Posted on 04/07/2014 1:04:24 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The 2014 midterms are looming large, and behind them, the specter of 2016. In the past year, Chris Christie has gone from being the Republican Wunderkind to elephant in the room, and Hilary Clinton is, well, Hilary Clinton. What is the modern-day Republican Party – a Völkisch (ethnic nationalist) political party become religion – to do? Clearly, it’s time for the Republican establishment to start asking themselves, “Where are we going to find a sane candidate?” (or at least sane-seeming, as 2012′s misadventure with Mitt Romney demonstrates).
The answer is already in the history books, not that Republicans like to look there. We see it every election cycle: a rush of increasingly insane extremist Republicans appealing to the base, slack-brained, wannabe libertarian Tea Partiers and religious fundamentalists, sometimes all rolled up into the same package, as with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), the non-thinking white man’s Christian Nationalist.
The rest of the field will be just as nutty, if not nuttier, and if past is indicator of future, the primaries will winnow out those too crazy for the market to bear – you know, the Todd Akins and the Michele Bachmanns and their ilk, whatever sleight of hand Reince Priebus thinks he can work to the contrary. And then there will be the establishment Republicans, like Mitt Romney, their platform – and sometimes, it seems, the candidates themselves – held together with chewing gum and baling wire and maybe the odd smile.
Mitt Romney has gone the way of the buffalo, never to return. He proved too stupid for the educated masses (despite his binders full of women), if not for mainstream Republicans – whatever and whoever they are – and yet not stupid enough for the base. Despite the monstrous Preibosity that said America really wanted Mitt, Mitt is not, and was not, the answer.
But the GOP knows it needs somebody who has at least a slim chance of not frightening the independent voters, and completely turning off women and minorities, somebody like Mitt but a little smarter, a little more clued into everyday life, someone who does not, say, make churlish remarks about rain gear to a crowd of people standing in the rain who lack his off-shore accounts.
That man is likely to be 61-year-old former Florida governor Jeb Bush come 2016. Jeb says he will decide by the end of the year, but speculation is running high, and it’s possible there is some bedwetting behind the scenes. As Jeb told Fox News’ Shannon Bream Sunday, “It turns out that not running has generated more interest than if I said I was running.”
Whatever hopes the GOP may have for stealing – or at least buying – the elections in 2014, they know presidential elections are another thing altogether. Yes, they stole 2000, and thanks to 2000 they got 2004, but all things being equal, you get 2008 and 2012, and in 2016, you get Hilary Clinton.
Well, go figure where bedwetting is concerned. Republicans are haunted by thoughts of Bill Clinton, let alone the latest liberal perversions, a black man and now a woman of all things, in the Oval Office. And they know that extremist candidates don’t fare well nationally, no matter how attractive they may look going into the primaries. Yes, Rand Paul can win Iowa; he can even win CPAC, but can he win the country?
Republicans have to have mixed feelings about Bush though, even so. For going on six years now they have been pretending Jeb’s brother, George W., never existed, blaming all his lame-brained decisions on his successor, Barack Obama. Iraq and, especially, Afghanistan, became Obama’s wars, and terrorists never attacked the U.S. on Bush’s watch but look what happened in Benghazi on Obama’s! If Jeb runs, George W. is suddenly back in the news, and the Eight Missing Years are back in our history books. There will be the inevitable and unwelcome comparisons.
As even Newsmax admitted Sunday of this post-Bush America,
Recent polls have suggested that if he were to run, Bush would have to deal with Americans’ lingering attitudes toward his brother, George W. Bush, who left office in January 2009 as one of the least popular presidents in U.S. history.
In a Washington Post/ABC News poll last month, nearly half the voters surveyed said they “definitely would not” vote for Jeb Bush in 2016.
That’s not something Republicans can be eager to dredge up, especially in an election year. But what other reasonably sane candidate can they conjure up? Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are part of the problem, not the solution for the Republican establishment. And from there, it just gets uglier, with the Rick Santorums and Michele Bachmanns of the world. It is anybody’s guess who this year’s Todd Akin will be.
Jeb, for his part, says his decision all boils down to two questions:
1. “Can a candidate run with a hopeful, optimistic message, hopefully with enough detail to get people to sense that it’s not just idle words, and not get thrown back into the vortex of the mud fight?” and,
2. “Is it okay for my family? Is it something that isn’t a huge sacrifice for my family?”
Clearly, those aren’t the concerns of the Republican Party, which hasn’t stopped slinging mud since Obama’s victory in 2008. And if we thought we were seeing mud then, we realized we hadn’t seen anything until 2010 rolled around. Republican rhetoric since then has become positively scatological, as has their mindset.
The trouble is, unlike Chris “Bridgegate” Christie, Bush seems to have some genuinely moderate positions, for example, on immigration, where he calls illegal immigration an “act of love.” This isn’t likely to endear him to the ethnic nationalist Republican base, which these days places a premium on ignorant white men with guns and a vague notion of God, and all too often conflates the two, and which far from seeing immigration as an act of love prefers to see it as an act of terrorism.
