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 5 7

Palin 2016!

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

You said it.

rrpjr on November 24, 2012 at 12:10 AM

Bush 41 brought us 8 years of Clinton. Bush 43 brought us 8 years of Obama. There’s no telling what Jeb could bring us.

Jeb would be a disaster for the GOP and he makes Bush 43 look like Sheriff Joe. But, I’m ssure the liberal Republicans at HA (Baselsbest, bluegill, Ricky Riccardo, MJ Brutus, etc. are have orgasms just thinking about Jeb running. After all, he is just as likely to win in a landslide as they assured us Romney would.

bw222 on November 24, 2012 at 12:14 AM

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

Don’t forget:

Leave four Americans to die no chance, now… well, ya know.

Flexibility to Putin no chance, now… well, ya know.

Encouragement of Muslim Brotherhood no chance, now… well, ya know.

Oh well.

kim roy on November 24, 2012 at 12:14 AM

sharrukin on November 24, 2012 at 12:02 AM

Probably. But she’d have just one kid in the house then instead of three. That could be a consideration. Also, I’m not sure if she could win, but just being in the primaries and debates, dragging the dialogue to the right would be a service in itself. And interesting to watch.

Dongemaharu on November 24, 2012 at 12:17 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

Nah. She needed time to recover a bit from the media hackery. Maybe her message will get through after Moar Obama and people start cluing in. Maybe.

kim roy on November 24, 2012 at 12:21 AM

Palin is the furthest thing from fresh. Not only did she get less votes than the 2012 ticket, but she remains an unelectable ditz still today.

bluegill on November 23, 2012 at 8:43 PM

You, of all people, have no business calling Sarah Palin (or anyone else) a ditz. You are viewed as the biggest airhead on this site.

bw222 on November 24, 2012 at 12:24 AM

Encouragement of Muslim Brotherhood no chance, now… well, ya know.

kim roy on November 24, 2012 at 12:14 AM

He sided with Obama on the Arab Spring

“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

And he wanted to arm the Syrian rebels.

“In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets.” – Mitt Romney

sharrukin on November 24, 2012 at 12:26 AM

Probably. But she’d have just one kid in the house then instead of three. That could be a consideration. Also, I’m not sure if she could win, but just being in the primaries and debates, dragging the dialogue to the right would be a service in itself. And interesting to watch.

Dongemaharu on November 24, 2012 at 12:17 AM

That’s a good point. She would bring up a lot of things that needed to be discussed but I wonder if anyone in the GOP would even listen.

They talk about Jeb Bush and amnesty pandering so I suspect they won’t listen to anyone but the Democrats/media machine.

sharrukin on November 24, 2012 at 12:29 AM

Mitt Romney is smart, a good businessman and a moral human being with a wonderful wife. Unfortunately, being President was simply something on his “to do” list. Unlike Reagan, he had no political philosophy, ran a horrid campaign and lacked the courage to run as negative campaign against Obama as he did against his GOP primary opponents.

bw222 on November 24, 2012 at 12:36 AM

Palin is the furthest thing from fresh. Not only did she get less votes than the 2012 ticket, but she remains an unelectable ditz still today.

bluegill on November 23, 2012 at 8:43 PM

You, of all people, have no business calling Sarah Palin (or anyone else) a ditz. You are viewed as the biggest airhead on this site.

bw222 on November 24, 2012 at 12:24 AM

……”Like”……

williamg on November 24, 2012 at 12:36 AM

Unlike hot gas, I don’t think Clinton will run in 2016, so perish the idea. The only other person whos got the credibility to run in the dem fold is Andrew Cuomo. That’ll be fun.

tommy71 on November 24, 2012 at 12:39 AM

No more Bush or Clinton’s!
How about nominating a REAL conservative for a change
instead of these northeast “blue bloods”.

p51d007 on November 24, 2012 at 12:40 AM

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20121121-charlotte-allen-palin-for-president-in-2016–heres-why.ece

Charlotte Allen: Palin for president in 2016 — here’s why

I’ve got a suggestion for cutting short the GOP’s postelection angst: Sarah Palin for president in 2016.

You think I’m joking? Think again.

In 2008, Palin, running as my party’s vice presidential candidate, was widely supposed to have cost John McCain the election. But that wasn’t so. A national exit poll conducted by CNN asked voters whether Palin was a factor in their voting. Of those who said yes, 56 percent voted for McCain vs. 43 percent for Barack Obama.

Furthermore, Mitt Romney, the GOP’s contender this year, got almost a million fewer votes than McCain did in 2008. Millions of Americans didn’t much care for Obama and his Obamacare spending blowout, but they didn’t feel like voting for Romney either. Some said that Romney didn’t resonate with recession-hit blue-collar folks in swing states because he “looked like the boss who outsourced their jobs,” as one blog commenter quipped.

Gabriel Malor, writing for the New York Daily News’ blog, pinpointed another reason: By focusing his campaign mostly on serious economic and political issues such as the national debt and tax incentives, Romney failed to take into account that large segments of the electorate neither know nor care much about serious economic and political issues. What they — a group sometimes euphemistically called “uninformed voters” — do know and care about are the tugs on their emotions, fears, revulsions and heart strings provided by hours and hours of uninterrupted television watching.

The Democrats understood how to reach that constituency. When a barrage of Obama campaign TV ads told them that the GOP wanted to take away their contraceptives or that Bain Capital killed someone’s wife, they took notice. When Obama strolled the hurricane-stricken beaches of New Jersey in his bomber jacket, they were snowed. As Malor put it, Obama won on “binders, Big Bird, birth control and blame Bush.”

Palin can more than keep up with the Democrats in appealing to voters’ emotions. Hardly anyone could be more blue collar than Palin, out on the fishing boat with her hunky blue-collar husband, Todd. Palin is View-ready, she’s Ellen-ready, she’s Kelly-and-Michael-ready.

