Is Jeb Bush inevitable? Would another Clinton/Bush contest prove that we’re not a representative democracy but a “nepotistic oligarchy”?
What say you?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
36 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
No. As long as W.’s legacy resides in living memory of most voter he cannot win, and he is too smart to run if he can’t win. A Bush he is…a tomato can he isn’t.
What?
You need more proof than what’s already on the table?
Please.
WTFU and smell the oligarchy.
AG
Little baggage (of his own) and relative ease of fundraising. Sounds like a strong contender. And maybe inevitable despite Bab’s directive to the contrary.
Little baggage of his own? Bullshit! The name Bush against the name Clinton is a fight we’ll win 10 out of 10 times. Bring it on!
“another Clinton/Bush contest”
Just shoot me now.
Fuck Jeb Boosh. Hillary would wipe the floor with him. Let’s stop being a bunch of pussies. Sure, it’s going to be a fight. So what? We can and will fight. We’ll stomp the living crap out of them.
It’s not just Jeb Bush that I am objecting to here. Barack Obama brings a fresh approach. Clinton and Bush are both “same old, same old”; I would surely not like foreign policy under either of them and I am tired of the status quo.
At least President Obama is fighting for a different world, even if we are not succeeding nearly enough.
Hilary is not my first choice for president but she’ll be fine — particularly if we can get both branches with 60 seats in the Senate. Then maybe we can think about public options, cap and trade, dream act, etc.
ANY democrat + both houses + 60 seats in the senate could get amazing things accomplished.
After Obama it would be so discouraging to go back to “better than the republican” as my reason for voting for someone.
And an excellent, inspiring democrat would be much better and would have much bigger coattails than an election with old candidates with old ideas.
or even 51 in the senate and nuke what’s left of the filibuster
the GOP simply can’t win the WH – the prize is the house
I’ve had enough of the fresh approach. It’s just warmed over Republican ideas.
Obama was once the fresh approach. And we got just barely better than “not a Republican.”
Can I vote for Ross Perot again?
No. Certainly not, unless you have a coherent reason for voting for him the first time.
NAFTA opposition alone isn’t enough.
A Clinton-Bush contest in 2016 would make demonstrably clear to the public that the fix is in. And make demonstrably clear to the public that the media is in on it by talking up and talking down candidates.
The preview of this will be whether the Democrats take a dive in 2014. On policy, Democrats should control Congress even with the adverse gerrymandering. Underfielding candidates and fielding primarily Blue Dog and New Democrat candidates will not tap the populist movement that is out there. In which case it either sits out or moves way rightward.
Democrats screwing over military pensions is not a helpful strategy. Democrats screwing over food stamps was bad enough in undercutting their ability to motivate people to vote.
Ohhh. I read “invisible” and I thought “not enough”…Mom will have her say, and he IS a Mommy’s Boy…
There is not a lot of evidence I’ve seen that he even wants to run and do the job. Which means Jeb is probably the one Bush who has the personality and mental assets to serve the country competently.
But yes, I am fatigued by even having another Clinton candidate, let alone another Bush.
And I don’t think it will serve the country well.
Is anything inevitable when it comes to the voting public? The nominating process is as good as any for taking the temperature of the public at any given moment. It would seem that it matters more what is the mood of the nation round about primary/caucus time, and then who has the strongest messaging and best organization.
We’ve already seen that name recognition is the basis of all early polling and punditry. Completely meaningless when it comes to the actual grinding of the nomination process. By the time the caucuses and primaries roll around everyone who cares will know all the names on offer in the respective contests. Name recognition won’t be a factor. Messaging and organization and fund-raising will be factors. Inevitable isn’t even on the menu.
The only inevitable name on the GOP side is Ted Cruz. I think he’ll be on ballots in November 2016 regardless of the GOP’s nominating process.
Interesting. Could you explain why you believe this?
A nepotistic oligarchy?
I dunno. But she shows we lack imagination.
Not if Barbara Bush has anything to say about it! Her thoughts, though not public, have to be somewhere close to looking down her nose at the riff raff that is the TParty movement. To think that Jeb would have to actually stand in front of a TParty crowd, bend the legacy of her husband, much less her other son, in order to even be nominated would certainly gall the grand matriarch.
I don’t have a problem with a wife running after her husband, especially when her husband was elected at a time when women didn’t have a chance. My problems with Hillary have far more to do with the fact that she’s Hillary. But, the GOP would love to be able to use the family connection against her, and they can’t do that if they are running another Bush. From the party’s POV, that’s a reason not to let Jeb do it. But from Jeb’s POV, there is no better opportunity, because we won’t be able to use the oligarchy argument against him if we’re running a Clinton.
