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.
Jeb Miffed There’s No Bush as Prez
Jeb Bush thought America should have three consecutive Republican Presidents from the same immediate family. Think about that.
In his “defense,” he may have known, either consciously or unconsciously, that if nominated, he would lose. I’m not ruling that out as a possibility seeing him and his family in light of transpired events.
I also wonder if Jeb thought about how his entrance into the field of Republican wannabes would affect other candidates and may (if he failed to get the nomination) scuttle the chances of Marco Rubio especially — a fully qualified candidate who held very similar policy views as the Bush family. This is essentially what happened as we look back.
Jeb raised a whopping $100 million, much of which would have gone to Rubio, as well as the endorsement of the Bush network and the famiglia Cespuglio itself. Trump would not have had much chance to emerge against a united establishment behind a young dynamic candidate with early momentum.
Now Jeb believes Republicans should have a “choice” in 2020. I don’t remember if he had the same sentiment in 2004 when his brother ran for re-election.
He likes moderate Republican from Maryland Governor Hogan as a primary challenger.
Two questions: Why should anyone, even establishment Republicans, listen to to the political advice or preferences of this guy?
Do these people — Jeb!, Bill Kristol, Max Boot, Jen Rubin, et al. — not see how whomever they tout and support for 2024 will be anathema to even the most reluctant Trump voter?
Published in General
Aaaand he humps the leg anyway.
Can’t help it, I guess.
Hillary was corrupt and entitled.
I voted for the Republican candidates for Senator and Governor.
I am not leaving. This is my party, and I am working for the restoration of the Party of Reagan.
Query: Why do 40-45% of Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire would welcome a Republican Primary?
Hey buddy, sorry I hurt your feelings. My stated complaint about Jeb was his behavior after he got steamrolled by Trump and how Jeb has behaved since. What AD Homa are you speaking of? And how would you define using this phrase. “because your to ignorant to see” in a conversation with someone? [ I assume you meant “you’re” and not your ]. Jeb needs to take some lessons from Ted Cruz in how to handle a primary loss. Maybe he just thinks he is owed a victory…because he’s a Bush??? Like I said from the get go on this thread, I didn’t previously have a problem with your man, Jeb. I thought he did a good job in Florida as Governor. I think it’s been all downhill since.
It’s hard to believe that you actually mean this. What if your opponent is an actual criminal, as there’s pretty good evidence that Hillary is? Do you let them ignore the law because they’re high-ranking politicians? That’s totally contrary to the concept of the rule of law.
A more correct statement for Gary would be “only banana republics jail their opponents for being their opponents.”
There’s nothing ill-considered or unreasonable or banana-republic-ish about jailing political opponents for being criminals.
Even Ford’s pardon of Nixon was an admission by Nixon in accepting it of his guilt. But if you don’t charge them at all, you’re basically saying that certain politicians, if they rise high enough up in the pecking order, are deemed to be “Too Big to Fail”. But worse than that, if in the future people in power make that rule situational — i.e., Hillary faces no legal peril for her violations as Secretary of State while the law swoops in on Trump the moment he leaves office for things he did prior to 2016 — then you’re potentially asking for real trouble.
How you get this? All I see is an admission by Nixon that he did not want to be publicly tore apart and jailed.
Not a direct but a de facto admission. Nixon could have stood and fought the charges and rejected Ford’s pardon.
Ah, the de facto admission. Most people that believe in this tripe have not actually been in legal jeopardy where its their body, livelihood, family, future, past, existence and freedom on the line. This is why most plea bargains are BS. When the full force of the government with is mighty resources come to bear on you, well you take the easiest, least expensive way out.
Accepting a fait accompli does not equal acceptance of guilt.
(Although I was unaware when I started this comment that the SCOTUS has ruled that to be valid, a Pardon had to be accepted – US V Wilson. I think that is unique among executive action.)
Not in actuality. But Nixon’s “I gave them a sword” comment to David Frost in his interviews on Wateragte pretty much showed Nixon at the very least had come to terms with accepting blame for the foul-ups committed under his watch that led to his resignation and the pardon.
And also TWENTY CONSECUTIVE years where someone named Bush or Clinton WAS president.
From 1952 to 2008, there was one presidential election that didn’t have a Nixon, bush or dole on the ballot.
????
It’s fair to say that we have had 12 years of Bush’s as president. Why include the Clinton’s to make it 20 years? You can use the 20 year argument about anyone who got elected in between.
So what? You’re including vice presidential runs and failed presidential attempts where the candidate finally won. And you’re including Bob Dole? One vice presidential run and one presidential run (really as a sacrificial candidate against a president running for re-election. These arguments look to be over reach to me.
Never ascribed any significance to it. Just an interesting quirk of history.
True. But I included them because after Bill Clinton left the White House, he and Hillary were trying to get back in. This is not a criticism of the Bushes or the Clintons. I’m just saying it would be nice to have some other choices.