A Palin “war against women”? Not only is she a woman, she’s got a single-mom daughter, Bristol, to help with the swelling single-mom demographic. On social issues, Palin, unlike Romney, has been absolutely consistent. And let’s remember that most Americans, whatever their view of choice, disapprove of most abortions.

Gay marriage? Palin opposes it. But she is also a strong advocate of states’ rights, and I’m betting she’d be fine with letting states and their voters grapple with the issue on their own.

Palin’s son Track is an Iraq war veteran, so she can be proudly patriotic without being labeled another George W. Bush, looking to do aggressive nation-building. She seems aware there is only one nation in need of building right now: America.

She’s tough as nails too. After Election 2008, she was supposed to have been through. This year eight of the 14 GOP candidates Palin endorsed for Congress won election or re-election, including tea party favorite Ted Cruz for a Senate seat in Texas.

East Coast Republican intellectuals, such as Peggy Noonan, look down their noses at a woman who doesn’t shop at Neiman Marcus and didn’t attend an Ivy League university. But Noonan called the election for Romney on Nov. 5. Who’s going to care what she and her ilk have to say next time?

Some Republicans will say Palin has too much baggage from 2008 and we need to look for a new Sarah Palin. But I don’t see what’s wrong with the one we’ve got. Ever since the 1990s, Republicans have been looking for the next Ronald Reagan. Reagan is now revered in bipartisan circles, but during his presidency he was, like Palin, ridiculed by liberals. They cited Bedtime for Bonzo and sneered at his no-name college degree.

Sarah Palin is the new Ronald Reagan: charming and affable and unwilling to back down if she’s right. I can’t see what’s wrong with that.

Charlotte Allen focuses on feminism, politics and religion, and writes regularly for the Weekly Standard

We need a TRUE Conservative to lead the party.

Palin 2016

ChuckTX on November 24, 2012 at 12:40 AM

Unlike hot gas, I don’t think Clinton will run in 2016, so perish the idea. The only other person whos got the credibility to run in the dem fold is Andrew Cuomo. That’ll be fun.

tommy71 on November 24, 2012 at 12:39 AM

I agree regarding Hillary. She may run, but she won’t win.

Julian Castro of Texas in 2016 wouldn’t be fun.

sharrukin on November 24, 2012 at 12:43 AM

He sided with Obama on the Arab Spring

“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

And he wanted to arm the Syrian rebels.

“In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets.” – Mitt Romney

sharrukin on November 24, 2012 at 12:26 AM

Obama may have said that, but he certainly hasn’t done that. Romney, once again, verbally playing the nice guy. While it irritated me, I understood the rationale for it.

Romney, we’ll never know, but the words on the face of it are not offensive. Do you disagree with the sentiment being said here? “Voices of democracy”. “Opposition who shares our values”.

All words, but ones that fit fairly well. Again, we’ll never know for sure, but we do know that Obama will never cut off aid. Romney might have.

kim roy on November 24, 2012 at 12:45 AM

Repeating the same thing over and over again but expecting the same result is a sign of insanity.

The Republican Party needs to clearly and emphatically differentiate itself from the Democratic Party, something they haven’t done for decades. They run on cutting spending and regulation but cave immediately when it comes time to vote.

We need more people in Congress like Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz. People who say what they mean and mean what they say. People who really believe in limited government and vote that way.

The Romney criticism coming from Rubio, Jindal, and Christie is digusting. I thought better of Rubio and Jindal but Christie is no conservative, just a big blowhard towards unions. All of them represent the same old GOP – not really about limited government and really about social conservatism.

Common Sense on November 24, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Joel Klotkin got grief at HA for something he wrote about the R party in the dailybeast…which sounded like he might be a lib setting a strawman aflame

well, maybe not so much…maybe he’s just scared sh1tless

http://www.newgeography.com/content/003225-for-a-preview-of-obamas-america-in-2016-look-at-the-crack-up-of-california

Conservatives of the paranoid stripe flocked to the documentary “America: 2016” during the run up to the election, but you don’t have to time travel to catch a vision of President Obama’s plans for the future. It’s playing already in California.

Some East Coast commentators like Jeff Greenfield saw the election as “a good night” for the Golden State, which the President carried by 20 points, 10 times his margin elsewhere — a massive bear hug from Californians. It certainly was a great night for Democrats, who now have a two-thirds majority in the state legislature and can spend a massive tax increase that targets families making over $250,000 a year.

These results assure that California will serve as the prime testing ground for President Obama’s form of post-economic liberalism. Every dream program that the Administration embraces — cap and trade, massive taxes on the rich, high-speed rail — is either in place or on the drawing boards. In Sacramento, blue staters don’t even have to worry about over-reach because the Republicans here have dried into a withered husk. They have about as much influence on what happens here as our family’s dog Roxy, and she’s much cuter.

California now stands as blue America’s end point, but contrary to the media celebration, it presents not such a pretty picture.

it is a brutal article that needs to be shared. He details the boot on the neck practices of the governor..and the servitude of businesses. It is an ugly story.

and, yes, he thinks this is Obama’s America

r keller on November 24, 2012 at 12:53 AM

Romney, we’ll never know, but the words on the face of it are not offensive. Do you disagree with the sentiment being said here? “Voices of democracy”. “Opposition who shares our values”.

Yes I do disagree because I know what the words mean and how they translate into the middle east. We saw Democracy in action in Gaza and in Egypt.

That’s what the people wanted. That is what Romney was supporting and anyone with the slightest understanding of Islam or the middle east could tell you what was going to happen, and many did. Many on this website predicted what would happen.

Romney went ahead with his support for toppling Mubarak.

All words, but ones that fit fairly well. Again, we’ll never know for sure, but we do know that Obama will never cut off aid. Romney might have.

kim roy on November 24, 2012 at 12:45 AM

Words have meaning and the sliver of difference between Obama and Romney is there. No question about that, but in the real world that difference doesn’t really amount to a great deal.

