A Look At Jeb Bush

[Cola76]

Don't kid yourself. They may not have had a FNC (Federalist National Committee) and an AFNC (Anti-federalist National Committee), but the parties were firmly establish.

I disagree. The "establishment" was nothing like today, and they didn't view themselves in the same way parties view themselves today. A glaring is example is how the President and Vice President run on the same ticket today. But as to not derail the thread we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

 

[88GT]

I disagree. The "establishment" was nothing like today, and they didn't view themselves in the same way parties view themselves today. A glaring is example is how the President and Vice President run on the same ticket today. But as to not derail the thread we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

I suppose you would have to define how today's parties view themselves before I disagreed with you. But if you're anything close to thinking they didn't align based on party affiliation over principle back in the day, you'd be wrong. "Establishment" exists because they wanted to cement their party affiliation. Really, have you never studied the contemporary writings of the founders when it came to chest-beating and trash-talking over their political rivals? Good stuff. And it will completely dispel the myth that parties didn't exist.

Your POTUS/VP example misses the mark. There was no less party loyalty to a defined brand than there is today. Our elections laws are what changed, not party dynamics.

 

[rambone]

If Jeb wants to prove he is not part of the problem he can start by denouncing his family political legacy.

 

[88GT]

Mmm...well, I'm not a supporter of Common Core, nor a detractor. The only thing 88 and I have ever gone around on on the issue is its origins. We disagree on that. As for immigration, I do not favour the current republican strategy of sticking their heads in the sand. The American people have made it abundantly clear that they wish it addressed and the republican congress has also made it abundantly clear that they are quite happy to do nothing. Jeb wants something done, that puts him directly in opposition to the current status quo. It's likely to hurt him with the do nothing crowd, but they're the usual suspects anyway.

Mmm...well, you have defended CC rather strongly for someone who is neither a detractor nor a supporter. We have established the origin of CC quite clearly. And it is NOT the states. Not even the governors.

On immigration, saying the American people want it addressed and implying by such a statement that it means they want new amnesty regs is a bit, um, misleading. I would bet money what people want addressed is the unchecked influx of illegals, not the changing of law to eliminate illegal immigration after the fact. You're right the American people want something done. But not passing amnesty legislation is not the equivalent of "doing nothing."

 

[Cola76]

I suppose you would have to define how today's parties view themselves before I disagreed with you. But if you're anything close to thinking they didn't align based on party affiliation over principle back in the day, you'd be wrong. "Establishment" exists because they wanted to cement their party affiliation. Really, have you never studied the contemporary writings of the founders when it came to chest-beating and trash-talking over their political rivals? Good stuff. And it will completely dispel the myth that parties didn't exist.

I have been lucky enough to study those interactions. They were a part of my senior thesis. I am not saying that politicians didn't band together, but it was a rather narrow philosophy not a party affiliation with a broad platform that they had to all but swear to that bound them together.

Your POTUS/VP example misses the mark. There was no less party loyalty to a defined brand than there is today. Our elections laws are what changed, not party dynamics.

The laws changed because the parties didn't want to loose power if a candidate died and the Vice-President had a different party affiliation. That was a development that came to a head after the Civil War. It was not an issue until parties took precedence.

 

[spec4]

Wasn't happy with either Bush POTUS, but will still take them over the alternatives offered at the time. What especially puzzles my naive mind is how both of these guys associate with Clinton. IMO decent, honest people avoid those with a different set of standards. I wouldn't be in the same room with Clinton let alone associate with the guy. What gives with the Bush's in this regard? Jeb would lose because the media would have him running on the record of his father and brother.

 

[Expat]

Wasn't happy with either Bush POTUS, but will still take them over the alternatives offered at the time. What especially puzzles my naive mind is how both of these guys associate with Clinton. IMO decent, honest people avoid those with a different set of standards. I wouldn't be in the same room with Clinton let alone associate with the guy. What gives with the Bush's in this regard? Jeb would lose because the media would have him running on the record of his father and brother.

I am sure the media will dance to the tune played by their liberal masters (once again the OP seems to be dancing to the same tune) this time, like they did for the McCain and Romney candidacies. They sang their praises as great statesman. The only Republicans actually electable because they are sensible moderates. But the day they received the nomination, they were no longer media darlings. They were just another piece of crap Republican to be destroyed.

 

[printcraft]

I am sure the media will dance to the tune played by their liberal masters (once again the OP seems to be dancing to the same tune) this time, like they did for the McCain and Romney candidacies. They sang their praises as great statesman. The only Republicans actually electable because they are sensible moderates. But the day they received the nomination, they were no longer media darlings. They were just another piece of crap Republican to be destroyed.

