interventionist Republicans, and remind everyone of Bush II's fiascos. The last thing we need is another country-club Republican, promoting amnesty and bellowing out neocon propaganda.
goopo
There you have it, in a nutshell!
-
Any GOP candidate that enthusiastically endorses Immigration reform, better known as Amnesty, will cause many true Conservatives to vote third party or stay home. (What good are any of the Conservative issues if Amnesty is passed and a horde of democrat voters is subsequently assured to institute Marxism in the future?) Moderates in the party tend to be less enthusiastic than the ideologues and without the core enthused, look for a lackluster turnout. For independents, fair or unfair, the legacy of Bush II will shroud Bush III. Bush II remains a very unpopular President. Bush III will bear the neocon mantle as his brother did and likely will engage in neocon rhetoric, causing independent and especially youthful voters to vote democrat. Finally, many Americans abhor political dynasties, particularly when they come from privileged, elite families and the suitor obviously is not someone who pulled himself up by his boot straps. Combine an unenthusiastic base, a foreign policy repugnant to American voters, and the pathetic legacy shrouded upon him by his brother, and you have the quintessential candidate made for democrat victory.
That's right, if the GOPe pushes out another candidate that forces us to strain to see a dime's worth of difference from the opponent, we'll see the same results...
-
Ladies and gentlemen, presenting the logic that got us Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Like the logic of liberalism, it never dies in spite of the mountain of evidence against it.
Exactly and precisely.
-
Oceander wrote: "Jeb Bush suffers from similar issues."
I believe there are differences between Bush and Romney, looking back at the 2012 campaign. Romney was not able to distance himself from Obamacare for obvious reasons. The Obama campaign was very successful in painting Romney and his business experience as the 1% against the rest of us. Romney did make some blunders and gaffs especially after his successful first debate. Like McCain before him, he really didn't fight back well.
Should Bush win the nomination (obviously still a long shot), he would come across as a more personable and down-to-earth candidate than did Romney. Yes, his biggest downside is the Bush name, and maybe in the end that will be enough for him to forego a run.
But what the hell do I know. I liked Newt in 2012 **nononono*
-
Oceander wrote: "Honestly, I know that politicians generally try to keep their base pumped up for elections, which is generally done by pandering to the base; however, given the polarization in today's politics I don't think the core base of the GOP really needs to be coddled, seduced and pandered to; I think it's the, shall we say, non-traditional potential republicans - the non-aligned moderates - who have to be seduced this time around. Mind you, the base cannot simply be ignored, but the fact remains that for the 2014 and 2016 elections the traditional GOP base is not going to abandon the GOP en masse just because the wooing wasn't seductive enough. There are, certainly, conservatives who will sit on their hands this time around and in 2016 because the GOP's nominees won't be pure enough, but that group is relatively small and I think that most will hold their noses and vote for the GOP because they will ultimately realize that if they don't vote for the GOP they might as well have cast a vote for the DNC."
Wise words. And with the non-aligned, Paul will have some appeal. One of his problems is he has some history of saying things that get people shaking their heads. I'm not sure he's really thought out a realistic foreign policy yet, but he does have plenty of time. Sometimes he makes good sense, and sometimes he comes across like his dad. The libertarian wing will probably take to him quicker than other segments of the right.
-
Oceander wrote: "Jeb Bush suffers from similar issues."
I believe there are differences between Bush and Romney, looking back at the 2012 campaign. Romney was not able to distance himself from Obamacare for obvious reasons. The Obama campaign was very successful in painting Romney and his business experience as the 1% against the rest of us. Romney did make some blunders and gaffs especially after his successful first debate. Like McCain before him, he really didn't fight back well.
Should Bush win the nomination (obviously still a long shot), he would come across as a more personable and down-to-earth candidate than did Romney. Yes, his biggest downside is the Bush name, and maybe in the end that will be enough for him to forego a run.
But what the hell do I know. I liked Newt in 2012 **nononono*
you know a lot more than you sometimes give yourself credit for.
-
Oceander wrote: "Honestly, I know that politicians generally try to keep their base pumped up for elections, which is generally done by pandering to the base; however, given the polarization in today's politics I don't think the core base of the GOP really needs to be coddled, seduced and pandered to; I think it's the, shall we say, non-traditional potential republicans - the non-aligned moderates - who have to be seduced this time around. Mind you, the base cannot simply be ignored, but the fact remains that for the 2014 and 2016 elections the traditional GOP base is not going to abandon the GOP en masse just because the wooing wasn't seductive enough. There are, certainly, conservatives who will sit on their hands this time around and in 2016 because the GOP's nominees won't be pure enough, but that group is relatively small and I think that most will hold their noses and vote for the GOP because they will ultimately realize that if they don't vote for the GOP they might as well have cast a vote for the DNC."