Romney delivering anti-aircraft missiles with a stern warning that they should only be used for good, and Obama laughingly insanely in delight while delivering those same missiles, amounts to the same thing in the end. Different motives, same result.

sharrukin on November 24, 2012 at 12:54 AM

ChuckTX on November 24, 2012 at 12:40 AM

Sarah would definitely unite the conservative base, but (like Reagan) she would have to run against the left, the media, AND the GOP establishment. A true reform-minded candidate is the last thing the Democrats and the GOP establishment would want. I would support her, but Sarah would have to run a perfect campaign.

But who knows what the political landscape will look like by 2016? We may avoid the small cliff on January 1st – but a much bigger cliff is coming into view – with the looming debt and deficit crises; the systematic destruction of the dollar; the implementation of Obamacare, etc.

TarheelBen on November 24, 2012 at 12:56 AM

Words have meaning and the sliver of difference between Obama and Romney is there. No question about that, but in the real world that difference doesn’t really amount to a great deal.

Romney delivering anti-aircraft missiles with a stern warning that they should only be used for good, and Obama laughingly insanely in delight while delivering those same missiles, amounts to the same thing in the end. Different motives, same result.

sharrukin on November 24, 2012 at 12:54 AM

There is that sliver of difference and it may have been enough. Obama wants to encourage the MB as he agrees with them. Romney would have gone into it for trying to calm things done and get a more pliable regime in there, which is why people like Mubarak and Ghaddafi were left in power in the first place.

That difference might have made the difference from stopping a mistake to continuing one gleefully in the future.

I don’t know. It may have made no difference, but AZ was talking about possibilities – we know for sure what Obama wants and will do. We can guess, but there is that *chance* that Romney may have went down another path.

I’m not sure why people want to pick every nit when it’s clear that rolling the dice with Romney was infinitely better than the certainties with Obama. Yes, we’d lose a few, but maybe we’d win a few over knowing we’d lose them all.

There was no clear win in 2012. I believe I said that numerous times before the election. We’ll have to make our own win.

kim roy on November 24, 2012 at 1:06 AM

Common Sense, Jindal and Rubio did the right thing by criticizing Romney. They’re looking out for the future of the party. Romney lost, he should have just have moved on. Not make comments that would further alienate voters. Christie is good, for NJ. Stay there. Forget national aspirations, Chris cos you have zero national political instincts.

tommy71 on November 24, 2012 at 1:14 AM

Repeating the same thing over and over again but expecting the same a different result is a sign of insanity.

Common Sense on November 24, 2012 at 12:49 AM

FIFY

TarheelBen on November 24, 2012 at 1:16 AM

Bush / McCain 2016.

(Meghan McCain that is.)

Yeah, That’ll work.

/s

LegendHasIt on November 24, 2012 at 1:18 AM

We can guess, but there is that *chance* that Romney may have went down another path.

I’m not sure why people want to pick every nit when it’s clear that rolling the dice with Romney was infinitely better than the certainties with Obama.

kim roy on November 24, 2012 at 1:06 AM

How does that sliver of difference suddenly become infinitely better?

Most people figure that a sliver of difference isn’t worth getting worked up about and many millions didn’t see any point in voting for that difference one way or the other. Obama LOST something like 7 million votes, and Romney barely managed John McCain levels of success.

The Voters Who Stayed Home

But the story is not about who voted; it is about who didn’t vote. In truth, millions of Americans have decided that Republicans are not a viable alternative because they are already too much like Democrats. They are Washington. With no hope that a Romney administration or more Republicans in Congress would change this sad state of affairs, these voters shrugged their shoulders and became non-voters.

This is the most important election of our lifetime.” That was the ubiquitous rally cry of Republican leaders. The country yawned.

Again, to focus on the vote is to miss the far more consequential non-vote.

sharrukin on November 24, 2012 at 1:22 AM

I have less problem voting for Jeb Bush than for Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich or Michelle Bachmann.

crosspatch on November 24, 2012 at 1:37 AM

Krauthammer has been pro-amnesty for years. Jon0815 on November 23, 2012 at 11:24 PM

He has also been a democrat for years, but he plays a Republican on TV.

Alabama Infidel on November 24, 2012 at 1:45 AM

Palin 2016!

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

You said it.

rrpjr on November 24, 2012 at 12:10 AM

NO!
No Bushes. No Palin. Palin’s a great asset to the GOP-but in 2016 our field is going to be strong enough(Jindal, Pence etc0, that we won’t need to fall back to a half-term governor and failed veep candidate.
She will never be president.
Time to let that dream go.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 24, 2012 at 2:01 AM

Jindal

Time to let that dream go.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 24, 2012 at 2:01 AM

Speaking of letting things go…

sharrukin on November 24, 2012 at 2:02 AM

Can someone please give me the argument against Jeb Bush? I’m curious to hear the arguments against him.

bluegill on November 24, 2012 at 2:09 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on November 24, 2012 at 2:01 AM

Agreed. I believe a governor like Jindal or Pence could be dynamite.

bluegill on November 24, 2012 at 2:11 AM

Jeb Bush, no. Palin, good grief no.

I blame four more years of Obama and the damage he will do to governor Mitch Daniels for not running this time round.

AshleyTKing on November 24, 2012 at 2:13 AM

She will never be president.
Time to let that dream go.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 24, 2012 at 2:01 AM

It would be a helluva lot easier to “let that dream go” if the GOP wasn’t such a bunch of self-serving phonies who cannot be trusted to even try to stop the gravy train before it goes over the cliff and takes the country with it. Palin, unlike most politicians, shrank government; she left her state better than it was when she began her term. Of course we want somebody like her to step up.

Aitch748 on November 24, 2012 at 2:17 AM

Palin, unlike most politicians, shrank government; she left her state better than it was when she began her term. Of course we want somebody like her to step up.

Aitch748 on November 24, 2012 at 2:17 AM

Yes, her quadrupling oil taxes and shrinking that crucial Alaskan industry will be to her eternal renown.

AshleyTKing on November 24, 2012 at 2:26 AM

a Jeb Bush candidacy would expose the R party as having no depth to speak of.