If Hillary runs, I think the GOP is likely to go with a younger man, if they can find one who isn’t an obvious idiot. Because many of us, even Dems, believe that anyone who received their political education during the sixties–fifty bloody years ago–should probably retire and give someone else a chance.
my problems with her stem from her thin record of accomplishments. only exception is her sec of state period but even that was only as an extension of Obama, it tells me little of her priorities if she were in charge.
I think you’re correct. I doubt Jeb runs. I think it will be Clinton v. Ryan. I think she’ll win going away.
That said, I think the ultimate ending point for the tpers will be to nominate Cruz or someone very much like him. I don’t think we’re quite there yet. Perhaps in 2020 — just in time for Texas to turn purple.
Somehow people like Hillary either didn’t learn anything from that education in the sixties or it didn’t stick and the one time Goldwater Girl lived on. Both willing to do anything that they think will advance their political opportunities and that usually means it’s usually the right thing for them and rarely the right thing. The real political positions of those two, and not the mushy liberal stuff they pretend to support, are disgusting.
Hey, I had some idiotic beliefs in HS too. I’ll easily give Hillary her youthful inexperience and conservatively biased upbringing. But by the time of the next presidential, she was in the liberal camp — McCarthy, then McGovern 4 yrs later. So who cares who she supported as an 18 yo.
Meanwhile I note that Hillary took a position on the Iran agreement to the left of someone I thought was going reliably liberal or at least not stupid, Kirsten Gillibrand, a cosponsor of Menendez’ reckless pro-Israel proposal (subsequently she stepped back from that precipice).
I will be eager to see how HRC positions herself on some major issues affecting us as she hits the 2014 rubber chicken circuit, especially Wall St, the dramatic economic inequality, the environment, etc. So I’m not ready to endorse just yet …
Nobody that was an honest opponent of the Vietnam War when they were young would have voted for the IWR. An honest supporter of civil rights for all would never have permitted the use of the race card in an election — and she and Bill did that numerous times over the years. Would never have joined that creepy, rightwing DC prayer group. Her political instincts have always been “conservative.” It just got a bit mixed up with her personal ambitions — the latter being best facilitated with feminism. Not that she chose to make her own way which again is “conservative” or traditional.
I think John Kerry was an honest opponent of the VN War in his youth, and he backed the AUMF.
As with Kerry, I think Hillary’s vote had more to do with politics than ideology.
As for race, watch 93% of the AA community flock to her candidacy if she runs.
And on the prayer group, was it the main one for pols to show their Godliness? I hope it isn’t the same one I heard Obama addressing this morning, but I wouldn’t be shocked if it was. Pols get easy bipartisan points too just for showing up and pretending to communicate with the imaginary celestial entity. Not my cup of tea, but we’re probably a few decades away from the day when high office holders can be openly non believers.
The National Prayer Breakfast is the annual public event of the secretive group referred to as The Fellowship or The Family. Created during the early 1950s when public displays religion served as code for anti-communist. Major difference between attending or even participating in the Breakfast and being a member of The Fellowship.
WRT Kerry — yeah, he was against the Vietnam War after he was for it. And then in 2004 he was sort of for it again. No, he was never an honest opponent of the Vietnam War. He’ll ride any horse necessary to advance his aspirations.
Rationalize the behaviors of Democratic politicians as long as you want to, but recognize that you are rationalizing unacceptable behaviors which means that you’re supporting unacceptable people for high office.
I think Jeb’s itching to run, knows it’s about his last shot, and, as you suggest, would neutralize the dynasty stumbling block if running against Hillary.
With Chris Christie safely out of the way, he’s probably the leading non-RW Nut Job Wacko available.
Barbara Bush? Jeb is already trying to diminish her public position against him running. There will be more perhaps from his camp or the party, or Bar will inevitably be “persuaded” by Jeb’s strong interest in running and his “patriotism” and the “need to get the country back on the right footing after 8 yrs of Democrat Rule”, and blah blah blah.
And, yes, unfortunately I would consider the Jebster as a serious impediment to Hillary getting elected. Somehow the Bushes seem to find a way to win, and I expect the MSM to turn against Hillary increasingly as the 2016 cycle approaches. Maybe not as blatantly biased against her as with Gore in 2000, but enough to make a difference.
