Are you ready for Bush 2016?

posted at 8:16 pm on November 23, 2012 by Allahpundit

I sure am. Nothing says “new, young, vibrant GOP” like nominating George W. Bush’s 60-something-year-old brother, who’ll have held no political office for nearly 10 years by election day 2016.

Try to wrap your mind around the fact that, if you had to give odds right this minute, the likeliest presidential match-up four years from now would be a second Bush/Clinton election. That’s what this country and its perverse tolerance of dynastic politics has come to. If that’s where we’re headed, I at least want some honesty from the candidates and the public about what we’re doing. Step one: Repeal the Title of Nobility Clause in Article I and make Jeb and Hillary a duke and duchess, respectively. That’ll help tidy things up for Chelsea and George P. Bush in preparation for the inevitable Bush/Clinton III contest in 2036. Step two: I want a Kennedy on the ticket as Hillary’s VP and maybe Ben Quayle or one of the Romney boys (take your pick) as Jeb’s number two. Let’s really own what we’re doing here. Simple proposition: From now on, no one is eligible to run for president unless he/she is related by blood or marriage to someone who already has.

When former President Bill Clinton rolled through here while campaigning for President Obama, he speculated about Mr. Bush’s intentions with Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist and friend of Mr. Bush. It was no idle topic for Mr. Clinton, given the possibility that his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, could seek the Democratic nomination.

When Senator Marco Rubio of Florida held a strategy session here to discuss his own political future last week, the question of Mr. Bush, a mentor, hung over the room; a decision by Mr. Bush, 59, to seek the Republican nomination would almost certainly halt any plans by Mr. Rubio, 41, to do so or abruptly set off a new intraparty feud.

Mr. Bush is said by friends to be weighing financial and family considerations — between so many years in office and the recession his wealth took a dip, they said, and he has been working hard to restore it — as well as the complicated place within the Republican Party of the Bush brand. Asked this week about whether his father would run, Jeb Bush Jr. told CNN, “I certainly hope so.”…

Still, calls for Jeb Bush to enter the arena in a bigger way represent vindication of a sort. His family’s longstanding advocacy for a more broad-based and “compassionate” Republican Party was largely ignored and eventually repudiated by the populist, small-government conservatives who held sway over the party after Mr. Obama’s election.

Enthusiasm for a Jeb candidacy boils down to two things, the belief that public dissatisfaction with Dubya will have faded by 2016 and the idea that Jeb, almost uniquely, can help win back Latinos to the GOP. On the first point, here’s a memorable data point from this year’s national exit poll:

The financial crisis left a long, lingering stain on Dubya’s economic record, sufficiently so that it may have effectively neutralized Romney’s attacks on Obama over jobs. That might fade a bit in time — or, if the economy finally rebounds in O’s second term, the recovery might make Bush’s record look even uglier by contrast. A Bush lost once before to a Clinton because of the economy; imagine Bill out there making the case that electing Hillary will guarantee 90s-era prosperity while Jeb is out there making the case that electing him won’t result in late 00s-era crisis and panic. Which pitch sounds stronger?

As for Jeb’s pull with Latino voters, it’s true that he did well with them during his runs for governor. But part of his appeal is his support for immigration reform, and congressional Republicans will already have made a deal on that before 2016. If a conservative as usually stalwart as Krauthammer is ready to wave the white flag on amnesty in hopes of capturing a few more Latino votes next election, there must be 25 or so centrist Republicans in the House willing to follow suit. At a bare minimum, there’ll be some sort of DREAM Act passed with GOP cooperation and maybe comprehensive immigration reform too depending upon how hard Obama’s willing to push for it. (He was promising in late October to get comprehensive reform done this year.) If it happens, what’s left of Jeb’s big selling point in 2016? He can run on his biography, i.e. the fact that his wife is Mexican and therefore he understands the Latino experience in America better than most politicians of either party. But of course that’s also true of Rubio. And Rubio, unlike Jeb, might be in a position to actually cast a vote on immigration reform this year.

One more thing about the Latino vote in 2016. Lost in all the breathless reports about how badly Romney lost that demographic to Obama is the fact that Obama didn’t do well with Latino Democrats when he first ran for president in 2008. In fact, in most states, he was roundly crushed by Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee in 2016. Bill Clinton was also tremendously popular with Latino voters, destroying Bob Dole in 1996 by 51 points. You can parse that result in two ways. One: The fact that the Democrats might have a nominee who’s unusually strong among Latinos means the GOP must nominate Jeb or Rubio or someone with some sort of unique outreach to that demographic. Or two: The fact that the Clintons are so strong means that any special biographical appeal brought to bear by Jeb or Rubio will be neutralized, making one of their biggest selling points maybe not so big. No way of knowing how the math on that shakes out without seeing multiple polls, but I agree with other analysts who say that it’s foolish to think Latinos are single-issue voters. They vote like everyone else, based on the economic, social, and foreign policies that they prefer. (I.e. mostly Democratic.) That being so, are we sure a guy named “Bush” would have any more appeal to them than he would to the rest of the electorate that has less-than-fond memories of Dubya’s second term? I’m not convinced.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 7

It represent a latent form of monarchism- a belief that society’s established wealth and political classes are the best equipped to solve this country’s problems. Those lobbying for the abolishment of estate taxes seem to carry a similar set of beliefs.
bayam on November 23, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Because the socialist State is best able to decide who should get what when parents die and the spoils are to be divvied up.

