Posted on 02/27/2015 8:03:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Seeing some oohing and aahing online this afternoon among political media that Jeb didnt pander to CPACs very conservative crowd on Common Core or immigration (he stuck to his guns!), but what would he have gained by doing that? Remember, for all the hype in 2012 that Romney was shifting to the center to run as a technocrat instead of as the culture warrior he ran as in 2008, he was still a fairly doctrinaire righty on most issues, the notable exception of RomneyCare aside. Thats what the severely conservative nonsense was all about in his CPAC speech three years ago. Thats also why he was a hard-ass about self-deportation as a solution to illegal immigration, a position that he alone seemed to hold among the amnesty-fan donor class from which he hails. (Im convinced that self-deportation is to Romney 2012 what traditional marriage was to Obama 2008, although well never know for sure.) Romney worried that, with the tea party in ascendance during Obamas first term, he could win the GOP nomination but be crippled by recalcitrant conservatives who refused to vote for him in the general election. Thats why he insisted on pandering to them, I think partly because he thought he could grab some righty votes here and there in the primaries as the most obviously electable candidate in the field and partly just to stay on conservatives good side so that theyd turn out for him.
Jebs coming from a different place. For one thing, there are formidable candidates in the field in Scott Walker and Marco Rubio who are arguably as electable as Bush is and with whom hell have to compete for dollars among the country-club set. He doesnt (yet) have a stranglehold on the business class like Romney did. Bushs I wont pander shtick has also generated an early animosity among righties that wasnt quite there for the eager-to-please Romney, who at least seemed like he wanted conservatives to like him. Bushs aloofness is more Huntsman-esque. And the centrists of the donor class who are bankrolling him love it, of course. Theyre sick to death of tea partiers whining about the establishment and they finally have a candidate whos unapologetic about sharing their views. Furthermore, it was establishmentarians even more than tea partiers who thrived in the 2014 midterms. They have the momentum within the GOP right now, not righties, so why should they tolerate their champion pandering to right-wingers like they did with Mitt?
So heres Jeb, knowing all of that and having already all but written off conservative votes, wondering what to do with his Q&A at CPAC today. Should he reverse course and start pandering to righties? If he did, wed laugh at him while his centrist business-minded base would recoil in horror. Or should he stick to his guns, earning a little grudging respect from conservatives that he came onto their turf and refused to pander while impressing establishmentarians that he means what he says about running as a loud-and-proud centrist? Its a no-brainer. In fact, for all the jokes today about this being Jebs moment to show he too is severely conservative, Bush was actually trying to do the opposite of what Romney was doing with that speech. Mitt gave that speech because he wanted to prove to CPACs audience of grassroots conservatives that he was one of them. Jeb gave todays Q&A to prove to people who <>arent at CPAC that hes one of them and not afraid to broadcast that fact at ground zero of the conservative movement. How that ends for him in November 2016 if hes the nominee, I dont know. Presumably he thinks it doesnt matter how much righties dislike him since theyll inevitably dislike Hillary more. Hes not wrong.
Here he is endorsing a path to legalization for illegals a position held by every Republican candidate in the field, I hasten to remind you followed by Laura Ingraham unloading on him in a speech at CPAC earlier this morning. Jeb also said today that he supports traditional marriage. Mark that down for easy reference for the inevitable hes evolved news circa spring 2018. Exit quotation from Ingraham: The idea that we should conduct any kind of coronation because 50 rich families decide who will best decide their interests? No way, Jose.
(VIDEOS-AT-LINK)
When I signed up on FR is not relevant. I am an American citizen and I plan to vote for a Republican candidate. Your vote is no more valuable than mine. I didn’t say I would stay home. I didn’t day I would be voting 3rd party. Please stop manipulating the truth to serve your political agenda. I SAID I WOULD VOTE ON PRINCIPLE and that if Cruz was not on the ballot, I would write him in. Finally, I blame the RINO political strategy to infiltrate web boards to spread lies, misinformation, and to sow discontent to keep conservatives from rallying from around a true, principled candidate. It’s your agenda that I’m questioning.
Cruz is my first choice but if he is not the nominee I will not waste my vote by writing him in. You are free to do that but it is no different than if you had voted for Hillary, a total waste of a vote that might have kept her out.
I will donate to Cruz and vote for him in the primary, that is all I can do for him. Texas votes late in the primary process and by then the press has chosen our candidate for us usually.
As soon as Cruz announces his candidacy I will send him a check for $1000. How much are you sending?
I think next year the primary in Texas is being moved up to March 1st, which puts a very large state in the leading edge of primaries.
That is great! I hadn’t heard it, they must have heard me screaming in frustration because Texas didn’t get a chance to select a candidate in the primaries.
PING!
And so, he moved right and won in a landslide!
Oh, wait . . .
I voted for Romney, but that’s because his main opponent was (and is) a communist.
*For a nation to survive it must protect its borders. It should have the right to determine who enters and who does not. We should not be the dumping ground for the undesirables of other nations. We have been protecting the border of South Korea since 1952, yet we won't protect our own.
*How can we teach our children to respect the law when those who break it are given special perks and are allowed ahead of legal immigrants? Why should the illegals be above the law?
*Illegals are taking jobs, harming especially African-Americans.
*Natonal security would suffer as terrorists and gang members greatly benefit from amnesty.
There are numerous reasons to deport illegal aliens
__________________________________________
Kid ya don’t need a reason..
THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS
they don’t belong here..ya just chuck them out !!!
Would you need to think up a reason to evict a burglar from your house ???
Yet Jeb, the Chamber of Commerce, and others present twisted, nonsensical arguments such as "we need them" and "deporting would break up families" even though nobody is preventing them from taking their families with them. Perhaps the most stupid aargument is "they are just looking for a better life" - the same can be said of bruglars, killers, and other criminals.
Saw him w/Hannity at the CPAC.
The camera showed folks walking out; don’t know if it was coincidence, or intentional.
It sounds like Hannity was “pushing” Jeb, though.
Hannity is a creepy little Ponce.
Yes, it seemed Hannity was “pushing” Jeb. Too bad. Hannity was one of the few in the media who supported Terri Schiavo while Jeb refused to help her and let her suffer a horrific death.
NO MORE BUSHES!
Is this true?
Hannity is nothing but a corporate cheerleader for the Republican party. He is still friends with Rove.
2000 George W. Bush 42% 2005 Rudy Giuliani -- 2006 George Allen 22% 2007 Mitt Romney 21% 2008 Mitt Romney 35% 2009 Mitt Romney 20% 2010 Ron Paul 31% 2011 Ron Paul 30% 2012 Mitt Romney 38% 2013 Rand Paul 25% 2014 Rand Paul 31% 2015 Rand Paul 26%
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.