Now, that may be true..but i say, spend the next 4 to 8 years developing talent. Rs are in dire straits…they need to go down and build from the ground up. The days of floating along smiling for the TV cameras and eating the seed corn that Reagan gave all of us…those days are gone.

Rs are faced with a relentless left/media that would be perfectly happy for Rs to be a regional party…never to be trusted with power again.

r keller on November 24, 2012 at 2:27 AM

How does that sliver of difference suddenly become infinitely better?

Most people figure that a sliver of difference isn’t worth getting worked up about and many millions didn’t see any point in voting for that difference one way or the other. Obama LOST something like 7 million votes, and Romney barely managed John McCain levels of success.

The Voters Who Stayed Home

But the story is not about who voted; it is about who didn’t vote. In truth, millions of Americans have decided that Republicans are not a viable alternative because they are already too much like Democrats. They are Washington. With no hope that a Romney administration or more Republicans in Congress would change this sad state of affairs, these voters shrugged their shoulders and became non-voters.

“This is the most important election of our lifetime.” That was the ubiquitous rally cry of Republican leaders. The country yawned.

Again, to focus on the vote is to miss the far more consequential non-vote.

sharrukin on November 24, 2012 at 1:22 AM

That is a sliver in one thing. Add together many slivers and it may mean less unemployment, less deficit, maybe a few less people on food stamps, less suffering, even if it may only be 100,000 people. Those 100,000 are worth something.

Yes, yes, I know. It’s never a good thing to settle. I thought Palin would run. So did Hollywood (game change) and a lot of others. She didn’t so we had to make do.

Now we know better. What would you have me say? That I’m sorry that I settled because it might save some people from being hurt economically or otherwise? That Obama was that bad that I’d happily advocate Romney? I’m a Palinista. It wasn’t easy, but I’m not going to apologize. Really not sure what you STILL anti-Romney people want from people who essentially agree, but chose to be pragmatic. I call it playing the long game.

It’s too bad that others didn’t want to see it as a long game and chose to stay home and make life more difficult. Now we have work to do.

kim roy on November 24, 2012 at 2:41 AM

No Bushes. No Palin. Palin’s a great asset to the GOP-but in 2016 our field is going to be strong enough(Jindal, Pence etc0, that we won’t need to fall back to a half-term governor and failed veep candidate.
She will never be president.
Time to let that dream go.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 24, 2012 at 2:01 AM

Sorry, but every bozo that went and vultured on Romney’s carcass to the backstabbing media in order to jockey for position will NOT get my support. They did not learn. Less than two weeks out of the election and there they are giving talking points to the media that just covered up Benghazi, F&F, Solyndra and a host of other Obama corruptions.

Nope. Palin or another strong conservative or nothing. Jindal’s a tool for going to Politico.

They. Just. Do. Not. Learn. So I will not support.

kim roy on November 24, 2012 at 2:46 AM

But, looking forward, who is at the top of your list of those who deserve consideration for 2016? I know it’s early, but do you like ANYONE? Or are you one of those whose hearts are set on Sarah Palin and no one else?
bluegill on November 11, 2012 at 12:07 AM

From the GOP? There is no one and there won’t be. They are a waste of time and have proven that time and time again. They won’t put forward anyone who challenges the liberal framing of the political field. Palin isn’t going to run and I wouldn’t support her if she did. She had her chance and wisely opted out.
The GOP will keep playing by the liberal rules who freely change those rules on a whim. They will continue to lose because defeat is more comfortable to them than putting up a real fight for principles they don’t believe in.
sharrukin on November 11, 2012 at 12:18 AM

Sharrukin, I don’t really understand why you keep complaining about potential GOP candidates, since you already stated you would never vote for a Republican presidential candidate, no matter who it is. No one will please you. So, basically, you just like to complain? And you never support anyone? I’m being serious. Seems like you are always unhappy about this or that candidate.

bluegill on November 24, 2012 at 2:55 AM

Really not sure what you STILL anti-Romney people want from people who essentially agree, but chose to be pragmatic. I call it playing the long game.

It’s too bad that others didn’t want to see it as a long game and chose to stay home and make life more difficult. Now we have work to do.

kim roy on November 24, 2012 at 2:41 AM

It certainly has been a long game. So far its been more than 20 years and it’s still being played. The GOP keeps drifting further and further left so I would ask what is the exact nature of this game? It looks to me to be a game of Boiling The Frog, and its being played by the GOP.

What do you see as the end point of this drift leftward?

sharrukin on November 24, 2012 at 2:59 AM

Seems like you are always unhappy about this or that candidate.

bluegill on November 24, 2012 at 2:55 AM

Bush, Bob Dole, Bush, Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney. Can’t understand not being happy with such a lineup.

It’s almost as if some folks just plain like conservatism…the sick puppies!

sharrukin on November 24, 2012 at 3:08 AM

It certainly has been a long game. So far its been more than 20 years and it’s still being played. The GOP keeps drifting further and further left so I would ask what is the exact nature of this game? It looks to me to be a game of Boiling The Frog, and its being played by the GOP.

What do you see as the end point of this drift leftward?

sharrukin on November 24, 2012 at 2:59 AM

When there’s really no difference between the GOP and dems except name. It seems to be just a game to play in order to keep the trough full. We’ve certainly been distracted with a number of shiny objects in order not to notice the water’s been getting hotter.

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said, just that I thought Romney would have made the work we need to do a little easier – less worry and effort on the stupid things Obama is going to do when trying to get solid people elected for the next two cycles. That may have been my shiny object in order not to notice the increasing heat. I’ll own it.

What to do now to be effective and stop this? I honestly don’t know. You have any thoughts?

kim roy on November 24, 2012 at 3:09 AM

What to do now to be effective and stop this? I honestly don’t know. You have any thoughts?

kim roy on November 24, 2012 at 3:09 AM

I wonder if it can be stopped short of stopping the massive flow of money that allows the voters the delusion that it is sustainable. One worry would be that it cannot ever be reversed if it keeps up. A shock to the system might wake some people up, but the more they become dependent the more we may see what Katrina showed. A population that cannot help itself and just waits to be rescued while waiting for government handouts.

