Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
An Open Plea to Jeb Bush
During the 2008 campaign, George Will made the comment (roughly) that Barack Obama would pick up between four to six percent of the electorate because he’s black. Looking back, I think we can agree he had it about right.
In 2016, the race will be decided by a sizable portion of the electorate who are uniformed about your stellar record as Florida governor, or the conservatism of your immigration policy as touted by the Wall Street Journal, or the other features of your character and accomplishments so many of us on the right have come to admire.
They will only know that you are the brother of former President George W. Bush, on whom the Democrats have laid the blame for nearly everything that’s gone wrong in America and the world. And, as absurd as it seems to most of us, Democrats are still doing it to this day — successfully.
The stark reality is, your surname is so tainted that whatever potential you have to be a good — or even great president is overcome by the likelihood that you will lose between four to six percent of the electorate off the top. You can’t win the general.
It’s unfair and tragic. I’m sorry to have to be the one to tell you. But it has to be said, and I’m asking you not to enter the race and monopolize resources that might help another worthy candidate win. I’m not asking on behalf of the GOP. I’m asking on behalf of the country you and I love. Please don’t run.
Published in General
Amen to this. How many people do we need to do an intervention?
Perhaps if people just become signatories in the comments…
I agree. Jen should not run. There are plenty of other good candidates.
America should not have political dynasties. This is a republic, not a hereditary monarchy.
[Edited for CoC]
I agree with MLR, and, to a lesser extent, BDB. Dynasties are not good for republics, regardless how good the individuals are. It seems that the Bushes have, so far, been exemplary Cincinatti (English is fun), but having too much power in the hands of one family for too long cannot be good. It’s a projection of the need for term limits in Congress.
I agree. Jeb would lose the General. While I know next to nothing about Jeb ( other than opposition to controlling the border ) , his father intentionally squandered the legacy of Reagan, and W. was a big government disaster.
There are absolutely no circumstances under which I’d vote for Jeb Bush for any office.
Period.
The serenade Jeb Bush sang to Hillary Clinton before awarding her the Liberty Medal convinced me to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Was it on a podcast? Recently I heard a startling historical tidbit: a Republican hasn’t held the White House without a Bush somewhere in the chain of command since the 1979-80 election. Thirty-five years. The dynasty thing is truly a bad idea and somehow seems un-American.
But, it won’t be the factor in the 2016 general election, especially if Clinton is the Democratic candidate. It won’t matter if Jeb Bush is a marvelous candidate with the best policy prescriptions we’ve had in decades. The “moderate” (read “uniformed”) voter will be deciding his vote based on superficials like gender and surname. If Bush loses four to six points for being a Bush as I’ve predicted, Hillary picks up another three to five for being a woman. Game. Set. Match.
I’m asking my fellow Ricoteers to mind their tone. People are not persuaded by hostility. Such expressions just inflame those who already agree.
Until proven otherwise, I assume Jeb Bush is a fine and decent man with everything it takes to be a good president. He just can’t win.
This plea is intended to persuade him or someone working on his campaign (yes, I know he’s already running) of the insurmountable barrier his surname presents. He may suck up all the primary resources by his early start. It won’t matter in the general.
@Western Chauvinist . . .
From your keyboard to Jeb’s ears.
Where is the man/woman – the patriot – that will place their hands on his shoulders . . .look him in the eye . . . and state this irrefutable truth:
“Jeb. You won’t win. We’re losing our heritage. And you’re helping.”
Someone else, maybe. I’ve read about polls to the effect that 48% won’t vote for Hillary under any circumstances. That’s a pretty tall hurdle.
A Bush-Clinton race could pull the biggest voter turnout in American history. :) There’s a lot of animosity and hatred to be mined on both sides.
I suffer from Clinton derangement syndrome, and I will vote for anyone who could stand in the way of either of the Clintons getting near the White House.
I’m dismayed that a post like this should be deemed necessary at all.
Jeb Bush has no constituency among actual Republican primary voters. He’s too squishy for the conservative base, and too Bushy for squish voters. In contrast to all other big-name contenders, I really can’t imagine that anyone has Jeb Bush as their first choice.
Here’s my point: if a candidate has no natural followers, it shouldn’t be necessary to plead with him to drop out. His downfall should be inevitable, and we should instead be cracking jokes about how long before Bush sees the light and drops out, and how much Chamber of Commerce money he will have burned through by that point.
But here we are worried that an unloved candidate may indeed be able to buy the Republican nomination through a combination of money and insider influence. If this is true, then the biggest problem is not Bush himself, it’s that the nomination process is broken.
Process is never as fun to discuss as personalities, but sooner or later the Republican primary will have to be completely overhauled so that we aren’t continually speculating how the least beloved candidate will steal the prize this time around.
Dole, McCain, Romney, Bush? How many times do we have to lose before we wise up?
There’s that old saw about insanity being when one repeats the same thing over and over and expects different results.
I think the conservative base in bordering on insanity.
They have been utterly unhappy with their party’s nominees for a generation, yet every 4 years they say “this time will be different!” But after 20 years of repeating that mantra, perhaps it’s time to admit that the problem is much more intractable than they (you?) think.