Now if the parents decided to leave their wealth to the chilren of those who better deserve it instead of their own children, that would be different. But they do not, and so the socialist State must step in, in the interest of fairness and “social justice”.

Does your will leave all of your estate to the State? If not, why not?

farsighted on November 23, 2012 at 9:35 PM

F*** NO F*** NO F*** NO F*** NO F*** NO F*** NO F*** NO

M240H on November 23, 2012 at 9:36 PM

GOP would have been better off if Gore had won in 2000. That probably would have meant no Obama, no GOP slide into a spending frenzy in the 2000s, no Iraq, and today the GOP and conservatives would be in power, using the Gore years to bash the democrats, over and over again.

William Eaton on November 23, 2012 at 9:32 PM

While the Gore administration would have continued to plead with the Afghanis to hand over Bin Laden and stop the training of the terrorists attacking the US. Had Gore won, IMO, we would have had many more terrorist attacks both around the world and on our own soil. He would have told us how this was just the way the new world order was going to be.

However, the GOP in the Congress might have had a bit more spine.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Oh, hell no.

The Rogue Tomato on November 23, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Your perfect candidate will never exist.

Basilsbest on November 23, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Yours did, and he lost when we were told he was going to steamroll Obama. The last thing we need is the Basilsbests of the world telling us how to win.

ddrintn on November 23, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Hell No.

Theophile on November 23, 2012 at 9:38 PM

the Republicant’s… and their fatal Will to Fail:

http://youtu.be/MI5Z9B7dki4

mittens on November 23, 2012 at 9:40 PM

“You’ve gotta get behind Jeb or the Commies will win!!!!”

ddrintn on November 23, 2012 at 9:33 PM

You can LOL all you want. The problem is, that if the dems put another fascist or commie on the ticket, then it will come down to a selection of stupid or dictator. I don’t know about you, but I’ll take stupid over tyranny any day, YMMV of course. I’m sure you are celebrating the fact that Romney was defeated and that Obama has another four years to destroy the country.

However, this needs to be nipped in the bud right now.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 9:41 PM

I won’t vote Prez if it’s Jeb or I’ll vote Liberterian. I pulled out the stops for Romney, but I’ll draw the line at a FOURTH Bush term.

earlgrey133 on November 23, 2012 at 9:41 PM

You can LOL all you want. The problem is, that if the dems put another fascist or commie on the ticket, then it will come down to a selection of stupid or dictator.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 9:41 PM

And as usual, Dem will win over Dem Lite. You can talk about how this evil is lesser than that one all you want. Those days are over.

ddrintn on November 23, 2012 at 9:42 PM

The GOP elitists must not get out much or even read. I’m sure this was posted here already but it’s still up at Ace’s.

No, The Hispanic Vote Didn’t Cost Romney The Victory

Via Byron York, they weren’t even close to being the decisive factor.

And how many other articles have been written shooting down that ridiculous theory that hispanics are “natural republicans.” These inherently socialist Mexicans are not going to vote for anyone with an R by their name. They’ll go with S.C. every time (Santa Claus, not South Carolina). But go ahead and screw the base again and let’s see what happens.

TxAnn56 on November 23, 2012 at 9:43 PM

It doesn’t matter…Jose’Calderon..Jeb Bush whatever..America is gone. We’re just a multi-national owned subsidiary headed for racial dissolution. There has never been an evenly racial mixed nation. Empires yes. Nations no. And empires dissolve along ethnic lines.

bluesdoc70 on November 23, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Those days are over.

ddrintn on November 23, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Like I said, you are celebrating that the communist won another four years. Yeah, Romney was not a great candidate, but compared to willful destruction, the choice was a no-brainer. /oh, sorry about that

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 9:44 PM

No No No No No and No. Period. Seriously, NO.

ghostwalker1 on November 23, 2012 at 9:45 PM

While the Gore administration would have continued to plead with the Afghanis to hand over Bin Laden and stop the training of the terrorists attacking the US. Had Gore won, IMO, we would have had many more terrorist attacks both around the world and on our own soil. He would have told us how this was just the way the new world order was going to be.

However, the GOP in the Congress might have had a bit more spine.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 9:37 PM

And Gore and the Democrats would have taken the blame, like Carter did, which lead to 12 years of GOP presidents in the White House.

Buchanan created Lincoln…
Hoover created FDR…
Carter created Reagan…
Bush created Obama…

A real or perceived bad president can damage his political party for a long time doing more harm than the opposition could ever have accomplished by themselves.

William Eaton on November 23, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Like I said, you are celebrating that the communist won another four years. Yeah, Romney was not a great candidate, but compared to willful destruction, the choice was a no-brainer. /oh, sorry about that

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 9:44 PM

I’m not celebrating anything. Just marveling at the lunacy of people who seem to think you can do the same thing over and over again and expect a different outcome.