Wise words. And with the non-aligned, Paul will have some appeal. One of his problems is he has some history of saying things that get people shaking their heads. I'm not sure he's really thought out a realistic foreign policy yet, but he does have plenty of time. Sometimes he makes good sense, and sometimes he comes across like his dad. The libertarian wing will probably take to him quicker than other segments of the right.
I agree. Rand has a lot of attractive characteristics, but he is also still a little green and could stand a little more aging, politically/philosophically speaking. That being said I think that there is a lot of potential there, I just hope that it doesn't get wasted.
-
you know a lot more than you sometimes give yourself credit for.
It's called tact. :laugh:
-
It's called tact. :laugh:
"Tacked"? I thought that was when the teacher sat down on a thumbtack some troublemaker put on his chair?
-
Which part, immigration reform or averting foreign military adventures?
The part about appealing to moderates. It is a deeply flawed logic. OPapaDoc completely understands that you need not appeal to moderates to win elections. What you must do is hold together the traditional GOP constituencies and bring new people into your sphere. For GWB the new people were apolitical evangelicals who believed in his story of personal salvation. At this point Jeb Bush has no such natural constituency, although there may be some potential for him with hispanics.
The one guy in the field who could be a game-changer is Rand Paul. He brings in young, left-leaning libertarians who now make up a significant part of the Dem base. The question is whether he can bring them in without antagonizing traditional conservatives. It is quite a tightrope, but so far Rand Paul seems to be traversing it. There is more common ground there than people imagine.
Personally, as far as positions on issues, i can live with Jeb Bush. But he represents the country club wing of the party and fair or not, that combined with his name make him not viable.
-
MAC wrote:
[[ Well...to be frank, almost anyone with a chance at beating Hillary will alienate the alleged "conservative base". ]]
OK I'm gonna call you out on this one.
Who among the potential pool of Pubbie candidates do you think -could- beat Hillary ??
And who do you think would be destined to lose from the get-go ??
Names ??
-
MBB1984 wrote above:
[[ Any GOP candidate that enthusiastically endorses Immigration reform, better known as Amnesty, will cause many true Conservatives to vote third party or stay home. ]]
I'm one of them.
I just don't feel like votin' for an "amnesty candidate". Not one of them.
Why help the hangman tie the noose with which to string you up?
I don't foresee this sentiment as changing before election day.
By the way, I will -never- vote for a democrat again. Never. Just so we're clear on that...
-
MBB1984 wrote above:
[[ Any GOP candidate that enthusiastically endorses Immigration reform, better known as Amnesty, will cause many true Conservatives to vote third party or stay home. ]]
I'm one of them.
I just don't feel like votin' for an "amnesty candidate". Not one of them.
Why help the hangman tie the noose with which to string you up?
I don't foresee this sentiment as changing before election day.
By the way, I will -never- vote for a democrat again. Never. Just so we're clear on that...
At this juncture, I am planning on supporting Governor Rick Perry in the 2016 Primary Season. I'm still hoping that General James Mattis will step up, too.
-
The part about appealing to moderates. It is a deeply flawed logic. OPapaDoc completely understands that you need not appeal to moderates to win elections. What you must do is hold together the traditional GOP constituencies and bring new people into your sphere. For GWB the new people were apolitical evangelicals who believed in his story of personal salvation. At this point Jeb Bush has no such natural constituency, although there may be some potential for him with hispanics.
The one guy in the field who could be a game-changer is Rand Paul. He brings in young, left-leaning libertarians who now make up a significant part of the Dem base. The question is whether he can bring them in without antagonizing traditional conservatives. It is quite a tightrope, but so far Rand Paul seems to be traversing it. There is more common ground there than people imagine.
Personally, as far as positions on issues, i can live with Jeb Bush. But he represents the country club wing of the party and fair or not, that combined with his name make him not viable.
While I agree with you that the winning party must hold together the base, I disagree about moderates and Obama. He won the self identified moderate vote by 60% to 40%, while Romney won over the independents, but still managed to lose the election, for obviously a number of reasons. People are kicking around Paul's name these days, and he's made it pretty obvious he'll be in the race. But as you say, he's walking a tightrope with issues. You simply can't be all things to all people.
If Bush does jump in, in spite of his mom's wishes, I would suggest it'll be in part to offer an alternative to Christie, who's got problems of his own.
-
MAC wrote:
[[ Well...to be frank, almost anyone with a chance at beating Hillary will alienate the alleged "conservative base". ]]
OK I'm gonna call you out on this one.
