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 Letter to Jeb Bush
Dear Governor Bush,
There are many ways to express your love of country. One is to serve as President. In your case, that path seems closed. Since April, you spent the better part of $15 million in Iowa, yet you came sixth, winning just 2.8 percent of the vote and one delegate. At this rate, you’d need to spend $18,540,000,000 to win the nomination – which is more than even Right to Rise can manage.
There is no shame in losing, of course, and it’s always possible that New Hampshire will shock the world by giving you a victory, but let’s face it, the RealClearPolitics average of New Hampshire polls has you at under 10 percent (under 5 percent nationally), and your donors are panicking. After what was supposed to be a reassuring post-Iowa conference call with your campaign, one donor told Politico, “Have you ever heard the phrase ‘rattle of death?’”
Even stipulating that primary polls are notoriously poor, there are other reasons to conclude that this is not your year. It may not have much to do with you personally. There has never been a third president from the same family. Most Americans were fine with two Adamses, Harrisons, Roosevelts, and Bushes. Three is pushing it. I know, I know. You’re your own man. Of course that’s true. Life isn’t fair. But it goes both ways. You would almost certainly never have been governor if your name had been James Ellis instead of John Ellis Bush. You seem to be a fine person and were certainly a superior and very conservative governor of Florida. For good or ill, gratitude for past service is not the mood this year, and, with all due respect, except at the last debate, when, freed from Donald Trump’s bullying, you finally stood up straight, you’ve been an awfully dull candidate. We cannot chalk it up to voter ignorance. Between your campaign and your super PAC, you’ve already spent $89.1 million on positive ads about yourself and negative ads about others.
One of the great traits about the Bush family, as about other great New England Protestant old money families, is that you value good manners, courtesy, and integrity. Those virtues are disparaged in our increasingly vituperative, bombastic, and swaggering era. One senses that you find Donald Trump’s conduct disgusting and even a little bewildering. Good for you. It is.
And yet, you’ve directed the overwhelming majority of your negative advertising (and you’ve led the pack on negative ad spending) not against Trump, who seems to represent everything you find destructive and dangerous in modern politics, but against your old friend and ally Marco Rubio.
Your ads have been embarrassing. You and Rubio agree on nearly everything, so you’re dredging up long since debunked stories about credit cards and ridiculous accusations of missed votes in the Senate chamber. Really? Is that all you’ve got? No, you’ve also run ads attacking Rubio for taking the same position you took on illegal immigration. When challenged about these at the most recent debate, you said, “Politics ain’t beanbag.” No, but this is the narcissism of small differences.
You seem to believe, as many of us do, that in order to prosper, in fact, in order to survive, the Republican Party must look beyond its aging, white, rural, and evangelical Christian core to welcome African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, urbanites, and the young. Yet by attacking Rubio, you are attempting to sabotage the very best messenger the Republican Party has found in decades. As you yourself put it: “What Marco has is something that the Republican Party needs to have: A hopeful, optimistic message based on our principles. He’s probably the most articulate conservative on the scene today.”
After Iowa, Marco Rubio has an excellent chance of winning the Republican nomination. If he prevailed, he would be the most conservative nominee in decades and well situated to win the general election. This is not to hurt your feelings, but your general election favorability ratings are the worst in the Republican field with the exception of Trump. Despite the avalanche of negative ads, Rubio’s net favorables are the best (with the exception of Ben Carson and we know where that’s going).
If you were to drop out of the race now and endorse Marco Rubio, or at the very least, call off the attack dogs, you would be advancing everything you say you believe in except yourself. It would be a gracious and inspiring gesture. It would be a different way to serve your country – and might even revive our faith in Yankee integrity.
Published in General
Where the math goes wrong there is that every time Jeb or R2R runs an ad, Jeb’s support goes down.
For the last few days, Lindsey Graham has been hitting the airwaves, peddling an incoherent mess of ideas, among which is that the Republican party MUST reach out to Hispanics in order to expand the reach of the party, with Graham all the while calling a pox on both Rubio and Cruz, for their ‘anti-immigration’ stance.
Thus, according to Graham, and in order to grow the party in the direction of Hispanic outreach, the Republicans should jettison both Rubio and Cruz, and elect Jeb Bush.
Perhaps Graham takes Bush’s position on Hispanics seriously because he made a conscious decision to marry one, while Cruz and Rubio were ‘stuck’ with their ethnicity from birth–just as some parents of adoptive children tell them they’re extra-special because they were chosen. Or perhaps it’s that Graham thinks of the name “Ted Cruz” and the way it relates to the phrase “Hispanic American” in the same way that many Democrats think of the name “Condoleezza Rice” and the way it relates to the phrase “black woman.” I don’t know.
