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.
Bush, Romney, or Rubio: Who’d You Rather Have?
An interesting observation this morning from the folks at NBC News’ First Read:
After Jeb Bush’s news [that he’s release a new e-book, as well as e-mail records of his time as governor, both taken by the media as suggestions that he’ll run for president] this weekend, we received a press release that supporters of Mitt Romney have created a Super PAC urging the 2012 GOP presidential nominee to make a run in ’16. This Super PAC sure feels like a response to Jeb, because if Jeb does get in, there won’t be as much pining for Romney, especially among the Republican Party’s wealthy donors. Here’s one more thing to consider: If Jeb is ultimately a “yes,” that probably also freezes out a bid by Marco Rubio, who’s a political disciple of Bush’s.
Now, here’s an interesting question for Ricochet: my read of the assembled Ricochetti is that there’s not much appetite for either a Bush or Romney candidacy, and that a Rubio bid — while not repellant — is also not a major fixation for most of our readers. So here’s the question, putting aside for the moment your feelings about other candidates: if each of these three candidates has the potential to crowd out the other two, which one would you most like to see make the race and why?
Published in General
Shemp?
Why are those the only three choices?
Rubio – next question?
They’re not of course, but that’s the point of the exercise. If you had to live with one of the three, which one would it be?
Not Rubio — too young and green. And a senator. Ugh.
Not Bush — too squishy and, well… a Bush. Blech.
Romney is the most acceptable of the three. If he’s “the one,” I hope he learned something from his 2012 failure — like don’t quit while you’re ahead in the debates. Sheesh.
I prefer a candidate with executive experience – so that eliminates Rubio (though I like him very much as a senator).
I believe Romney would have been a fine president had he won. But he wasn’t willing to fight for it before – and I don’t see that changing in a second campaign. So – no to Romney.
Jeb Bush has the executive experience. He seems to be a bright fellow and a good leader. But he is named Bush – and the media will absolutely crucify him for that unpardonable sin. So – no to Bush.
I guess I’m with Misthiocracy @ #2. I want more choices.
Not Jeb. Rubio needs more experience. So that leaves Romney.
More choices, please.
I can always choose not to vote, right?
I guess Rubio. Not Bush.
Bush and Rubio have too many strikes against them, so I’m still sticking to Romney as I have in the past. There is absolutely no question that he would have been a much better President than the clown now in the White House, and our place in the World would still be one of Leadership instead of whatever one can call what we now have.
Romney would be the best President of the three; Rubio the best candidate.
Jeb would energize the Dem. base.
I am torn between Romney and Rubio but begging for somebody else
What WC said.
I think that both Romney and Bush would make good presidents (I’m less sure about Rubio simply because he lacks governing experience), but I think Rubio would probably be the candidate with the best shot of winning. Romney and Bush have too much baggage.
So the point of this exercise is to get everyone to vote LP?
Rubio.
And since #13 asks the question: No, I won’t be voting Libertarian.
Romney. Not even worth a question. Bush, like his brother and father, is just a softer version of the Dems. Rubio is…a kid. And a lawyer (i.e. talks a lot, but has no clue). No thanks.
Romney isn’t just the best of these three. He’s the best hands down among any other candidates.
If the LP ever ran anyone who wasn’t a druggie, a former prostitute, a conspiracy nut, or that ever ran a campaign on any other issues other than the former three…then maybe. Till then, no thanks.
Bush has no shot – The media onslaught will be brutal 24/7
Rubio hasn’t enough experience
That leaves Romney. He is a fine human being, likely to be a good President and I suspect he might get 2 or 3% just from the “I erred in not voting for him last time, I won’t make that mistake again” crowd.
But I too, would like more choices.
[Edited to remove a typo]
AIG- “Ifthe LP ever ran anyone who wasn’t a druggie, a former prostitute, a conspiracy nut, or that ever ran a campaign on any other issues other than the former three…then maybe. Till then, no thanks.”
Is it possible for a politician to be a “former” prostitute?
I’m greedy; I want them all!
A Romney/Rubio ticket for the national election and Jeb Bush back again as my governor when Scott’s term is up.
Romney: At least there is some small sliver of hope that he can be convinced not to support amnesty. Bush and Rubio arent ever going to back away from their open (southern) borders position. Jeb would be in last place for me. He has a bad habit of implying that anti amnesty republicans (ie actual republicans) are bigots.
Romney
Of those three – Romney – but I still think his Mormonism is a problem with a small but significant slice of the electorate.
I hope President Walker puts him in charge of reforming the IRS.
Monty Hall would offer the opportunity to choose Curtain #4, behind which would inevitably stand a goat.
I’ll have the goat.
Mention any of these three as potential 2016 Presidential candidates again, and I’ll come on over to your house and give you “The Treatment”.
I may even subject you to some Bugling.
“The Treatment” is shown starting at about 6:00 into the video.
If we pick Romney, I won’t have to buy a new bumper sticker for my car.
Win win.
Me too!
The first random name in the phone book.
Copy cat. Bill Buckley already said that! :))
You’ll need that overlay that says, “Another chance to get it right, America!”
Done!
Rubio