Who among the potential pool of Pubbie candidates do you think -could- beat Hillary ??
And who do you think would be destined to lose from the get-go ??
Names ??
Well obviously I've already named Jeb. If Christie didn't have some issues he has to get past in New Jersey he could beat her. Before Superstorm Sandy, he would have been a hands-down favorite to win both the nomination and the election. I also think both Walker and Paul have outside chances. Like it or not, personality with both would be an issue.
I think any of the also-rans in 2012 and Ted Cruz at this point have little to no chance. But I certainly admit that this early, no prediction is worth a pinch of salt. IIRC this time in 2006 Obama wasn't even on the long list.
-
While I agree with you that the winning party must hold together the base, I disagree about moderates and Obama. He won the self identified moderate vote by 60% to 40%, while Romney won over the independents, but still managed to lose the election, for obviously a number of reasons. People are kicking around Paul's name these days, and he's made it pretty obvious he'll be in the race. But as you say, he's walking a tightrope with issues. You simply can't be all things to all people.
If Bush does jump in, in spite of his mom's wishes, I would suggest it'll be in part to offer an alternative to Christie, who's got problems of his own.
In spite of "mom's" wishes? Don't believe that for single second.
-
While I agree with you that the winning party must hold together the base, I disagree about moderates and Obama. He won the self identified moderate vote by 60% to 40%, while Romney won over the independents, but still managed to lose the election, for obviously a number of reasons. People are kicking around Paul's name these days, and he's made it pretty obvious he'll be in the race. But as you say, he's walking a tightrope with issues. You simply can't be all things to all people.
If Bush does jump in, in spite of his mom's wishes, I would suggest it'll be in part to offer an alternative to Christie, who's got problems of his own.
Obama won the moderates, but he did not do so by APPEALING TO the moderates. He ran as a leftist, trusting that moderates would come along because of his authenticity. Given the polarization and marketing savvy of the electorate these days, there is no longer a significant "center." The great American middle class is disappearing. To win a plurality, a candidate has to stitch together a unique combination of constituency groups. The failures of McCain and Romney strongly suggest that the traditional coalition the GOP has always counted on can no longer win a national election. New votes have to come from somewhere.
Some people think we should pander for the Hispanic vote. The trouble with this strategy is that it is a quest for a minority within a minority. The GOP is never going to be popular with a majority of Hispanics.
On the other hand, there are enough swing votes out there in the anti-establishment libertarian movement that, if it could be combined with the traditional GOP-leaning core of the party, can swing the party back into a majority. And it's built on a more solid foundation, standing for personal liberty as opposed to handouts. And since it is youthful, it could be sustainable.
Now, many will claim that there simply is not enough common ground between the religious right and libertarians. But I think there might be so long as everyone feels their own freedom is at stake. Religious people feel they are under attack. Gays and lesbians feel they are under attack. Recreational drug users feel they are under attack. Small businessmen feel they are under attack. Doctors, lawyers, nurses, Realtors and especially working men and women feel they are under attack. If someone just came along and said "Live and Let Live" and was trusted, and not pressed too much on the details of what that might mean, it could win a national election.
Personally, I think Romney could be president today had he chosen Rand Paul as his running mate. Paul would have appealed to voters in OPapaDoc's center: the young, energetic, pierced and tatoo'd crowd that just wants its pot and Internet, and doesn't want to be hassled. Instead, he picked the safe choice, Paul Ryan, who could not even deliver Wisconsin.
You can't just keep thinking the same old way and expect a different result.
-
Obama won the moderates, but he did not do so by APPEALING TO the moderates. He ran as a leftist, trusting that moderates would come along because of his authenticity. Given the polarization and marketing savvy of the electorate these days, there is no longer a significant "center." The great American middle class is disappearing. To win a plurality, a candidate has to stitch together a unique combination of constituency groups. The failures of McCain and Romney strongly suggest that the traditional coalition the GOP has always counted on can no longer win a national election. New votes have to come from somewhere.
Some people think we should pander for the Hispanic vote. The trouble with this strategy is that it is a quest for a minority within a minority. The GOP is never going to be popular with a majority of Hispanics.
On the other hand, there are enough swing votes out there in the anti-establishment libertarian movement that, if it could be combined with the traditional GOP-leaning core of the party, can swing the party back into a majority. And it's built on a more solid foundation, standing for personal liberty as opposed to handouts. And since it is youthful, it could be sustainable.
Personally, I think Romney would be president today had he chosen Rand Paul as his running mate. Paul would have represented an attack on OPapaDoc's center: the young, energetic, pierced and tatoo'd crowd that just wants its pot and Internet, and doesn't want to be hassled. Instead, he picked the safe choice, Paul Ryan, who could not even deliver Wisconsin.