But it seems a rather silly argument, especially since it comes within a day or two of what I think may have been the first victory by a Hispanic American in any Presidential primary, one in which two of the top four vote-getters were Hispanic Americans, and another was was an African American. You can hardly get any more hyphenated than that. Just about in the middle of the pack of twelve candidates, at number seven, was a woman, who won a delegate and came in ahead of four former governors and a former senator. Not bad all round.
I, too, think it’s time for Jeb! to take a hike.
The White Mountains are beautiful at this time of year.
One thing Marco will do that Romney didn’t, he’ll win.
Hmm. Many of us see no value in a Bush endorsement of Rubio. Yet some people do, as evidenced by this letter. Which of Bush’s current supporters shift somewhere other than Rubio should Bush throw it in?
The endorsement seems to have no upside, and as several have identified, some downside.
Great letter by Ms. Charen! I have to agree with BDB about the possible downside for Rubio of a Bush endorsement, but what a graciously put message to Jeb Bush. I hope he sees it and takes it to heart. It just wasn’t his year.
JimK,
Everything you have said here assumes that nothing has changed since the 1990s in American political life. The same set of controlling assumptions just need to be reapplied while the electorate is calculated and properly propagandized.
cont.
cont. from #36
Unfortunately, things have changed. BHO is a pure ideologue. He is a master propagandist of the first order. However, the ideology is no longer big government social welfare. It is a virulent anti-Western obsession that is Krypto-Marxist with the emphasis on the Marxist not the Krypto. There is no longer the fig leaf of being concerned about middle class working families. Public employee union gay couples are the middle class working families that the democratic party represents.
You must be able to fight fire with fire. You must be able to deliver a consistent counter-ideological message and attack, attack, attack the Obamites. You must project a positive persona while you are doing this. The combination is a tall order. The difference between Rubio and Cruz is that they both provide the consistent counter-ideology but Rubio can connect emotionally in a positive way with people to a greater extent. Everyone I talk to says they know a women or a young person who could ‘live with’ voting for Rubio.
If Jeb! or anyone like him got out into the general election he would be a sitting duck for the same sick media gang that gave BHO two terms. Sort of like a battleship in the age of aircraft carriers. Christie & Kasich are even worse. After both posturing as conservatives, they make it crystal clear that they’d sell it all out for a little extra federal pork for their home states. Totally pathetic and totally unacceptable.
It’s a new world. It’s going to take a new candidate.
Regards,
Jim
This is a great post and very sad. Part of me feels bad for Jeb.
But BDB and RightAngles are right. People are trying to smear Rubio with the “establishment” label. An endorsement by Jeb would reinforce that.
I feel bad for him too. I can tell he’s a decent man, and would probably be a good president. It’s just the timing. It’s not his time, and he should face that before he does any more damage. Unfortunately, I’m afraid the people around him have a vested interest in staying until the last dog has died, as my mom used to say.
Amen! Rubio first came to my attention a few years ago when he gave a speech at the Reagan Library. It was the one where he escorted Nancy Reagan down the aisle and she stumbled a bit. It was a fabulous speech, and I thought, that man will be president some day. Didn’t think I would live to see it. I hope it comes to pass.
Geez, Jim, I hope you didn’t take my comments as support for Jeb!?! The positive spin on continuing his candidacy is framed as an appeal to his frame of mind to reject Mona’s advice. (She transparently has Rubio’s best interests at heart.)
After Florida, Jeb can drop out (or continue) with honor by going to bat against Rubio, as can the other popularly elected Republican governors who deserve more than two or three state scrutiny. A longer contest involves more state organizing, which will translate to a stronger party come November. And I’d love to see them all come out here to California so we could help put the winner over the top.
I wouldn’t vote for Bush or Rubio, mind you. Neither will get tough, really tough, on illegal immigration. Trump will attack it aggressively. When Congress forces him to compromise his vision, it will be from a skyscraper-sized wall to something more like the nasty but effective Berlin one, maybe with a casino on the Mexican side to pay for it.
I agree with you about Obama. He is a crypto-Marxist. Krypto was Superman’s dog.
Well done. Excellent.
When the dust eventually settles from the Jeb campaign carnage I would suggest to any future candidates to never hire Mike Murphy. Murphy’s 2000 campaign playbook turned an otherwise decent man into the 2016 guttersnipe.
R2R will down as a case study for what campaign auxiliaries should never do.
I agree. It’s time to pull the plug. And I started out supporting Jeb.
Agreed!
