Posted on 12/07/2014 8:22:38 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Jeb Bush might or might not run for president in 2016. If he runs, he might or might not emerge as a winner. But his formulation for how to think about waging a successful presidential campaign suggests he already is ahead of some of his potential competitors — in both parties.
Bush, the former governor of Florida, spoke last week at a Wall Street Journal conference in Washington. In an interview conducted by Jerry Seib, the Journal’s Washington bureau chief, he said that anyone running for president should be prepared “to lose the primary to win the general [election] without violating your principles.”
What Bush said is the opposite of the oft-stated idea that presidential candidates run to the left or the right to win their party’s presidential nomination and then scamper back to the center as best they can for the general election. That prescription, while sometimes successful, can easily contribute to cynicism among the voters, who watch and wonder whether their politicians have any principles beyond the desire to win at any cost.....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Love all the advice coming from Rats after their historic defeats.
1. Run Romney.
2. Run Jeb Bush.
3. Compromise - meaning bend over.
4. Agree to amnesty.
Mitt Romney easily won the Independent vote in 2012, he and the GOPe thought that was the ticket and they won it.
Why don’t the Republicans run like Reagan and win two landslides the way he did?
America is not a friggen monarchy. No one is entitled by bloodline to lead it.
Because we have a bunch of Rhinos, not a true conservative.
Because the republican party does not believe in what Ronald Reagan believed in at all.
In fact, I’d say that the republican party loathes what Ronald Reagan believed in.
Like Juan McCain, Jeb is prepared to lose in order to keep a conservative from winning.
Ted Kennedy allegedly commented that he wanted to keep his senate seat "in the family..." however, i do not know of any one thinking they are entitled to the Presidency because of bloodline... if someone meets the requirements, they may run and even win... coming from a family of past Presidents should not keep someone from running if they want to... i say go ahead... he is not guaranteed a single vote... let the chips fall where they may...
i am holding out for a true conservative... hope one will step up next time around... Walker perhaps?
This is a picture of Jeb I took in Defuniak Springs. He was running for governor and was campaigning with Connie Mack. I only went for the free hot dogs and cokes. I will never vote for another Bush.
However, as you say it is up to us whether or not we allow them that honor.
Most of the Party is made up of TEA Party and old Reagan (used-to-be) democrats. It is just those in leadership positions, the country-clubbers, who try to convince everyone that they speak for the entire GOP.
A very useful exercise that hardly anyone takes me up on, is to compare both the party platforms. The Republican Party platform is put together by the grassroots TEA Party-types. WE are the Party and it is truly reflected in the platform. And that is why the country-clubbers try to minimize its effect.
The Republican platform is getting more and more conservative every four years. :)
and who keeps putting them in leadership positions if they are such a small minority [question mark]
i do not see it as feeling entitled... i think they know they are not entitled... Dad lost a second term... brother endured the recount circus... he has to know there is no guarantee... and because of his father and brother, he is not likely to win... the one person i can think of in recent history who seemed to feel entitled to the Presidency is Al Gore... he came across as believing he was entitled...
We actually have the Jebs and the Mitts forced on us by the GOPe, which is actually a very small but powerful group who magnify their effects through money and the media.
The reason why Ronald Reagan made it through the country-clubbers was the absolute crush caused by the grassroots. That is why Bush had to step aside briefly before he was asked to be VP.
The problem is that the GOPe is made up of people who do not really believe in the first principles of life and liberty. If they were they would really listen to the will of the grassroots, because that is where the life of the Party really is.
The GOP is separated by two facts. The so-called economic conservatives and the so-called social conservatives. The economic conservatives are pro-choice and would very much like to have all the social issues thrown out of the platform.
The social conservatives are actually pro-life and pro-business. They are not disjointed like the eco-only types. The social conservatives are actually Constitutional conservatives as Mark Levin correctly describes them. The eco-only types do not (or maybe they do) realize it but they are actually head-butting our "Life, Liberty and Pursuit" in order to knock Life out of the picture.
I have been involved at the state party level and the most shameful thing is to see eco-only glad-handers pushing their agenda where it does not belong, absconding with the will of the people.
I was so inspired by his interview. How ‘bout you?
Because they are really deep down just demorats?
I would stay home before I would vote for another Bush. No nose holding, no nothing.
I voted a straight GOP ticket last month.
But if the GOP runs a JEB in two years, they can go **** themselves.
McCain, Romney, Bush III. Lefty loosers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.