You can't just keep thinking the same old way and expect a different result.
You paint an interesting scenario Mass. I wouldn't call recognizing that the Hispanic vote could carry an election pandering. Almost every plank in a platform could be described as pandering to various ideological segments of the GOP. GWB was able to put together 44% of the Hispanic vote which shows they are less committed to the left than are blacks.
But if you look at the campaign to kill off immigration reform in 2007, you will see that it was far more of an attack on Latinos as a group than it was the illegals. That is what Hispanics saw, and how they view the GOP today. Organizations like Numbers USA and The Center for Immigration Studies were instrumental in creating enough stories to scare hell out of the senators who ultimately held together the filibuster. I won't dwell on this issue, but Jeb Bush's support for a reasonable and balanced immigration reform plan combined with his ability to reach out and communicate with the Latino community would at least turn around that segment for the GOP.
One thing in your scenario that could be an issue is that libertarians and those leaning libertarian, especially from the left side of the aisle will have a lot of difficulty in seeing much common ground with some segments of the GOP base. But again, it's an interesting proposition.
-
You paint an interesting scenario Mass. I wouldn't call recognizing that the Hispanic vote could carry an election pandering. Almost every plank in a platform could be described as pandering to various ideological segments of the GOP. GWB was able to put together 44% of the Hispanic vote which shows they are less committed to the left than are blacks.
But if you look at the campaign to kill off immigration reform in 2007, you will see that it was far more of an attack on Latinos as a group than it was the illegals. That is what Hispanics saw, and how they view the GOP today. Organizations like Numbers USA and The Center for Immigration Studies were instrumental in creating enough stories to scare hell out of the senators who ultimately held together the filibuster. I won't dwell on this issue, but Jeb Bush's support for a reasonable and balanced immigration reform plan combined with his ability to reach out and communicate with the Latino community would at least turn around that segment for the GOP.
One thing in your scenario that could be an issue is that libertarians and those leaning libertarian, especially from the left side of the aisle will have a lot of difficulty in seeing much common ground with some segments of the GOP base. But again, it's an interesting proposition.
Personally, I have no problem with immigration reform. But a significant portion of the GOP base does, and we are at the point where the rubber meets the road on this issue. GWB was able to finesse the issue. But today, not even a red state conservative like Rick Perry can get away with appearing to be soft on illegal immigration.
I also don't like the pandering aspect of every immigration proposal. It's one thing to allow people to stay and work, it's another to make them eligible for public assistance and citizenship. All of the proposals that have come forward so far have a price tag and advance our country further toward socialism.
The middle ground on immigration is freedom. Come here and be free, like the rest of us. But don't expect a handout. This is Rand Paul's position, but he frames it in a way that is very palatable to the conservative base.
That aside, if Jeb Bush or anyone else would just say "screw you" to the anti-amnesty crowd I'd have a lot more respect for them. Instead, they say something that's pro-amnesty and then walk it back time after time. It's typical moderate BS, and the public recognizes that.
-
Personally, I have no problem with immigration reform. But a significant portion of the GOP base does, and we are at the point where the rubber meets the road on this issue. GWB was able to finesse the issue. But today, not even a red state conservative like Rick Perry can get away with appearing to be soft on illegal immigration.
I also don't like the pandering aspect of every immigration proposal. It's one thing to allow people to stay and work, it's another to make them eligible for public assistance and citizenship. All of the proposals that have come forward so far have a price tag and advance our country further toward socialism.
The middle ground on immigration is freedom. Come here and be free, like the rest of us. But don't expect a handout.
That aside, if Jeb Bush or anyone else would just say "screw you" to the anti-amnesty crowd I'd have a lot more respect for them. Instead, they say something that's pro-amnesty and then walk it back time after time. It's typical moderate BS, and the public recognizes that.
There's no doubt that immigration reform will play a role in 2016, and yet may be totally ignored in 2014. But as long as the reform opposition can reduce an extremely complex proposition to one word--"amnesty", they can and will use that to strike fear in candidates.
I agree with you completely on the handout issue. It's one reason I supported the failed bill from 2007. The successful pathway to legalization included a provision that no form of welfare could be used. Any bill coming out on immigration would have to contain a similar measure. Failure of the illegal to continue working would remove his provisional status.
I'm not sure where Perry comes down these days on the issue. Everyone knows that nobody is going to seriously try to deport eleven million illegals, and by now it should be obvious that the employee tightening that has been done hasn't seen them scurrying back home. So doing nothing may be the final answer for candidates who don't want to stand up and be counted. But letting it continue to fester isn't a conservative approach and certainly won't turn Hispanics back toward the GOP.