Jeb told the crowd at the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum, “We need to elect candidates that have a vision that is bigger and broader, and candidates that are organized around winning the election, not making a point. Campaigns ought to be about listening and learning and getting better. I do think we’ve lost our way.”
He was quick to point out for the benefit of potential donors, “I’m not being critical of my party, but campaigns themselves are reflective of this new America.” He’s not sayin’. He’s just sayin’.
As The New York Times put it,
With eyes increasingly on him, Jeb Bush signaled on Sunday the kind of campaign he would mount if he runs for president, one arguing against ideological purity tests while challenging party orthodoxy on issues like immigration and education.
It will be interesting to see where that gets him, and how well he holds to those positions. Romney, for his part, seemed to lean ever more to the right as his campaign went on.
When interviewed, Jeb sounds smatter than his brother (admittedly, not much of an accomplishment) and there is no comparison with Mitt, given Jeb’s ability to form coherent sentences. But the question raised by the Times of whether the country has moved beyond Bush seems to at least be headed in the right direction, though I might rephrase it to ask, “Has conservatism moved beyond sanity?” If so, Jeb Bush will fare little better than Barack Obama, even if he makes it as far as the White House.
GOOD MAN BUT THE TIMING IS OFF. NO BUSH IN 2016.. MAYBE 2020.
The other elephant in the room.
April 1st was 7 days ago!
A practical republican, pragmatic republican, a common-sense republican.
NOT ONE OF THOSE RIGHT WING CRAZIES!!!!
Jeb is the wrong guy for any year.
I don’t know how open borders and amnesty in this economy can be considered practical.
The Washington Compost really stinks.
anyone who says illegal immigration is an act of love, is not a sane person. And yes I know the “context” of who the “love” is directed for. Ain’t buying it.
Let’s talk about MEXICO’s stance on illegals in their country, and what they do to those breaking into their country. Do THEY consider it an act of love?
I know what Mexico does to their illegals. I know the rights they give foreigners in their country. To have them sit here and lecture us about how bad our immigration laws is like having to listen to a nazi lecture us on how racist we are towards the jews.
2020 we will be re-electing Scott Walker!
“I don’t know how open borders and amnesty in this economy can be considered practical.”
It isn’t. But it’s best not to try to understand the RINO mind.
Are you the same Eric Gurr who’s running against John Boehner??
This might be the single most incoherent political observation I have ever seen in print.
Sane = someone the democrats can roll.
I see the libtard fascists are already selecting our losing presidential candidate for us. Even uses reverse-psychology suggesting a Bush is the only “sane” choice, at least until pinko-light Jeb secures the nomination, then the long knives come out as usual. No thanks...
A 53-year-old Heathen, author of A Heathen's Day (aheathensday.com) and Digital Gods (digital-gods.com) and founder of Mos Maiorum Foundation (www.mosmaiorum.org) dedicated to the study of Paganism as ethnic religion. He is also a contributor to PoliticusUSA (politicususa.com) and GodsOwnParty (godsownparty.com/blog).
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
@AHeathensDay
I am a Heathen and a liberal
You think Jeb Bush is a good man for president?
Really?
Sane choice? I thought doing the same thing over and expecting different results was the definition of insanity.
Bushies embrace the suck.
Author is a moron
More of the vision that sees sneaking over another people's border as an "act of love."
As we wrote in another thread, earlier:
"It goes deeper than his merely trying to rationalize a justification for being a "scoff-law," although that certainly should disqualify the man for public office. His focus is on those aliens, who want to come in--including those who came in illegally. That is simply not the correct focus for any American committed to our own people. One may believe those here illegally are some how the most noble, most beautiful people on earth. It would not change the duty of any American contemplating public policy for America.
"The only acceptable focus is the interests of the rooted people of America. This is not debatable, when you read the Constitution. The very preamble states the concern for the posterity of the Founders. When anyone here legitimately takes the oath of citizenship, they accept commitment to the preservation of the multi-generational achievement of the rooted population.
"Those of us whose forebears arrived after the Constitution came into effect in 1789, surely are honor bound to preserve the people who accepted us and allowed us to participate in their achievement. If Jeb does not understand this; if he has been led astray, by some unfortunate interest; it can never excuse his dereliction of commitment to the oath he took, every time he was sworn in to public office."
Posing as an enlightened prophet, enlarging the understanding of others, is no substitute for actually offering a rational argument for any part of that "vision." The last thing America needs is another pseudo-intellectual poseur claiming to be elevating our perception. His babel reminds one of some of the Leftwing sophomores, who offered the same pretense of serious thought in College.
Only down the rabbit hole with Alice, is this man an "Obligatory Sane Republican!"
William Flax
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.