This x10 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It's playbook pg 1 for the progressives........... pick the candidate for the other side......... (loser)
The marching orders have come down. Yeah, OP thinks Jeb Bush is a great statesman........
Praise him and as soon as the nomination is sealed, blow him out of the water while giving the democrat cover.

MCCAIN IS A MAVERICK! HE SO COOL!!
*one hour after the nomination*
MCCAIN IS A WARMONGERING SENILE BASTARD!!!

 

[Baditude]

Honestly I think it's time for some new blood in politics, I don't think we need a third Bush in the Whitehouse regardless of his political stance.

 

[Leadeye]

I see new people completely for the presidential election in 2016. By the time we get there the professionals in this game will be advising that, whether anybody listens is another matter.

 

[edporch]

I won't be voting for Jeb Bush.

 

[Twangbanger]

Who are you, and what have you done with mrjarrell?

Ah, you appear to be surprised...it's okay. It took me a while to learn the two dirty secrets of the INGO political forum:

1. There are as many Democrats here, as there are Republicans.

2. Most of them are posing as Libertarians.

I assure you, Mr. J. would have a hissy if Jeb Bush actually became President. We are just seeing Democrat Strategy 101 beginning to play out in the above article: isolate the most reliably wishy-washy moderate in the Republican field, and write favorable pieces on them as early as possible, to ensure money from Big Donors flows their direction (ie, suck up all the Oxygen in the room, and prevent any conservative from getting it).

The Dems know Jeb Bush cannot win the Presidency; nothing to worry about there. These people already had the Bain Capital attack-ad concept developed, focus-grouped and perfected before Mitt Romney ever accepted his nomination. We're just seeing the same thing happening with JB. The Beltway Dems are choosing their opponent. "Stop the Bush Dynasty." The message is already perfected; they just have to make sure the intended target makes it to the starting line.

 

[hornadylnl]

Ah, you appear to be surprised...it's okay. It took me a while to learn the two dirty secrets of the INGO political forum:

1. There are as many Democrats here, as there are Republicans.

2. Most of them are posing as Libertarians.

I assure you, Mr. J. would have a hissy if Jeb Bush actually became President. We are just seeing Democrat Strategy 101 beginning to play out in the above article: isolate the most reliably wishy-washy moderate in the Republican field, and write favorable pieces on them as early as possible, to ensure money from Big Donors flows their direction (ie, suck up all the Oxygen in the room, and prevent any conservative from getting it).

The Dems know Jeb Bush cannot win the Presidency; nothing to worry about there. These people already had the Bain Capital attack-ad concept developed, focus-grouped and perfected before Mitt Romney ever accepted his nomination. We're just seeing the same thing happening with JB. The Beltway Dems are choosing their opponent. "Stop the Bush Dynasty." The message is already perfected; they just have to make sure the intended target makes it to the starting line.

As I said in another thread. The only way for Libertarians to affect change in the republican primaries is for us to throw our vocal support for the biggest RINO's. Then and only then will repubs run away from RINO's because dear god, you guys can't support the candidate that Libertarians do.

 

[JTScribe]

Jeb's support for Common Core is almost as bad for me as if he were bad on gun rights. I don't know how many of you are parents, but the Common Core homework is idiotic. And when I tried to simplify my son's math homework for him by showing him the stack method, I was told, "That's the wrong way, I can't do it that way." So instead we did it the 'right' way that is both confusing for the kids and takes three times as long.

 

[Expat]

Jeb famously told Republicans that we need to leave Reagan behind and move on, I would prefer to leave the Bush family behind and move on...

 

[edporch]

Jeb famously told Republicans that we need to leave Reagan behind and move on, I would prefer to leave the Bush family behind and move on...

What's funny is, awhile back Barbara Bush was even saying to give somebody else a chance to be President.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Not a bad article on him. One that does go to some pains to point up the fact that he might well be the most "conservative" candidate (with the creds to back it up) who might be getting in the race.
Reinventing Jeb Bush - S.V. Dáte - POLITICO Magazine

You have GOT to be joking if you're claiming JEB is conservative. Absurd.

He is being pushed nationally by liberals because they'd rather have JEB in there passing amnesty than Ted Cruz actually being a conservative.

 

[hoosierdoc]

As for immigration, I do not favour the current republican strategy of sticking their heads in the sand. The American people have made it abundantly clear that they wish it addressed.

Addressed by shutting the border and not doing amnesty.

47% want a pathway to citizenship. Less than half. "Abundantly clear"?

 

[rambone]

Jeb is not passing the purity test.

 

[Shiver]

Just by reading the title. Was anyone else expecting to see a centerfold spread?




And then disappointed?