Now tell me, what difference would a Romney win have REALLY made? Be specific. ObamaCare repeal? LOL. The only thing is that at least there might not have been as many moonbat SC picks. But then John Roberts was no moonbat pick, was he? Nah.

ddrintn on November 23, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Why even discuss a Republican president? Thanks to Jeb and other open-borders advocates, there will never be another Republican President. One minute after Obama (and Boehner, McConnel, Rove, etc.) get their amnesty passed, Texas and Florida are gone to the democrats forever. You can’t get to 271 if you spot the democrats 250.

Alabama Infidel on November 23, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Good point. The Dems are working hard to try and turn Texas purple and eventually blue. If that happens, the GOP will never again win a national election – and we will have one-party rule.

TarheelBen on November 23, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Can you imagine the fighting at the black fridays of the future when
it’s not over toys and crap but food, water, fuel, etc. Now that will get some ratings.

rik on November 23, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Jeb Bush running for president will be a great way to inspire unity among the notoriously hard-to-unify conservative grassroots. Hell, it’s probably a great way to make a Palin candidacy both likely and plausible to succeed.

Robert_Paulson on November 23, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Reagan’s greatest mistake (and it was a doozy) was letting in these attenuated Connecticut Hapsburgs from the fringes of public service to the White House. Sometimes politics amazes me. That is, how a Bush ever won any national office amazes me. I never saw the appeal. But in time, I saw the danger. George W. Bush did more to demilitarize conservatism and even masochistically condition it to abuse by the Left than even a crew of skilled fifth columnists could have hoped to achieve.

But in a way, I’m not sure I care. Let it burn. Something better has to rise from the ashes.

rrpjr on November 23, 2012 at 9:52 PM

2016 will be the year of the Third Party candidate! Hopefully, at least one, or a few good candidates will announce their bids early in 2013 – and run a full 3.5 year campaign against the democrat party.

Can you hear me Sarah? >>>——-> I’m talking to you!

Announce early and give us something / someone to fight for!

Pork-Chop on November 23, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Reagan’s greatest mistake (and it was a doozy) was letting in these attenuated Connecticut Hapsburgs from the fringes of public service to the White House.

rrpjr on November 23, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Hear, hear!!!!! The elder Bush paved the way for two terms of Bill Clinton, and we’ve never been the same since. In a lot of ways H. W. Bush was more damaging than Nixon.

ddrintn on November 23, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Now tell me, what difference would a Romney win have REALLY made? Be specific. ObamaCare repeal? LOL. The only thing is that at least there might not have been as many moonbat SC picks. But then John Roberts was no moonbat pick, was he? Nah.

ddrintn on November 23, 2012 at 9:48 PM

ObamaCare repeal? Some chance. Now? No chance. In my world some chance > 0 chance. As I said, YMMV

EPA regulations strangling energy production: Now? Will continue apace, enjoy your skyrocketing electric rates and the coming grid unreliability as large coal plants are taken off line and not replaced. With Romney? Would have been reigned in.

Offshore drilling? Some chance. Now? No chance

Industry killing regulations? Would have been reigned in. Now? You ain’t seen nothing yet.

Tax increases? Now guaranteed.

Yeah, Romney would have been just as bad. Comfort yourself in the dark and cold as you think that.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 9:55 PM

“Let’s really own what we’re doing here…”

Our political system is inherently corrupt and broken…

… and any “change” is fought against fiercely by the political elite ruling class and their buddies in the media.

No doubt Obowma’s “New America” will bring this fight to the streets…

… I say bring it!

The sooner, the better…

Seven Percent Solution on November 23, 2012 at 9:55 PM

ObamaCare repeal? Some chance.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 9:55 PM

No. NO chance either way, and you know it.

As for the rest, Romney was going to push all that through against the will of most of Congress? LOL Delusional. If Romney had squeaked through he wouldn’t have been riding any way, and he was going to do just what the GOPe would have told him to do. Nothing more.

ddrintn on November 23, 2012 at 9:57 PM

* riding any wave, that is

ddrintn on November 23, 2012 at 9:58 PM

ddrintn on November 23, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Fine. Have it your way. We were doomed regardless of who won. BTW, some of those things I listed were executive regulatory actions not requiring Romney to have to fight the democrat Senate, so they could and would very likely have happened.

So why don’t you just go away now in gloom and despair and watch the country come down around you. You can then jump with joy saying you told us so while some of us are trying to slow the destruction. May Obama’s destructive policies affect you first as this seems to be your desire and what you sought to have happen this election cycle.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 10:05 PM

no

ladyingray on November 23, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Bush/Rockefeller ’16!

Punchenko on November 23, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Bush might do better with Hispanics than Romney.

TarheelBen on November 23, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Republicans will be better off as soon as they learn that people from failed socialist countries south of the border are never going to vote republican. John McCain sucked up to hispanics more than any person in the free world but they still voted for Mr. Redistribution. Hell, we can’t even get the fu*king asians to vote for us. I guess it comes down to free stuff and chain migration with them too?

It’s time to go full bore Conservative. Reagan was not a hard-core conservative as most believe, but he didn’t speak to or of “groups”. He spoke to “Americans”. And it can work again.

But then again, if we can’t hold off the amnesty until get can get an American-loving President, it’s all lost anyway.

Alabama Infidel on November 23, 2012 at 10:10 PM

ObamaCare repeal? Some chance. Now? No chance. In my world some chance > 0 chance. As I said, YMMV

EPA regulations strangling energy production: Now? Will continue apace, enjoy your skyrocketing electric rates and the coming grid unreliability as large coal plants are taken off line and not replaced. With Romney? Would have been reigned in.