JimK,
Bravo, spelling. I’m sure that is terribly important but what in the world are you talking about. Jeb flat lined in Iowa. If he doesn’t do better than 5th, getting past Carson, in New Hampshire he has no reason to be in this race. New Hampshire is a reverse of Iowa demographically. Why in the world should he create a civil war in Florida other than to try to damage a front runner.
Frankly scarlet, I don’t give a damn about you being a dandy governor. We’ve got lots of Republican governors. We need a Republican President and we need one right now!
Jeb! can try New Hampshire. The whole religious thing is out in New Hampshire as it’s the least religious state in the Union. If he can’t do anything at all there with all of the money, inside contacts,..etc., it’s bye bye Jeb! To pull in old political IOUs in Florida just to break Rubio’s back stinks and you know it.
One more thing. Rubio’s back isn’t going to break. He already waited his turn in 2012. Why doesn’t Jeb make a big donation to Hillary’s campaign? Pulling this crap would have about the same effect.
Regards,
Jim
Obviously we all agree. But endorsing Rubio would be the cruelest attack on him yet.
Very well said.
Jeb and his backers was the canary in the coal mine for so many anti-socialists. ( hard to find accurate labels these days)
We knew the party was tone deaf, but we had no idea how bad it really was until Jeb! was accepted by most insiders and the pundit class as merely another qualified candidate with a history of conservatism, including the conservative position of keeping our borders open.
Wow. That’s what I said, and many others too.
Now the same people who shrugged about dynasty issues and what many of us saw as real electability problems in a general election (Bush v. Clinton this time it’s personal) finally realize ( or finally feel it’s now safe to say) the Jeb! is really Jeb?
They have lost all credibility as agenda free pundits and politicians.
The most obvious thing in this cycle is between the forces who want variants of open borders, and those who do not. If Rubio becomes the candidate who these folks support, as is now becoming the case, we will find him highly suspect on that issue.
Who didn’t see that Jeb! Was going to become a huge problem for other candidates like Perry, Christie, and especially Rubio?
Calling for Jeb to drop out now and support Rubio reveals the same myopia.
With each new promotion and endorsement my suspicion that Rubio will, by hook or crook, cave to Democrats and corporatist forces on immigration ‘reform’
increases.
I thank Jeb for highlighting for all to see what’s wrong and who is wrong, with the Republican Party.
There are donours that invested millions of dollars in Jeb Bushs campaign and volunteers that invested weeks of their free time because they believe in him, he simply cannot quit after Iowa. It would not be considered to be honourable at all, it would only be convenient for Marco Rubio (whom I would prefer as well). The negative campaigning may be unattractive (it is to me as well) but it is absolutely part of the game, because it is and will be effective. Christie’s “Bubble Boy” line seems to me the most promising in both regards to date because it combines a very reasonable argument with a very unflattering visualisation. A vicious and clever line of attack against a direct adversory for the same constituency. Mona Charen and other Marco Rubio supporters should be happy about Iowa but also be a little more patient and don’t expect an instant coronation of their very attractive and quite untested prince of Gang of eight notoriety. Personally, I could easily wait for eight more years and a succesful vice presidency.
Will have to be edited for spelling errors (and for spelling errors only), sorry for my rather poor English.
What’s the rush? Some of us haven’t voted yet. Don’t let the media interpreters tell us who must quit. The process is too rushed. Other states need to be heard from, including swing states. Obama benefited from the long race against Hillary in 2008.
There are other threads here where people are calling for more attention to Carly Fiorina’s collapsing campaign. She’s polling at a fraction of Jeb, which is pretty low. I hope Chris Christie will stay around. You never know who’s going to catch fire or make the right alliance.
You Rubio supporters are so transparent. You just assume that Bush and Kasich voters will come your way and the sooner the better, because more 3rd place finishes for Rubio will show weakness. The “establishment lane” need back-up plans to Rubio, the more the merrier — they’re all future VP possibilities — as people get more acclimated to the idea of an immigration hardliner at the top of the ticket.
Please don’t misunderstand me. Of all our candidates, the one I would least like to have at 1600 is Jeb! He lost me with the Schiavo case back in the 1990’s. He’s a total wimp on immigration. But Rubio is most culpable for the GOP’s attempt at an immigration reform surrender to the Democrats, and he’s still trying to have it both ways.
Rubio must be forced to admit he’s been wrong on amnesty and path-to-citizenship, and no longer supports those positions. Otherwise he (a) won’t be a viable choice for Vice President; or, if nominated (b) won’t get the votes he needs from the party’s muscular and ascendant anti-illegals wing come November. The latter goes double if there are more terrorist attacks from Islamist “refugees.”