Those people will choose a strongman to lead them as long as their goodies keep flowing in.

I don’t think the GOP wants to stop the gravy train. That is why they attacked Palin, the Tea Party, and others, and they didn’t even much care for Reagan. There won’t be any leadership emerging from the GOP.

sharrukin on November 24, 2012 at 3:20 AM

I wonder if it can be stopped short of stopping the massive flow of money that allows the voters the delusion that it is sustainable. One worry would be that it cannot ever be reversed if it keeps up. A shock to the system might wake some people up, but the more they become dependent the more we may see what Katrina showed. A population that cannot help itself and just waits to be rescued while waiting for government handouts.

Those people will choose a strongman to lead them as long as their goodies keep flowing in.

I don’t think the GOP wants to stop the gravy train. That is why they attacked Palin, the Tea Party, and others, and they didn’t even much care for Reagan. There won’t be any leadership emerging from the GOP.

sharrukin on November 24, 2012 at 3:20 AM

Nope. They certainly don’t want to waddle away from the trough.

Perhaps the “let it burn” folks are right. It would be nice to also quit feeding into the media BS.

Here’s a happy thought to leave you with regarding socialized medicine. Came across this in my travels:

Can you see the future?

A pleasure talking to you… :)

kim roy on November 24, 2012 at 3:35 AM

A pleasure talking to you… :)

kim roy on November 24, 2012 at 3:35 AM

You as well. We disagree on Romney but I suspect not much else.

sharrukin on November 24, 2012 at 3:42 AM

sharrukin on November 24, 2012 at 3:42 AM

I don’t expect you to hope for Palin run but why won’t you support her if she runs?

promachus on November 24, 2012 at 4:23 AM

I don’t expect you to hope for Palin run but why won’t you support her if she runs?
promachus on November 24, 2012 at 4:23 AM

Hell, even I would vote for Sarah Palin in a general election if she were the nominee, and wouldn’t hesitate for a nanosecond to do so. She just wouldn’t be my first choice for nominee, because I don’t think she would have a good chance of winning the general.

bluegill on November 24, 2012 at 4:34 AM

I don’t expect you to hope for Palin run but why won’t you support her if she runs?

promachus on November 24, 2012 at 4:23 AM

I really like Palin and think she is one of the better polticians out there. I just don’t think the GOP would ever let it happen. It would be great if it did though.

sharrukin on November 24, 2012 at 5:18 AM

Instead of Palin, the establishment will hunt high and low to find the next bob Dole so that we assure we get obliterated.

Fuquay Steve on November 24, 2012 at 6:06 AM

bluegill on November 23, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Like Mr. etch A. sketch? Mr. 47%? Mr. I like to fire people? Mr. Corporations are people too? Mr. Am not worried about poor people? Mr. $10,000 bet? Mr. Obama won because of “gifts”? Mr. London is not ready for the Olympics? Mr. ORCA fail?

You mean this serious ready for prime-time TV man?

HerneTheHunter on November 24, 2012 at 6:06 AM

bluegill on November 24, 2012 at 4:34 AM

You mean have a good chance at the general like the love of you life?

HerneTheHunter on November 24, 2012 at 6:08 AM

As long as Karl Rove and the rest of the be nice democrats crowd isn’t involved in the next election the GOP will win. Oh and yes this by default would leave out all the Bushes too,

bgibbs1000 on November 24, 2012 at 6:24 AM

Jeb Bush would be a poor choice for 2016, and what’s more, I think the establishment knows that. Jeb would likely not have backing from the base after saying that the GOP has moved too far to the right, and the establishment wouldn’t back him simply because of his last name and the dynastic implications it would have. Even the establishment isn’t that dumb.

Although Chris Christie would have been my guess as to the #1 establishment guy, his Hurricane Sandy-stunt has hurt him tremendously. As such, I suspect the establishment will rally behind Marco Rubio (solely on the grounds that he’s hispanic), who, although I am not enthused about, is still a far sight better than Mitt Romney ever was.

As for myself, I’ll be keeping an eye on Santorum and Jindal mostly, while maintaining a lookout for a Huckabee entrance.

The good news about 2016 is it looks like we’ll have a much wider selection of good, or at least acceptable, candidates to choose from.

Stoic Patriot on November 24, 2012 at 6:28 AM

Hell, even I would vote for Sarah Palin in a general election if she were the nominee, and wouldn’t hesitate for a nanosecond to do so. She just wouldn’t be my first choice for nominee, because I don’t think she would have a good chance of winning the general.

bluegill

Here it is. After a crushing defeat and a million loser analysts we are back at the SAME OLD MEME. Please stop it with the electability crap already. Look where it has gotten us??????

Dan Pet on November 24, 2012 at 7:17 AM

Can someone please explain to me the Jindal lovefest? I mean, he is a fine governor and good man and all that…but really…do we see him as the person that can communicate CONSERVATIVE principals? Is he really the guy that can do what everyone says we must do: articulate our conservative principals and inspire. I am sorry but I just don’t see it happening.

Dan Pet on November 24, 2012 at 7:20 AM

No effing way! Just sayin’

WordsMatter on November 24, 2012 at 7:21 AM

Yes, her quadrupling oil taxes and shrinking that crucial Alaskan industry will be to her eternal renown.

AshleyTKing on November 24, 2012 at 2:26 AM

Warped. When even the “republicans” digest and regurgitate the same nonsense about Palin, you know we need a great purging. I say let them keep the name “republican” they have broken it, now they own it.

Dan Pet on November 24, 2012 at 7:24 AM

As for myself, I’ll be keeping an eye on Santorum and Jindal mostly, while maintaining a lookout for a Huckabee entrance.

I was all with you about Jeb and Christie…then you had to end with this. YIKES! I don’t agree with Ann Coulter much any more these days but she is right about one thing: Huckabee is the republican Jimmy Carter.

