Posted on 08/09/2005 3:06:48 AM PDT by The Raven
He denies he's even interested, and a long list of political analysts have already written him off with the belief that the appearance of political nepotism would be too unseemly for voters to put the brother of the current president in the Oval Office. But in politics timing is everything, and as the clock advances towards 2008, things are starting to fall into place to give Jeb Bush the momentum he needs to win the White House. And this isn't contingent on Hillary Clinton emerging as the Democrats' nominee--though if she does, the path will be all the smoother for another Bush.
Let's first dispense with the idea that Jeb's biggest liability would be his last name. Since when does name recognition hurt in politics? It's true that many of this brother's political adversaries would simply cross out "George" in their campaign literature and ink in "Jeb" above it. MoveOn.org and other Democratic interest groups would find plenty of willing donors. George Soros would likely make another multimillion-dollar pledge to drive the Bushes from Washington. But then again, they did all that last time, and we aren't discussing who will challenge President Kerry.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Wow, you go from me saying that there are some good things about everyone to being a Clinton lover. Now who needs some lessons in reading comprehension?
No Bush Dynasties!!!! We need somebody else to run.
Yes.
Would he vetoed signed McCain-Feingold?.........
I don't know how many federal issues he's commented on. I would have to research that. On the state level he's been very conservative.
I agree. W has actually been quite the anomaly versus the norms for that family. I really never cared for H.W. - far too liberal and lame. Jeb, if nominated, might seriously underwhelm, ala Dole. Or, if elected, he'd likely be a one termer. We need to tap into the same energy we did for 1980.
We need to get into real Sunbelt types. None of the Bushes fit what I am describing. They had / have portable wealth. They did not make their wealth in the Sunbelt - they made it in NYC. A true Sunbelt man (or woman) would truly bring the red state essence in a passionate way that no child of privalidge can muster.
That is a key point. We must not forget it. We MUST not! We MUST WIN!
The innate tendency of the Bush family tends to be toward the left not the right.
I agree with a lot of that. But the Demos have deep problems. I'd say the problem is that there is only one credible pro-America PARTY. It's not as if a good party accidentally nominated a bad candidate. Their party is seriously flawed. But in general, I agee. GWB benefitted from a lack of real competition. Then again, Reagan got to run against Carter and Mondale. Not exactly hall of famers.
Red State Essence? Wow, that's ..... something. God forbid we nominate someone from a battleground state. 'Cause none of those people have passion, I guess.
"Privilege"
The thing about Reagan was that he proved himself as a great man in office and won by a landslide his second term. Bush's claim to fame is that he did a decent job in the aftermath of 9/11. I reserve judgement on how he is protecting America after 9/11 because his stance on illegals leads me to think he doesn't care about security as much as he claims. If there was no war and no 9/11 most Republicans would already have dropped him and his moderate to left leanings would be constantly discussed here.
Bush is the worst type of Republican we could possibly get he is socially conservative and financially liberal.
"Jeb, if nominated, might seriously underwhelm, ala Dole."
Funny, when I read the last word in that line, Dole, the first thing in my mind was how I would have loved to see Elizabeth Dole try for high office. She has always impressed me in certain ways more than her hubby.
We are looking for a viable candidate for the presidency in '08, not best in show based on bloodline at the Westminster Dog Show. And your assessment on the idea "underwhelm" is right on the mark GOP_1900AD.
I agree with your basic point. And yes, Reagan was definitely self made. No question about that.
I agree with this also.
No dynasty is the better choice.
You will probably not find a trust fund baby who is financially conservative they very rarely have had to think about the consequences of overspending.
That's a good point. Most of the "fortunate sons" I know are screw ups. Never had to work for it, born with a sense of privelage, the feeling that someone (dad's wallet) will always bail them out, etc.
Not that I endorse Jeb, but here's a campaign ad I'd like to see:
Jeb: "J. Bush here, with the secret recipe for a stronger America! We need to implement a flat tax system, get control of our borders, and scale back the size of the federal government. One other candidate knows the secret recipe, but SHE'S not talking!"
(clip of Hillary plays): "Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you! We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good!"
Jeb: "Hillary."
Paid for by the Jeb Bush for President Campaign.
While I am against another Bush in the white house that is a hilarious idea for a commercial
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.