Offshore drilling? Some chance. Now? No chance

Industry killing regulations? Would have been reigned in. Now? You ain’t seen nothing yet.

Tax increases? Now guaranteed.

Yeah, Romney would have been just as bad. Comfort yourself in the dark and cold as you think that.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Do you know Romney’s history?

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the CO2 caps, shutting down coal plants?

“I don’t think that now is the time, and I’m not sure there will be the right time, for us to encourage the use of more gasoline,” – Mitt Romney

“I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that.”
- Mitt Romney

“I think what the United States has to do is make it very clear to the people of Egypt that we stand with the voices of democracy and freedom and we also have to communicate — I think as the administration has,” – Mitt Romney

Smith: Do you have any regrets now about signing Massachusetts’ version of health-care reform into law?

Romney: I am proud of what we accomplished. It was a step forward. It’s not perfect, but it’s a lot better than what we had before.

sharrukin on November 23, 2012 at 10:10 PM

I think not…or maybe it’s the GOP that’s not thinking.

HellCat on November 23, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Good point. The Dems are working hard to try and turn Texas purple and eventually blue. If that happens, the GOP will never again win a national election – and we will have one-party rule.

TarheelBen on November 23, 2012 at 9:49 PM

I’ve been beating that horse for years. People automatically think deep red when they think of Texas. Compare the county by county map for president over the past couple of elections and the deep red is turning pink. The valley to El Paso is almost all blue along with Dallas, Houston and San Antonio. Fort Bend County outside of Houston was a solid red county years ago but went 52/48 for Romney. That’s because we have a huge influx of legal third worlders (Indians, Muslims, Orientals, etc.) who also vote Democratic. But apparently, Jeb and those of his ilk want to turn it blue a lot faster with amnesty and increased legal immigration. Death by a thousand cuts.

TxAnn56 on November 23, 2012 at 10:15 PM

sharrukin on November 23, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Yes, I know his history. I also know that he was pragmatic enough to know that what was being done at the national level was killing the economy.

No I was not a Romney fan before he was nominated. I do however know that he would have been better than Obama. As it is now, it will be an interesting four years; hopefully some remnant of our Republic survives. I have my doubts right now.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 10:15 PM

I’ll vote Democrat if a Bush runs again.

And that’s even if Buraq decides to go for a third term like Bloombrain. I’d even donate to his campaign.

sartana on November 23, 2012 at 10:17 PM

If they push Jeb out onto the stage me thinks Palin will run with a vengeance against the permanent political class, besides I hope she runs anyway because she ain’t ascared of rino’s.

tim c on November 23, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Boy..they’re starting early with discouraging voters to get involved in the next election.
I wonder why that is??

Mimzey on November 23, 2012 at 10:18 PM

We’ve always had an *unofficial* aristocracy. It must drive Barry nuts that he has to answer to them. :-)

Punchenko on November 23, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Oh what the hell…lets run old man Bush for Prez and GW for vice Prez!

Why not eh’?

Mimzey on November 23, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Yes, I know his history. I also know that he was pragmatic enough to know that what was being done at the national level was killing the economy.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Or maybe he was just pragmatic enough to talk about being ‘severely conservative’ so that the conservative base would vote for him?

He has taken numerous stances on many issues when that was convenient for his political aspirations, and it strains credibility to believe that this…yes, this time, he really meant it!

Look at what the man has done, rather than what he says he will do.

“I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past…” – Patrick Henry

sharrukin on November 23, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Way back when there were folks saying the most likely matchup of ’08 was Rice/Clinton. Even after Rice was off the docket, there were people on this site saying it was inevitable that Clinton would win, followed by Jeb Bush (making the pattern of history Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush). That may not have been entirely serious, but it still illustrates something: we don’t actually know that much this far out. Just relax. Everything’s going to be alright.

OneGyT on November 23, 2012 at 10:23 PM

It’s time to go full bore Conservative. Reagan was not a hard-core conservative as most believe, but he didn’t speak to or of “groups”. He spoke to “Americans”. And it can work again.

Alabama Infidel on November 23, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Reagan was also an alpha male with a good middle class background that added to his appeal.

I hope we finally learned our lesson about running rich northeastern beta males who attended Harvard by way of Andover.

Punchenko on November 23, 2012 at 10:25 PM

If they push Jeb out onto the stage me thinks Palin will run with a vengeance against the permanent political class, besides I hope she runs anyway because she ain’t ascared of rino’s.

tim c on November 23, 2012 at 10:18 PM

I hope Palin doesn’t run. She had to have figured out that running in 2012 wasn’t in her best interest. That won’t change between now and 2016.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 10:25 PM

I’ll vote Democrat if a Bush runs again.

And that’s even if Buraq decides to go for a third term like Bloombrain. I’d even donate to his campaign.

sartana on November 23, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Oh, that changes everything.

Basilsbest on November 23, 2012 at 10:26 PM

It’s time to go full bore Conservative. Reagan was not a hard-core conservative as most believe, but he didn’t speak to or of “groups”. He spoke to “Americans”. And it can work again.