I see three realistic explanations for the string of uninspiring nominees:
1) The Republican primary electorate just isn’t as conservative as you think/want it to be.
2) The primary system, while democratic, is too susceptible to outside influences and needs to be overhauled.
3) The system works, and for some perverse reason, the most viable Republican candidate usually turns out to be the one almost nobody in the party really wanted.
Note that “we didn’t try hard enough” isn’t on the list.
I agree with this assessment.
I did not follow the primaries in 2008 or 2012. I am frustrated by them. I keep hearing Karl Rove’s admonishments to candidates on “overexposure.” How true is that. By the time the regular election cycle begins, the electorate has already tuned out the candidates. I also don’t like the “open” primaries. I would rather see the parties go back to little caucuses than keep allowing independents and Democrats to vote in Republican primaries. [That said, the marketing gurus would say the harm would be outweighed by the boost in name recognition for the candidates participating in the primaries. :) ]
A Bush-Clinton race could change the political landscape in America forever.
It would push into existence a powerful Independent Party and a Libertarian Party. It would not end the Democratic Party, but it could be the end of Republican Party. I see huge divisions in the Republican Party, and a Bush-Clinton race would widen those gaps. We’re talking about stirring up a lot of emotional energy on both sides. Anything could happen.
Both parties would be nuts to run these two candidates. Wow. It will be a mess.
And my biggest problem with Hillary Clinton is that she has no self-respect. None.
2016 nightmares.
I think you meant she has no shame. None.
Any Secretary of State who could tell the parents of those slain at Benghazi that we would get that filmmaker(!) and then not crawl under a rock and stay there permanently is a repulsively shameless self-promoter.
I know.
She has a self-destructive psychology that really scares me. If I respect myself, I respect my country. If I don’t, what do I care about anyone or anything?
Oh, man.
I hope she does not run. Please Lord.
Words no longer matter. Facts no longer matter. You’re not going to convince anybody who matters of anything, and even if you do, it won’t matter.
The GOP is actively hostile to smaller government and to conservatism in general. They enable the Alinskyite progressives not through ignorance but from their chosen role as highly profitable straight men to the outrageous antics of the highly organized left. They’re not stupid. They do not somehow fail to see the results of their actions. We are stupid for giving them that excuse.
They know what they’re doing. They get a loser’s share of a pie big enough that losing is no punishment.
Civility is the mistake we keep making. I will not support Bush no matter what of course, and I am unlikely to support the eventual nominee at any rate. Why? Because the nominee is going to be another establishment sham, and some people will vote for him over their own “for the last time” protests, while others meant what we said when we said “no more”.
The way I see it, the only hope is to change the GOP, and they have met our repeated challenges to change (which come with impressive victories) with a blunt and plain refusal to even entertain the idea. The GOP is unwilling to take direction, and must be made to bleed until it hurts so much that they have to change. And nothing else matters.
I agree. It’s the biggest flaw I can find in Jeb Bush’s character thus far — this apparent utter lack of awareness of the political toxicity of his surname.
Your concerns are so serious and are shared by so many people in the United States.
Obviously, the Republican Party cannot be remade to be what you and others want it to be.
In Massachusetts this past election, the local Republicans scrapped everything except fiscal conservatism. I wonder if the national party needs to go that direction.
If the Republican Party fractures along the lines I see on Ricochet, we’ll just be handing over the fate of the nation to the Democrats.
I just don’t see anyone (except Romney, for my money) who can save the Republican Party. And we can get ticked off all we want and storm off, but what will the result be? Not good. We’ll be worse off with Democrats everywhere we go than we would be with a few Republicans around.
Sigh. A total mess. Ugh.
And the Democrats are seeing the same things I am.
They know the next election will be about fiscal issues.
So all those bureaucrats in Washington are busy cooking the books, make the Democratic years look like financial heaven.
If the Republicans were smart, they’d be putting their money into coming out with honest economic indicators. Because the Democrats are already working on the 2016 election and they know it will be about inflation and taxes and employment. Because there’s nothing left to cause controversy between the two parties.
Then it will die.
But what will replace it? The Democrats will take over everything. That is not a good thing.
As an historian you know that these are common decisions made by the electorate. There has technically been no *anointing* but yes, political influence does abound.
We’ve profited by the dynastic legacies of the Adams and the Tafts; were damaged by the Daleys; had good and bad results from the Roosevelts (Teddy vs. Franklin), Kennedys (Jack vs. Ted), the Rockefellers (Nelson vs. Jay) and fared quite nicely with the Bushes (H.W. and sons W. and Jeb).
I have a tendency to describe the development of dynasties as just another choice made at the voting booth and I defend them mostly because I have my eye on this Bushie for the future: George P. wins Texas election, accomplishes Bush family first.
I agree with you. There has been no intent on the part of the Bush family to create a “dynasty.” That said, I watched the growth of Bush derangement syndrome with alarm, and the name is radioactive out there. Not fair, but it is.
Would people vote for him if his name were Jeb Smith? Anyone is free to run. Jeb’s running doesn’t preclude anyone else from running. It’s a free country.
It’s sort of like the term limits issue–there are term limits. They are called ballots. :)
I agree with you Marci, so I hope Jeb declines to run in 2016 in order to clear a future path for #1 son. :)