Dan Pet on November 24, 2012 at 7:26 AM

Rubio/Rice or Rice/Rubio.

aebloo on November 23, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Great people….but not a ticket. Condi hasn’t been elected to anything and neither of them are or have been a governor. Its just not realistic.

Dan Pet on November 24, 2012 at 7:35 AM

Dan Pet on November 24, 2012 at 7:17 AM

So you would rather nominate someone who would have little chance of getting elected, simply because it would make you feel good to nominate them? Now, you may disagree about someone’s electoral chances, but to suggest we should ignore the question of electability is pure idiocy. Sorry, but most of the country (including many conservatives) simply does not see Sarah Palin as a serious option. Enough with the jokey, gimmicky figures like Cain, Trump, Palin, etc. Too much time is wasted on the sideshow clownish types.

We have some great governors who would make fine 2016 candidates, and I would prefer to focus on them.

bluegill on November 24, 2012 at 7:37 AM

I think Republicans should go for some one more moderate that Bush or Romney.

Rovin on November 23, 2012 at 9:01 PMI

Oh yeah. I say “Huntsman/Snowe 2016″ no..wait…”Huntsman/Lugar 2016″. We can win this with a ticket like this. They are “ELECTABLE”…they appeal to the INDEPENDENTS…the Hispanics will love them. I am sold…where do I volunteer???

Dan Pet on November 24, 2012 at 7:39 AM

Can someone please explain to me the Jindal lovefest? I mean, he is a fine governor and good man and all that…but really…do we see him as the person that can communicate CONSERVATIVE principals? Is he really the guy that can do what everyone says we must do: articulate our conservative principals and inspire. I am sorry but I just don’t see it happening.

Dan Pet on November 24, 2012 at 7:20 AM

He does a decent job at communicating. See:

Jindal on the stump about judicial activism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXAaeJx3p04

On stimulus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzlUKlVL2Uo&feature=related

Being personable & making the case against Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBWjgqvvi9A

Going toe-to-toe with a possible Dem 2016 POTUS candidate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgQMnuCzcx0&feature=related

Stoic Patriot on November 24, 2012 at 7:39 AM

It is awful early to begin picking a candidate..We (GOP) have a lot more imporant fish to fry..A lot more imporant..:)

Dire Straits on November 24, 2012 at 7:41 AM

Great people….but not a ticket. Condi hasn’t been elected to anything and neither of them are or have been a governor. Its just not realistic.
Dan Pet on November 24, 2012 at 7:35 AM

It’s more realistic than thinking a former half-term governor who resigned in disgrace and who most of the country regards as an unqualified ditz would have a chance.

My problem with Rubio is that he seems too willing to go along with illegal alien amnesty. As for Rice, we would need to learn more about her positions on a wide range of issues. Wasn’t she supposed to be interested in running for California governor, though?

bluegill on November 24, 2012 at 7:42 AM

It is awful early to begin picking a candidate..We (GOP) have a lot more imporant fish to fry..A lot more imporant..:)
Dire Straits on November 24, 2012 at 7:41 AM

What are the important races to watch in 2014?

bluegill on November 24, 2012 at 7:43 AM

So you would rather nominate someone who would have little chance of getting elected, simply because it would make you feel good to nominate them? Now, you may disagree about someone’s electoral chances, but to suggest we should ignore the question of electability is pure idiocy. Sorry, but most of the country (including many conservatives) simply does not see Sarah Palin as a serious option. Enough with the jokey, gimmicky figures like Cain, Trump, Palin, etc. Too much time is wasted on the sideshow clownish types.

We have some great governors who would make fine 2016 candidates, and I would prefer to focus on them

Putting Palin in with Cain and Trump is RIDICULOUS and it wouldn’t make me feel better…we would have someone who BELIVES in our principles and this country. HOW HAS THE ELECTABILITY ARGUMENT BEEN WORKING FOR YOU????? YOU ARE GOING TO DO IT AGAIN??? REALLY???? It is fool’s gold.

And who are all these conservatives you speak of??…and don’t tell me any loser on TV…I want real people.

Dan Pet on November 24, 2012 at 7:43 AM

I was all with you about Jeb and Christie…then you had to end with this. YIKES! I don’t agree with Ann Coulter much any more these days but she is right about one thing: Huckabee is the republican Jimmy Carter.

Dan Pet on November 24, 2012 at 7:26 AM

For me, that’s just one more area where I think Coulter has lost her marbles. When I take a look at Huckabee, I see a guy who is a solid social conservative and an economic populist with folksy charm.

Romney never had the social conservative bona fides given his gubernatorial record as well as statements to the Des Moines Register about not enacting any abortion legislation and dismissal of Chick-fil-A supporters. So that left him with the economy.

Unfortunately on that front, he came off as a cruel and heartless guy. From liking being able to fire people, to not caring about the very poor, to the 47% not being responsible for their lives, I think Huckabee summed it up best in 2008: who would you rather vote for, the guy who looks like the guy you work with, or the guy who looks like the guy that fired you?

Economic conservatism presented in the “severe” fashion Romney did in 2012 got the GOP killed. By contrast, Huckabee’s charm and ability to connect to working-class voters has great appeal, and it’s why I think he’d be a superb candidate and president.

Stoic Patriot on November 24, 2012 at 7:45 AM

I can’t even believe that folks would consider another Bush. No way. We have to move on and get some fresh faces. Same thing with Palin. I would have been all about it if she had gutted out her Governorship and not chosen this “reality” lifestyle thing she has going on.

gator70 on November 24, 2012 at 7:46 AM

It’s more realistic than thinking a former half-term governor who resigned in disgrace and who most of the country regards as an unqualified ditz would have a chance.

Resigned in DISGRACE?? I must have missed something. Eliot Spitzer resigned in DISGRACE. Anthony Weiner resigned in DISGRACE. Even the media had to concede that she was an involved and effective governor after reading EVERY EMAIL SHE EVER WROTE. Stop with this already.