Alabama Infidel on November 23, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Sorry, Butch. That’s not why Reagan won big and won bigger the second time. Romney spoke to “Americans” too. He took pains to not be divisive, and all but pleaded with the American electorate to believe he was some kind of “severe conservative.” And he still lost.

No, Reagan believed in the vision he was peddling. Romney clearly did not. It’s just that simple.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 10:28 PM

sharrukin on November 23, 2012 at 10:22 PM

As I said, I thought Romney was a bad choice, but he was the choice. The other choice was Obama. Romney had some chance of doing what was right since he was also going to be facing re-election or a primary in 2016.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 10:28 PM

If they push Jeb out onto the stage me thinks Palin will run with a vengeance against the permanent political class, besides I hope she runs anyway because she ain’t ascared of rino’s.
tim c on November 23, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Sarah Palin, who quit her job as governor before even completing a single term in office, is old news and would implode faster than both Herman Cain and Rick Perry did. She is never going to run because she knows there is no chance that she could withstand the pressures of a long campaign. Heck, she can’t even manage to appear for one-minute-long television interviews outside of her friendly Fox News Channel confines. Besides, I don’t think voters would flock to an incompetent candidate like her.

Pence, Jindal, McDonnell, Walker and Nikki Hayley all seem interesting. I would also like to see Paul Ryan in there.

bluegill on November 23, 2012 at 10:31 PM

As I said, I thought Romney was a bad choice, but he was the choice. The other choice was Obama. Romney had some chance of doing what was right since he was also going to be facing re-election or a primary in 2016.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Dude! Romney lost! And I might also add that he lost despite getting my vote. I can’t have been the only Romney voter who swallowed his pride and pulled the lever for Mittwit, but I did — AND HE STILL LOST. Now, care to ask yourself why he lost? If you’re going to stumble upon what really went wrong, you’ll have to ignore the MSM bullshit along with most of the dextro-blogosphere.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 10:31 PM

No, Reagan believed in the vision he was peddling. Romney clearly did not. It’s just that simple.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Yep. Even as a candidate, Romney was pragmatic. That comes across as wishy-washy. Too bad that wasn’t taken care of in the primaries instead of the general.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Pence, Jindal, McDonnell, Walker and Nikki Hayley all seem interesting. I would also like to see Paul Ryan in there.

bluegill on November 23, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Pence, Jindal, McDonnell, Walker, and Hayley will all disappoint just as Eric Cantor, John Boehner, and the other erstwhile “rising stars” of the GOP have.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Reagan was also an alpha male with a good middle class background that added to his appeal.
Punchenko on November 23, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Rick Perry had those vibes. I don’t know why he didn’t catch fire. I can’t believe a stupid debate can so easily kill off a candidate.

Alabama Infidel on November 23, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Nonononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononono
nonononoonononononononononononononononononononononononononononononon
onononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononon
onononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononono
nonononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononon
ononononononononononononononononononono.

and NO!

98ZJUSMC on November 23, 2012 at 10:33 PM

M240H on November 23, 2012 at 9:36 PM

with you there

conservative tarheel on November 23, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Yep. Even as a candidate, Romney was pragmatic. That comes across as wishy-washy. Too bad that wasn’t taken care of in the primaries instead of the general.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Reagan was pragmatic. Romney had to run against his record in Mass-uh-chew-sits. Conventional wisdom said it shouldn’t have mattered. Well, Ladies and Gentlemen, here’s your “conventional wisdom.”

Ptooey!

PBBBBBBBBT!

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 10:34 PM

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 10:31 PM

I think we are in violent agreement there. My responses have been to one of the paulbots or ABR’s who keeps insisting that it was OK that Obama won since Romney wouldn’t have been any different. I vehemently disagree with that.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 10:34 PM

America, stay out the Bushes!

~~ (the Reverend) Jesse Jackson

RedPepper on November 23, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Dude! Romney lost! And I might also add that he lost despite getting my vote. I can’t have been the only Romney voter who swallowed his pride and pulled the lever for Mittwit, but I did — AND HE STILL LOST. Now, care to ask yourself why he lost? If you’re going to stumble upon what really went wrong, you’ll have to ignore the MSM bullshit along with most of the dextro-blogosphere.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 10:31 PM

I also pulled the lever for him ….

conservative tarheel on November 23, 2012 at 10:35 PM

First, Romney would not have won a single extra state if Romney would have gotten 40% of the Hispanic vote in every state. NONE! And he would have lost to Obama over all even if Romney had won 60% of the Hispanic vote. The Latino’s had little impact on this election.

Second, its cool to see somebody admit Jeb Bush is Marco Rubio’s mentor. I have saying this over and over. The only difference between Rubio and Bush is that Marco is younger, tanner, and has a different last name. Which I guess makes him more electable.

If you like Jeb, you will love Marco. They agree on pretty much every issue. Marco is the establishment. He has never gone against the establishment. Just understand what you are getting.

KMav on November 23, 2012 at 10:35 PM

If you like Jeb, you will love Marco. They agree on pretty much every issue. Marco is the establishment. He has never gone against the establishment. Just understand what you are getting.

KMav on November 23, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Didn’t he run against Charlie Crist, the orange chameleon, despite the establishment’s support of Crist?

