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.
Breitbart: The Bush Brand Is Toxic Now
George P. Bush is having trouble gaining traction in his race for Texas Attorney General (his stepping stone to the governorship and then the White House). He has tried really hard to shake off the family legacy of “compassionate (big government) conservatism” and “illegal immigration is an act of love,” He has tried desperately to brand himself as a MAGA Republican. But the voters aren’t buying it.
His ubiquitous name recognition is emerging as a liability in the Republican party. George P. Bush, who currently serves as the state’s land commissioner, is trailing Paxton in polls. Some of the top reasons Republican voters are reluctant about him are his ties to his family’s center-right political leanings and his own past policy positions.
Bush said those attacks are led by Paxton and don’t reflect the support he has seen on the campaign trail. The sitting attorney general’s ads against Bush focus on labeling him a RINO — Republican in name only — and linking him to his famous family.
I know it’s a bummer for GPW that he has to pay for the sins of his family. His uncle and his granddad stabbed conservatives in the back too often to be easily forgiven. Maybe his conversion to “Trumpism” is genuine, but the Bush name is synonymous with campaigning as a conservative and then governing as a big government, globalist moderates who cut bad deals with Democrats.
America really shouldn’t have political dynasties anyway.
Published in General
I think you can use a distinction – like buying a vowel. The distinction is, no one is advocating the Bush offspring be murdered. So it’s not “reminiscent” of anything.
Then to say we don’t have dynasties in the United States is laughable.
In case this wasn’t obvious (and surprisingly it’s not for a lot of nice smart people) had Jeb Bush won in 2016 he would have been the third consecutive GOP President from the same immediate family.
He wouldn’t have won? Probably not, so then why run him?! Why did many in the GOP along with donors and lobbyists back Jeb? They either knew he couldn’t win or were somehow oblivious to exactly how the Clinton team would have exploited his family ties, connections and their influence. He raised 100 million for a primary run before he got one delegate. What does that tell ya?
Just the optics alone were brutal. So either way, these are not the folks I want leading the way toward freedom and prosperity and away from socialism and tyranny.
“In the United States, you can succeed in spite of who your parents are.” That is still the case, although you have to come through the ‘right channels’ in many fields and align with folks politically in many cases. But getting really elite jobs has a tremendous connection with networking and background. Otherwise it’s correct that one can succeed in spite of his/her parents background, but we are looking at who succeeds because of their parents background.
In the case of American politics, family members of previous successful politicians inherit the network and the connections. It’s not the same in other fields. Politicians who have a built in network have a much, much better chance of winning a given election than one who doesn’t. We know the advantage of incumbency. Why is that?
So the Bush family has great political DNA? Somehow I don’t see that coming through so it’s gotta be something else.
True dat. Honestly, one of GW’s funniest moments was when he told the graduating class at SMU “To those of you who are graduating this afternoon with high honors, awards and distinctions, I say, ‘Well done.’ And as I like to tell the C students: You too, can be president.”
But despite the humor, it reveals something unpleasant about legacies.
I’ll never vote for any Bush ever again.
Why is politician a job title?
Are you thinking of Web Hubble’s daughter?
Paging…Mander…Paging… Jerry Mander. Please report to the redistricting office.
You say that as if not letting another Bush in will prevent the next Clinton to follow. The two outcomes are not causally-related whatsoever.
The Obama dynasty had one president too many.
Seems an odd take as we had the Adam’s dynasty early on
In any sane universe, it would be an epithet.
A job title can be an epithet.
“Tax collector.”
Yeah the Bush is up against one of the most popular and effective AG’s in the country. It would be hard to compete against that at the best of times.
George W Bush is the worst President of my life time. Hes basically the Jimmy Carter. His decisions have led to all the messes we now face.
I will never forgive the Iraq war. I dont care how many Africans he saved from AIDs.
I rather liked the Iraq war, but he didnt’ fight it to win. I couldn’t give a warm piss for AIDS in Africa. They can fix their own problems. It’s not philanthropy when it’s other people’s money.
The other thing that is hurting GPB is that he chose to primary an incumbent AG who has been quite effective despite the weaponized partisan prosecutions that have dogged him the bulk of his tenure. More and more, people see the ridiculousness of the effort to take Paxton down and it looks an awful lot like the fishing expeditions perpetrated against PDT in Georgia, New York, and elsewhere. As usual, the extremist left overplayed its hand and made Paxton a sympathetic figure to Republican primary voters. If Bush wanted the AG job, he should have stuck with the Land Commissioner gig until the AG seat came open. Now Bush is likely to lose which dampens any momentum he might have otherwise built toward making a run for governor.
I think GPB would probably be more conservative than GWB or GHWB but I don’t really want to have to find out. There are plenty of other Texans who will govern as conservatives without the Bush Baggage.
No but it would be fun to find out!
GWB’s stock has dropped significantly with the Republican base for two interconnected reasons. He kept his mouth shut when Obama was running the country off the cliff. That could have normally been written off as good decorum. However, he decided to run his mouth in opposition to Trump a few times which made his silence on Obama look less like good decorum and more like he wanted to be all chummy with the left. Wrap this in the context of GWB’s close relationship with WJC and all the sudden it feels like a betrayal to great swaths of Republicans who voted for Bush and Trump and expected Bush to give Trump the same respect he gave Obama. Do most Republicans hate Bush? I don’t think so. But I think that a significant swath of the base, possibly even a majority, feels dismayed and betrayed and hopes to not get fooled again.
Most politicians are not term-limited. Politicians in Texas, including GPB, certainly are not.
Why no more Reagans? There was only one, after all, and that was quite a long time ago. Shall we also proclaim “No more Lincolns” while we’re at it? I’d prefer a hearty “No more Roosevelts” myself.
Won’t go that far. Not nearly as bad as Carter, Clinton, or Obama. But in retrospect he was not as great as I hoped he would be. To this day I maintain that I prefer GWB over Gore or Kerry.
I don’t think I will go that far but every time he opens his mouth these days he seems to go a long way toward proving your point.
Don’t forget the SCOTUS nominations of W. And the expansion of the Dept. of Education. The $900B bank bailout was offensive. Plus that $9Trillion spent on hunting Osama Bin Laden–imagine that money spent on American cities.
You mean, $9 Trillion thrown at Democrat-run cities and then disappears?
Department of Homeland Security, TSA, Patriot Act, TARP, McCain-Feingold, …
They had to wait for Covid to do that.
Good point. I would have preferred tax reduction.
Well, if the Alito draft opinion of the Dobbs case comes through for the side of life, I will certainly give GWB due credit for Alito.
Fair… as long as you also give him the blame for Roberts, who will vote in support of Roe.
Never saw another Reagan in office in DC.