Dan Pet on November 24, 2012 at 7:47 AM

And who are all these conservatives you speak of??…and don’t tell me any loser on TV…I want real people.
Dan Pet on November 24, 2012 at 7:43 AM

Various polls I saw showed that most voters, including many conservatives, while often having a favorable view of Palin, simply did not regard her as the best or even as a qualified candidate for president.

What are your thoughts on Walker, Pence and Jindal? I like all three, and will be interested to see who stands out and how the campaign, if they run.

bluegill on November 24, 2012 at 7:49 AM

Dan Pet on November 24, 2012 at 7:47 AM

Okay, fair points. To be honest, I still feel a bit confused about the whole resignation situation. That certainly did not seem to be her finest hour. Still, it just shows that she has so much baggage and weirdness surrounding her. Do we really need to make her become the face of the Republican Party again? Please, no.

bluegill on November 24, 2012 at 7:51 AM

No. No.

No. No. No.

petefrt on November 24, 2012 at 7:54 AM

I have already said that Jindal simply can’t be the spokesman for conservatism. He can walk the walk but he can’t win hearts and minds…it just isn’t in him. Walker and Pence…Nothing against them. Will have to see how it plays out.

And the MOST voters…and MANY conservatives..nonsense. You like polls and others telling you what to think and how to feel about conservatives. If you and all your conservative friends, armed with the facts about Palin, didn’t simply buy the crap you hear about her, the media portrayl of her wouldn’t stick and we wouldn’t have to have this conversation.

Dan Pet on November 24, 2012 at 7:54 AM

How about Jeb Bush/Rand Paul or Chris Christie/Rand Paul? That would unite the RINO/Paulian factions of the GOP. Unfortunately, after the lose, we still won’t get to smoke the weed.

tommy71 on November 24, 2012 at 7:55 AM

baggage and weirdness

See my last post. She resigned because she was HOUNDED BY FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS BY THOSE WITH AN AX TO GRIND. The only weirdness was on the part of the lunatics that spent their time thinking up things to sue her for….all of which have been DISMISSED OR LOST.

Dan Pet on November 24, 2012 at 7:56 AM

Chris Christie/Rand Paul

Even after all of the Obama lovefest..you are still going with Christie??? He is a blowhard and egomaniac. I am from NJ and was fooled once. HE WILL NOT GET MY VOTE IN 2013 or any other time. Look at his positions, listen to Mark Levin and open your eyes. He is A RINO of the first degree!!!

Dan Pet on November 24, 2012 at 7:58 AM

Tommy71 sorry….misunderstood you post!!!

I agree completely. LOL

Dan Pet on November 24, 2012 at 7:59 AM

What are the important races to watch in 2014?

bluegill on November 24, 2012 at 7:43 AM

Take a look at these..:)

Dire Straits on November 24, 2012 at 8:02 AM

Let’s squeeze the air out of the Jeb Bush trial balloon right now.

onlineanalyst on November 24, 2012 at 8:12 AM

Doesn’t matter what his last name is. Doesn’t matter how rich he is or his gender or the color of his skin. What matters is will he provide a conservative alternative to the policies of the left in a a way that people will understand and Romney did not?
What this election convinced me of is that the quality of the candidate matters. The only thing that can beat the populist demagogues of the left and their micro-managed campaigns is the truth. We need candidates unafraid to speak it. We can never out-organize the collectivist left, conservatives are too independent minded for that. We can never out-pander them either.
Bush has promoted a raft of good policies, he communicates very well, he has executive experience and he is presidential. It will be hard to slander him, his wife is Latina, his kids are Hispanic-American. That will get him minority votes irrespective of immigration reform. In 2016 our candidate must present the conservative alternative in a way that people understand and gives them optimism for the future.

breffnian on November 24, 2012 at 8:26 AM

Ha, I see that the House GOP is taking tiny little baby steps towards immigration. This time, the STEM Act will pass, with the GOP removing the main obstacles that the dems objected to. They’re couching it as ‘family friendly’. It’ll be fun to see the verbal gymnastics that they employ to finally support amnesty.

tommy71 on November 24, 2012 at 8:28 AM

NO MORE BUSHES! EVER! Even suggesting it is an act of stupidity.

Quartermaster on November 24, 2012 at 8:32 AM

Take a look at these..:)
Dire Straits on November 24, 2012 at 8:02 AM

So, are Tea Party groups planning to primary the Maine senator? I sure hope that doesn’t turn out to be another Christine O’Donnell situation.

Oh, and the Kentucky race should be interesting, especially if that one actress or singer or whoever she is is the Democrat nominee. I hope they don’t go soft on her, just because she may be a popular celebrity.

bluegill on November 24, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Does NOT matter.

The Palin won’t run, she’ll just tease.

And that’s it folks there is no one in the gop that has the stones to tell it like it is and wage war on the Progressive ruled republicans.

Rubio is a tanned squish.
Jindal more tanned (and a friend of the Bush clan).
Rand Paul is a stoners best friend.
Michelle Bachmann doesn’t wear well.
Rick Perry, we saw that already.
Newt Gingrich is a “Wilsonian”
Rick Santorum is a East coast Conservative.
Paul Ryan, couldn’t even help carry Wisconsin and made no difference in the Midwest.
Nikki Haley…….what was the deal with the guy that accused her of having an affair?
Scott in Florida?…….Florida is blue now.
Ted Cruz?…..too fresh.
Haley Barbour?…..fundraiser yes, President no.
Jebbie Bush, more Bushes? Great plan Whigs.

Did I miss anyone?

PappyD61 on November 24, 2012 at 8:44 AM

Pappy, you missed Huckabee, Condi Rice, Walker and Martinez.

tommy71 on November 24, 2012 at 8:52 AM

I do not vote for dynasties.

They are imperial at their core.

I detest Empires and imperial modes of thought with a passion.

We need to get off this planet so those who love dynasties and tyranny can wallow in it and destroy themselves while the rest of us as peace loving adherents to liberty and freedom can exercise those in the harshest, cruelest environment possible outside of government run anything.