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Rick Perry had those vibes. I don’t know why he didn’t catch fire. I can’t believe a stupid debate can so easily kill off a candidate.
Alabama Infidel on November 23, 2012 at 10:33 PM

It wasn’t just one debate that finished off Rick Perry. Rick Perry exposed himself to be an incompetent doofus every time he opened his mouth. Rick Perry the presidential candidate was an absolute clownish train wreck. He couldn’t even get 0.5% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary. Dare say it, he was worse than Palin, but just by a hair. They are the Democrat Party’s dream candidates in order to try to portray the GOP as the “dumb party.”

bluegill on November 23, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Like I said, you are celebrating that the communist won another four years. Yeah, Romney was not a great candidate, but compared to willful destruction, the choice was a no-brainer. /oh, sorry about that

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Anyone with an IQ pushing double digits should have known that.

98ZJUSMC on November 23, 2012 at 10:39 PM

bluegill on November 23, 2012 at 10:38 PM

and romney STILL lost …
taking advice from you politically
is like taking batting lessons from the stikeout king

conservative tarheel on November 23, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Didn’t he run against Charlie Crist, the orange chameleon, despite the establishment’s support of Crist?

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 10:37 PM

The establishment did not really support Charlie Crist. Jeb Bush cannot stand Charlie Crist. He wanted his guy Rubio to oust Crist to end Crist’s power. And the Bush’s are the establishment of the Republican party.

Show me how the establishment supported Charlie Crist?

KMav on November 23, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Dare say it, he was worse than Palin, but just by a hair. They are the Democrat Party’s dream candidates in order to try to portray the GOP as the “dumb party.”

bluegill on November 23, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Tell us again how great your chosen candidate was? Be sure to tell us how he was the only one who was electable? Yeah, thanks for pushing the GOP establishment and MSM chosen candidate on us. It worked so well. Twice now in a row. Add in Dole/Kemp to that as well.

/Let’s just say you don’t have a great track record. We may have held our noses and voted for the Republican candidates, but they weren’t the “electable” ones you promised. Your credibility is kind of low at this point.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 10:43 PM

My responses have been to one of the paulbots or ABR’s who keeps insisting that it was OK that Obama won since Romney wouldn’t have been any different. I vehemently disagree with that.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 10:34 PM

I sorry if I seem agitated. God knows I am. But why argue about whether Romney or Obama “would have been worse?” It doesn’t matter anymore. It’s settled. We get four more years of Obama. And quite frankly it pisses me off that so many seem to be so far from the real, most important reason that it happened this way.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 10:44 PM

no

ladyingray on November 23, 2012 at 10:05 PM

What she said.

wolfsDad on November 23, 2012 at 10:44 PM

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Certainly understand where you are coming from. I wake up every day and can’t believe that the dumb masses re-elected the Jugeared Keynesian for another four years. I now know how my grandparents and great grandparents felt when the idiots around them kept re-electing FDR despite the fact that the Depression was not getting any better.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 10:48 PM

If we’re really serious about Dynasty Politics, let’s not overlook Margaret Hoover.

/s

RedPepper on November 23, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Your perfect candidate will never exist.

Basilsbest on November 23, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Yours did, and he lost when we were told he was going to steamroll Obama. The last thing we need is the Basilsbests of the world telling us how to win.

ddrintn on November 23, 2012 at 9:38 PM

The Democrats ran (and fully supported) a dreadful man. They won. You will be the last person to understand what happened.

Basilsbest on November 23, 2012 at 11:02 PM

The Democrats ran (and fully supported) a dreadful man. They won. You will be the last person to understand what happened.

Basilsbest on November 23, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Elucidate us, Basil. Given how you thought Romney was the “most electable” on an already-pathetic slate of candidates, you should be able to tell us why he lost as decisively as he did.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 11:04 PM

bluegill on November 23, 2012 at 10:38 PM

its posts like that which expose you as a fraud. perry was golden in speeches and ads. in the debates he had issues. he was on pain killers but the biggest thing was the moderator led dogpile. the MSM guided romney thru the debates never challenging him or putting him in a position to look bad. he was the media chosen candidate like mccain was in 2008. when you have a candidate who changes position constantly people will just stay home. they lose faith in the process. romney did that

chasdal on November 23, 2012 at 11:05 PM

bayam on November 23, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Because the socialist State is best able to decide who should get what when parents die and the spoils are to be divvied up.

Does your will leave all of your estate to the State? If not, why not?

farsighted on November 23, 2012 at 9:35 PM

He has no will other than bad, and upon his demise the state (taxpayers) are responsible for problems he leaves behind.

arnold ziffel on November 23, 2012 at 11:11 PM

He has to get the nomination… not gonna happen.

To quote someone we all know, recently, “[All the Bushes], get off the stage!”

Fact is, many in the D party feel the same way about the Clintons. Do not think it’s all lovey-dovey over there after the 2008 primaries when it comes to Hillary.

But, back to Bush. The last one didn’t merely stain the Bush brand; he wrecked the entire party’s image. The same way he did his baseball team. Unless the R party just wants to continue looking for ways to alienate people, they’ll send a back-channel note to Jeb suggesting a lounge chair on the beach with a frozen daiquiri. Not a presidential race.