I have wondered how closely the Clintons were connected to the ruling class insiders, considering how Bill ushered in all sorts of awul things for the bottom 90 percent during his eight years. We know the Bush family has been oligarchic, with Prescott as Nazi collaborator, and George H.W. as Nazi hirer (CIA). I was not to see a suggestion that the string of Dubya’s business failures had the stank of a CIA money-laundering operations.
But Hillary’s history dovetails nicely with someone working their way up. After she vacated the Goldwater Girls identity she soon thereafter did a summer internship at the law firm in Oakland that represented the Black Panthers. Anyone who remembers COINTELPRO knows that putting people in places to watch and report was a big part of their operations. Young Hillary worked on the Democratic staff of Watergate, another place where she could observe and report.
And Bill was governor of Arkansas when duffel bags full of CIA cocaine rained down on Mena. (Asa Hutchinson, Dubya’s first drug czar, was the federal prosecutor over the Mena section of Arkansas when everyone was looking the other way.)
In other words, the Clintons earned their bones spear-carrying for our rulers over their lives before they became national figures.
I have wondered if the plutocrats would put someone like Robert Gates up for the Republican nominee. He doesn’t seem quite political enough in the handshaking department, but he has a long history of keeping the secrets of the castle as well as making some of his own.
I want to wait and see what happens in the midterms before forming an opinion on this. The question that to me is up in the air right now is how much of a grip the Tea Party still has on the Republicans. And then, if whatever still passes for the Republican “establishment” manages to take back the wheel, whether the Tea Partiers will bolt from the GOP and nominate the Palin/Nugent ticket they’ve been dreaming of.
Hillary’s super pac is sitting out 2014 – do we take this to mean she thinks she’ll have a better chance of getting the house and senate in 2016 if GOP retains house in 2014?
And if she thinks that, do we think she’s right?
After reading some comments about Jeb Bush on tea party blogs, I feel pretty certain that the far right won’t be receptive to him, at least not right away. For one thing, they believe that the GOP lost the last 2 elections because the party ran squishy centrists. They want one of their own next time, and they don’t see Jeb as sufficiently conservative. The term “RINO” came up in many comments. A few of them worry about his personal baggage. A few also stated that Bush 2 screwed up badly and ushered in the age of Obama, and that they won’t vote for another Bush, no how. The readers there weren’t keen on Christie either, and many are gloating over his current difficulties. Cruz seems to be their guy, although a few are still carrying a torch for Sarah Palin, God help us. To be sure there are a couple pragmatists who say a squishy centrist is still better than a dem but they are definitely in the minority. I do think Jeb could be formidable in the general but can he capture the wing nut vote?
I was thinking Jeb Bush would come to the rescue in 2012 – and commented as such.
Now I don’t think so. While we generally focus on the struggles of the tea party vs the GOP establishment, there is a very real power struggle amongst the establishment Republicans. This was between the old style realist/rationalists like Bush-the-elder, James Baker, Colin Powell and so on versus the make-our-own-reality types like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and so on.
For example, the former would never have tried to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, and if they had they would have allocated the resources necessary to do it correctly rather than assuming they could outsource to warlords in Afghanistan and rely on tax cuts and the free market in Iraq.
Another example, the former denied Acid Rain (remember when that was one of the biggest environmental worries we had?) but was ready to acknowledge and address global warming. The latter just denies anything that is inconvenient.
The latter group is what encouraged and funded the tea party – even if they don’t like how extreme the tea partiers have become, they still believe a lot of the bullshit. And the latter group controlled the GWB white house for the first 6 years. Only after the mid-term losses in 2006 did GWB fire Rove and sideline Cheney – and quietly bring in daddy’s team of advisors to clean up as much foreign policy as they could in the last two years.
So, back to the topic at hand, the “new” establishment has currently won the power struggle simply because their tea party allies have pushed out or sidelined most of the remaining GOP realists. Jeb Bush is “old” establishment and the new guys know that. Oh, Rove was able to hoodwink GWB for a long time – and GWB was enjoying pissing off his daddy – but Jeb hasn’t gone over to the dark, dark side yet.
So, I think the 2016 candidate is going to be Romney unless they can get some right wing actor to sign up. And this make sense. For most of US history losing candidates often won their party’s nomination 4 years later – it’s only recently that the modern press has assumed a one-and-done mentality, and as Atrios points out that’s mostly applied to Democrats like Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. In addition, there is a ton of evidence of a “draft Romney” movement building.
I think that if Jeb Bush runs and doesn’t win, then there’s the double stench on the Bush name, which would hurt the future generations of Bush presidents that the family surely must think are coming along.
Momma Bush is isn’t willing to risk it; she’s just looking out for the next generations in her family.