In space no one can hear Big Government scream and its text messages get laughed at. The first missile coming from it gets a huge rock landed in return at hypervelocity.

I will take cruel and neutral space over cruel and ill-intentioned dynasties, any day. These Progressive Dynastics wish me and any others that don’t conform to their evil ways to be brainwashed or just plain dead… and to them it is no matter which. Just one fingerhold in space for mankind, and then comes the new Exodus. And those in power hate that thought with a great might beyond all others. They tell you so in their writings and their actions.

No more Bushes.

No more Clintons.

No more Kennedys.

No more Roosevelts.

Put one of those names on the ticket and my vote does not get cast for them. I have no trust of these families. None. Their actions prove their incapacity, one and all. Their seeking elevation into seats of power on a constant basis really belies anything they say: it is the quest that drives them at this point. They can all go and serve the public outside of the realm of government and get their hands grubby, once more, and learn that a life of privilege cannot be had by all… and that bankrupting the Nation in that end is evil by giving government the carrot and the stick. And no more pure evil ever existed when government has both of those under its command.

ajacksonian on November 24, 2012 at 8:54 AM

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.

That sums things up as well as can be.

Am I ready for Jeb Bush in 2016? No. No, and I won’t ever be.

Lourdes on November 24, 2012 at 8:56 AM

PappyD61 on November 24, 2012 at 8:44 AM

I agree on all except Palin. Sarah has the next two years to position herself in the public’s eye, if she does nothing she won’t run. I think she made a good assessment this go around as far as running against GOPe and the election machine of bo. I don’t see a good candidate out there on either side so things will generally stay the same from my point of view.

tim c on November 24, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Palin 2016!

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

Right. Not sure anymore how that would work out.

I honestly believe the GOP could win in California. Maybe even in New York. But we lack courage. I bet there are 20 good Republicans living in California right now who have the means and the ability to run on a conservative message. You know, all a conservative message is is the truth. Run on the truth. Lies are very powerful, but the truth can destroy the lie. Even Hitler knew that. That’s why the truth is attacked so viciously. Because it’s so dangerous. But once the truth catches on, once the rats get exposed, it’s hard not to see them in any other light. But we lack courage. At least the GOP leadership does. But… if you aren’t going to speak the truth then it’s useless.

I wish Newt would run as Governor somewhere. But as for another Bush. God help us. I’m still expecting Michelle Obama to run. Watch for that. Wouldn’t be surprised if Obama appointed her to some kind of high level position just to lay the ground work. Who would vote against her? She’d get full Republican support.

JellyToast on November 24, 2012 at 8:57 AM

The DNC will run Michelle Obama as Pres. nominee and Chelsea Clinton as V.P. nominee in 2016.

I’m serious.

Lourdes on November 24, 2012 at 8:57 AM

I’m still expecting Michelle Obama to run. Watch for that. Wouldn’t be surprised if Obama appointed her to some kind of high level position just to lay the ground work. Who would vote against her? She’d get full Republican support.

JellyToast on November 24, 2012 at 8:57 AM

And after I posted comments above at 8:57 AM, I read that one there by JellyToast.

The DNC has this commitment to celebrity-hoo-ha and the GOP, unfortunately, is working the same idea but very badly (not that the DNC idea is good and well, just that it is what it is and the GOP is trying to do the same thing but failing at it – trying to do the same thing in competition with what the DNC is doing and that’s only lending increased credibility to what the DNC is doing, which is a bad thing that the GOP is assisting).

Lourdes on November 24, 2012 at 9:01 AM

tim c on November 24, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Delusional..:)

Dire Straits on November 24, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Are you ready for Jeb Bush 2016?

EVERYONE PAUSE HERE and consider the fact that Mario Rubio is Jeb Bush’s Mini Me.

Just think about this.

Lourdes on November 24, 2012 at 9:03 AM

What I think is likely for 2016, not that I’m supportive of the idea:

Rubio as Pres with Jorge Bush as V.P.

Which will mean Jeb Bush will still be the nominee, however you look at it. (Jorge Bush is Jeb’s son.)

The Bush family REALLY NEEDS to retire with their heads high and their legacy set and stop this ongoing insistence on being President. That applies to their underlings and mentees alike. Just stop it.

Lourdes on November 24, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Delusional..:)

Dire Straits on November 24, 2012 at 9:02 AM

That’s what i thought about the choice of Romney..:)

idesign on November 24, 2012 at 9:09 AM

idesign on November 24, 2012 at 9:09 AM

That is what I thought of the “brokered convention” by the Palinistas..:):)

Dire Straits on November 24, 2012 at 9:12 AM

or, if the economy finally rebounds in O’s second term

Allahpundit, why would you say this? Do you even understand what is wrong with the economy? Do any of the writers on this website understand what is going on?

There is no possible way the economy rebounds, unless of course everything completely collapses. There has been no economic growth for 30+ years. Does anyone here understand this? There has been NO GDP GROWTH for 30+ years!

You don’t grow GDP when there is a greater rise in debt every single year.

You actually think there is some kind of possibility for an economic rebound? Really? How the hell is that even mathematically possible?

Riposte on November 24, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Palin 2016!

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

.
Sarah could run on her anti- DC corruption platform, and at least scare the hell out of those corrupt career politicians getting rich off the tax payers- that’s a populist theme could ” connect” with. Although the media is just as dishonestly corrupt, and would destroy her and her family for good.

The Rs will think they will have a chance running a man against Clinton 45. And Shillary will have a Hispanic VP as a running mate to offset a possible Rubio/Martinez. It’s now just a game of ” popularity” chess.

You can dream about an RepPOTUS which is fine, but the SENATE is what needs the attention. No more loony Senate Candidates.

FlaMurph on November 24, 2012 at 9:13 AM

I will not vote for him and if the GOP nominates him I will leave the party.

Can I make that any clearer. Time to clean out the libs. Please do not call them moderates.

dogsoldier on November 24, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 7