IndieDogg on November 23, 2012 at 11:13 PM

As long as the GOP continues to nominate the top of the ticket by the “It’s his turn” method, we are going to have tired, old candidates who get their a** handed to them on election day. Hopefully, G.H.W.B and Mrs B will still be alive in 2016, so Jeb will get close to a half-dozen votes.

Mr. Grump on November 23, 2012 at 11:15 PM

But, back to Bush. The last one didn’t merely stain the Bush brand; he wrecked the entire party’s image. The same way he did his baseball team. Unless the R party just wants to continue looking for ways to alienate people, they’ll send a back-channel note to Jeb suggesting a lounge chair on the beach with a frozen daiquiri. Not a presidential race.

IndieDogg on November 23, 2012 at 11:13 PM

The GOP doesn’t have to field another Bush for President campaign to alienate large numbers of voters. I think Mitt Romney’s nomination in ’12 went a long way toward that end.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 11:15 PM

its posts like that which expose you as a fraud. perry was golden in speeches and ads. in the debates he had issues. he was on pain killers but the biggest thing was the moderator led dogpile. the MSM guided romney thru the debates never challenging him or putting him in a position to look bad. he was the media chosen candidate like mccain was in 2008. when you have a candidate who changes position constantly people will just stay home. they lose faith in the process. romney did that
chasdal on November 23, 2012 at 11:05 PM

Perry was great in ads? LOL. I guess that settles it then. Sure, he had some effective ads (not counting the laughable cowboy ad about gays in the military), but that didn’t make up for his obvious lack of preparedness in almost every other area. Rick Perry came off like more of an idiot than George W. Bush and Sarah Palin combined. How about we stop seriously considering obviously stupid, not-ready-for-primetime candidates?

As for Romney being guided throughout the debates, give me a break. What are you people on? Romney was attacked from the left and the right throughout the primary season. Romney dominated the bozo candidates like Herman Cain and Rick Perry in debate after debate, and he did it all on his own.

bluegill on November 23, 2012 at 11:19 PM

I could say “read my lips” I won’t be voting for another Bush….ever!
But then you may not believe me.
There is no way on this green earth that I would EVER vote for a Bush again.
Held my nose for McCain.
Went along with Romney.
Now you think I would tolerate another Bush!!!
Still like my make believe world better: DeMint/West

Belle on November 23, 2012 at 11:20 PM

And, for the record, I liked gwb, even if I didn’t always agree with him.

bluegill on November 23, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Are you ready for Bush 2016?

No.

Oh yeah that’s just what we need, another establishment picked candidate…

Ukiah on November 23, 2012 at 11:23 PM

AP said:

If a conservative as usually stalwart as Krauthammer is ready to wave the white flag on amnesty in hopes of capturing a few more Latino votes next election, there must be 25 or so centrist Republicans in the House willing to follow suit

Krauthammer has been pro-amnesty for years. And NumbersUSA seems pretty confident they can kill amnesty in the House. They have a perfect record so far and are good at counting votes.

Jon0815 on November 23, 2012 at 11:24 PM

bluegill on November 23, 2012 at 11:19 PM

the moderators took romney by the hand and walked him thru the debates. never once was he asked any hard questions. never once were the other candidates allowed to dogpile him like they were encouraged to do to perry.

chasdal on November 23, 2012 at 11:24 PM

The GOP doesn’t have to field another Bush for President campaign to alienate large numbers of voters. I think Mitt Romney’s nomination in ’12 went a long way toward that end.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 11:15 PM

McCain’s nomination in 08 was pretty much the same. He got votes, but they weren’t excited votes.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 11:25 PM

NO more Bushs, Clintons, Kennedys, Obamas and any dynasties.

This is NOT an empire, not yet anyway.

Fruck off all of you. Enough is enough. Go to Hell.

Schadenfreude on November 23, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Let me play devils advocate here. Another miserable 4 years of Obama, and the GOP will vote nominate anybody, even a Booooosh. His bro won 2 terms. They’ve surely got the party elites on their side. And most of all, they can WIN. So yeah, Jeb is a strong possibility.

tommy71 on November 23, 2012 at 11:33 PM

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Did I mention No?

Dunedainn on November 23, 2012 at 11:33 PM

NO!!!!

We don’t need another spendthrift RINO.


In fact, the last thing we need from EITHER party is another weak-spined spendthrift who thinks its OK to buy our vote with our own money.

landlines on November 23, 2012 at 11:37 PM

The west, as a culture, is now reverting back to norm, and history will look back on the 20th century as a mild anachronism or oddity within the course of human events. We love our dynasties. Even the Canadians are ready to jump back on board with a growing frothing-at-the-mouth admiration for an unremarkable young schoolteacher who happens to have the right surname.

People are stupid. And we get the governments we deserve.

The Resolute Desk on November 23, 2012 at 11:41 PM

In fact, the last thing we need from EITHER party is another weak-spined spendthrift who thinks its OK to buy our vote with our own money.

landlines on November 23, 2012 at 11:37 PM

Oh, it’s way past that. They are now buying our votes with our great grandchildren’s and beyond money.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 11:43 PM

Let me play devils advocate here. Another miserable 4 years of Obama, and the GOP will vote nominate anybody, even a Booooosh. His bro won 2 terms. They’ve surely got the party elites on their side. And most of all, they can WIN. So yeah, Jeb is a strong possibility.

tommy71 on November 23, 2012 at 11:33 PM

I’m not so sure about that, given our feckless GOP leadership. I fear they will position themselves to take the blame for anything Obama does in the next four years, no matter how bad it gets – and the MSM will be more than happy to oblige.