Rubio, to his credit, called for an end to family chain immigration, but far too quietly. He should take it a step further, and embrace Trump’s call for a “best and brightest” immigration policy. As Ann Coulter has pointed out, we need to stop taking in peasants from everywhere.
We need immigration policy more like what we had in the 1950’s and early ’60s, when aliens on work permits dutifully registered every January; Western Europe and Asia sent us leaders in business and the professions; while doors were opened narrowly to carefully scrutinized, educated refugees from central European and Cuban collectivism.
Will Trump will redeploy the illegal immigrants he’s using to build hotels to build the wall? Or will he create a special visa category for these workers?
If Jeb stays in until winner-take-all Florida – as I for one dearly hope he does – that should split whatever is left of the establishment vote and hand it to Trump. After that it should be all downhill to the nomination.
You are absolutely correct. But the packaging is better.
Immigration is the policy rap against Rubio. Will it be enough to body slam him?
Rubio is becoming the vessel for all in the media and the conservative establishment who hate and fear Trump. They will try to shield Rubio, much as the press fronted for Obama, the prior first term Senator with a big smile who never ran anything.
Michael,
You can support who you like but Rubio has never been the establishment candidate. He ran aground on the immigration issue which her majesty Ann Coulter has pronounced as the ultimate litmus test of all. Rubio re-evaluated 2 years ago and specifically changed his stance. Since then he is hard and fast on it.
Trump has changed his stance on immigration, single payer, abortion, and so many more issues that I can’t list them all. Not to mention that he was a democrat. I think the lady Coulter doth protest too much.
I don’t think the nominee need be a governor nor pass the Ann Coulter smell test. Your encouragement of a Republican bloodletting in Florida so your candidate can profit, damn the general election, is what doesn’t pass the smell test. It stinks.
Regards,
Jim
From the beginning of this race, I wasn’t sure whether it was more embarrassing to have Jeb Bush running or Trump.
Then to have guys like Walker, Jindal, and now Rand Paul drop out … sad.
Isn’t Rubio’s current story that you can’t do immigration reform “comprehensively” so he wants to do it piece (as though that somehow makes it better)? God only knows what he has been telling spanish-speaking interviewers….
Trump has made himself quite clear on immigration. Rubio has been intentionally vague on what he would do. You are clearly not an immigration hawk. One more terrorist attack from a “refugee” and this will become the deciding issue in November.
On single payer, we’re all for single payer when it comes to Medicare. Trump supports Obamacare repeal — and replacement. He has not taken money from the lobbyists who wrote the bill. He’s been a steadfast supporter of health care for his workers, and understands the problems businesses face with too many costs and not enough tax help from the government. I trust Trump far more than Paul Ryan to protect all the tax benefits for businesses who cover their employee health care.
On abortion rights, I note that Trump is not all worked up over the issue. He’s not a religious fanatic — he keeps it in perspective. I like that about him on principle, and because it makes him more electable. Iowa is over. My best guess is that Trump will seek to lower the number of abortions taking place by overall support for women’s health issues including massive deployment of (cost-effective) birth control. He’ll probably support Hyde on the federal level, and continue to allow the states to go their own ways on abortions for the needy. It’s really not in the hands of any POTUS anyway.
Yes, Trump was a Democrat. So was I. So was my wife. So was a President whose birthday is tomorrow. Former Democrats are much more accessible to swing voters who will decide the election. And the only one we’ve elected made a great President.
W,
I think that’s unfair unless you have evidence. I think this is more the kind of thing that Jeb! might do. He thinks of himself as the light unto the Hispanics but I have nothing specific.
What if I were to ask if Trump might still be promising single-payer, or no change on late-term abortions or reset with the Russians. Three years ago did Trump want to build a fence?
I think that we are getting strongly declared conservatives as the front runners. Obviously, with a chief executive who refuses to enforce the laws already on the books we are in immigration free fall. I think Jeb!, Christie, and Kasich are far more prone to compromise on this issue, not to mention many more issues and their poll numbers are in the basement.
I think I’d let the voters decide which of the strongly declared conservatives they want. Sweeping the dems out of government in 2016 will be its own reward.
Regards,
Jim
Well, follow the money:
“Hedge-fund billionaire Paul Singer’s decision to throw his financial weight behind the donor-class 2016 favorite, Sen. Marco Rubiohas sparked fresh questions about Rubio’s coziness with the financial interests funding his career.
Singer was a major financial force behind the Rubio-Obama amnesty and immigration expansion push in 2013.”
Are we supposed to believe, like Hillary says, that money won’t influence his policies?
James Gawron #54, that is just not true. Rubio is still pro-amnesty. He has repented his inadequate means, not his nefarious ends.