Ex-Bush family advisor ‘flummoxed’ by Jeb’s debate performance (Thinks Cruz will win)

The Hill's Briefing Room Blog ^ | October 31, 2015 | Bradford Richardson

[2ndDivisionVet]

Former Bush family advisor Mary Matalin says she was “flummoxed” by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s performance at Wednesday’s GOP presidential debate.

The veteran GOP strategist said Bush’s decision to go after Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) for missing votes in the Senate was an example of “political malfeasance.”

“I love Jeb and I know Jeb, and I’m flummoxed by that,” she told host John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable” on New York’s AM-970, in an interview set to be aired Sunday.

“It’s a violation of debate 101: Never ask an opponent or never address to an opponent something you know he’s prepared for, which clearly Rubio was,” she said, adding: “It cuts against his message of ‘I’m a happy warrior.’ ”

Matalin, who served as a top political advisor to both presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, said she believes the favorite to win the GOP presidential nomination is Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas.), whom she said appeals to conservatives of all stripes.

“My money right now is on Ted Cruz,” she said. “Again, I’m unaligned, but I think he speaks to the myriad factions of conservatism: Constitutionalists, Libertarians, the social conservatives.”

“I think he’s whip-smart, as evidenced by his debate appearances, and he’s a true, true, true constitutionalist, and everything’s lining up for him,” she added.

Matalin said the trio of outsider candidates in the field — Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, and Donald Trump — have had a positive influence on the election by forcing other candidates out of their shells.

“I think all three of them, whom I know, whom I’ve had at the house, except for Trump, they really add to the field because they have shown these other candidates who have been afraid to take on the mainstream press or take on political correctness or take on conventional wisdom to go ahead and do it,” she said.

She praised Carson’s willingness to take on the Republican National Committee on its debate format, which she said would have been “unthinkable” in prior elections.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Yeah, me too. Anytime a beltway type likes the same candidate I do it makes me look harder.

[Dave W]

Why do you take it so personally?

[Dave W]

I think people get so easily confused between personal preference and fairly evaluating and expressing an opinion about the field. A good analyst separates the two. She didn't say she was going to vote for him - she said that he has the best chance of winning and explained why. She says she is unaligned, so publicly, she is not expressing a personal preference, but she probably does have one, which we will probably never know.

On this site, most people don't have the ability to step back and analyze the field and understand the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate and if their campaigns are poorly or well organized.

[mazda77]

But then again, maybe it is just a projection strategy.

[Thank You Rush]

Where has she been? Why don’t we ever see her anymore? Has she been banned from TV? Made too much sense?

[odawg]

“Why do you take it so personally?”

That kind of question made me suspicious, so I checked your previous posts to get an indication of what you are up to. You posted the following natural law that was obviously missed by Einstein to someone yesterday regarding Trump and his supporters:

“A buffoon and clownish candidate reflected by a buffoonish and clownish supporter.”

The fact that you have the hots for Carson must be clouding your judgment.

Don’t take this personally.

[Theodore R.]

It’s not that Cruz hasn’t “done squat”; it’s that voters have not yet responded if they ever will.

[plain talk]

I’ll stick to my characterization.

[Dave W]

I don’t support Carson. So again, why do you take it so personally? Why can’t you answer the simple questions. Yes, I have no trouble calling someone a clown when it occurs and has nothing to do with you. So again, why do you take it so personally? It’s a good question.

[odawg]

“Why can’t you answer the simple questions.”

It is a simple question that does not make sense. I merely commented on a cliche engaged in by a supposed perceptive commentator, the kind of cliche that lets me know these people cannot let go of their agenda.

As Rush has often pointed out, if Jeb! had Trump’s numbers this long, he would have already been declared the winner. It humorous how these people sniff around and try to come up with a different winner, never explaining why Trump, they think, will never make it.

There main argument: People will get tired of Trump. Yes, that will happen when voters all of a sudden realize that the country will be better off with millions of more terrorist Muslims immigrants, that the country is better off completely de-industrialized, that the country will be better off without Christianity, that the country is better off with amnesty, that the country is better off being a third-world hell-hole for ever. When the majority of Americans start preferring national suicide, then Trump’s appeal will taper off.

[erod]

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “it’s that voters have not yet responded if they ever will.” <<

.
What an idiotic statement.

The voters have not yet had any opportunities to respond to anyone.

Or are you conflating the MSM propaganda push polls with voters?

Everything the MSM puts out is fiction. The 5 minute free infomercial for Trump tells us who they want to be the GOP candidate. (and I don’t blame them; he would make their job easy)
.