I’m sure the Dems and media will be prepared and would love to run against Jeb Bush in 2016 – when they can push for Hillary’s “historic” candidacy versus a “Return to the Bush years.”

TarheelBen on November 23, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Even the Canadians are ready to jump back on board with a growing frothing-at-the-mouth admiration for an unremarkable young schoolteacher who happens to have the right surname.

The Resolute Desk on November 23, 2012 at 11:41 PM

Who is this?

Mark1971 on November 23, 2012 at 11:48 PM

Oh yay. The Slimes is stirring up shite.

kim roy on November 23, 2012 at 11:48 PM

….Over and OVER again!……

williamg on November 23, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Hope you used cut & paste.

kim roy on November 23, 2012 at 11:51 PM

i just now read the balloon they are floating about this strange tax change at 400K. Too bad that the Rs never read stuff on the internet…they might actually learn how stupid they look.

they seem to be lead around by their buds back home and Grover Norquist. Just bite the bullet…raise marginal rates..and put an AMT of, say, 40 percent on incomes above 1M.

It is amazingly stupid that these people can’t say…we have a Fiscal Crisis…as dangerous as someone declaring war on us. This must be done…we will be AA or AA- at this rate in a few years.

This must be done.

r keller on November 23, 2012 at 11:52 PM

and btw…the Rs hold a nice lead in the House only because of gerrymandering…just like in the 80s the Ds held onto power in the house because of gerrymandering.

right now the most important thing for the Rs to do is to avoid being on the front pages….that’s the left’s goal to eliminate the R party. There is something called tactical retreat. That’s what smart people do..while they regroup.

r keller on November 23, 2012 at 11:57 PM

Mark1971 on November 23, 2012 at 11:48 PM

His last name is Trudeau. That won’t mean anything to most people here, and for good reason. But a rough translation into American is Kennedy.

The Resolute Desk on November 23, 2012 at 11:58 PM

They just don’t get it – do they.

Pork-Chop on November 23, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Are you sure they are the ones who don’t get it? Losing for them with an elite retread means a few less choice morsels for their friends, while winning with someone who is going to clean out the troughs means they get nothing. The Republicans and Democrats are fighting for control of the porkbarrel. The individual who wants to kick over the porkbarrel isn’t wanted by either group.

sharrukin on November 23, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Palin 2016!

kim roy on November 24, 2012 at 12:00 AM

If he were elected, I imagine he’d have all voters take a test before they can be registered (made and graded by Pearson Publishing for a mult-billion dollar fee). If too many people in a state fail, their governors would be fired.

Not a bad idea come to think of it.

Dr. ZhivBlago on November 24, 2012 at 12:00 AM

Palin 2016!

kim roy on November 24, 2012 at 12:00 AM

I think her time has passed. If she was going to run it had to be in 2012.

sharrukin on November 24, 2012 at 12:02 AM

And Gore and the Democrats would have taken the blame, like Carter did, which lead to 12 years of GOP presidents in the White House.

Buchanan created Lincoln…
Hoover created FDR…
Carter created Reagan…
Bush created Obama…

A real or perceived bad president can damage his political party for a long time doing more harm than the opposition could ever have accomplished by themselves.

Mostly agree. But I would add that Taft/T Roosevelt gave us Wilson more directly than the examples cited above. Wilson, perhaps the worst of all president’s for the damage he did, who gave us the Income Tax ruled unconstitutional in the 1916 Brushaber and Baltic Mining SCOTUS cases where the court said you didn’t repeal the clauses the 16th was in contradiction to in the original constitution so why don’t we have the income tax in the form of an excise tax that citizens will pay based upon some privilege that government grants to us, which the government has never defined.

Wilson also gave us the 17th Amendment and now our Senators don’t pay attention to the States, and raise money in NYC, etc.

Wilson also gave us the Federal Reserve (pushed through in a couple of days in December 1913 much like the PPACA) that has allowed our administrative state government to grow beyond any proportion taxpayers would have allowed if they had to foot the entire bill.

Wilson also gave us entry into WWI, a huge mistake, that gave us Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler — See James Powell’s “Wilson’s War” and Niall Ferguson’s “The PIty of War.”

Bush I and II were disasters in many ways. I do not want another – no matter what the party elite thinks. I’ll actually work for his defeat if he runs!

Falcon46 on November 24, 2012 at 12:03 AM

You can LOL all you want. The problem is, that if the dems put another fascist or commie on the ticket, then it will come down to a selection of stupid or dictator.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 9:41 PM

And as usual, Dem will win over Dem Lite. You can talk about how this evil is lesser than that one all you want. Those days are over.

ddrintn on November 23, 2012 at 9:42 PM

What’s your solution? When are you starting up a third party as it’s clear so far (notwithstanding this NY Slimes pot stirrer) that the GOP is never going to figure it out?

Do let us know what the plan is so we can all get on board.

kim roy on November 24, 2012 at 12:05 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 7