A Look At Jeb Bush

[mrjarrell]

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. He is certainly much more of a conservative than Romney ever was or will be. Other than the two key issues they note in the article, (which could be killers, for a certain segment of the party faithful) he is a much more credible candidate than people have been led to believe.

Reinventing Jeb Bush - S.V. Dáte - POLITICO Magazine

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

We could do worse. Like Mitt...

 

[Dosproduction]

His name dooms him alone. Both his father and his brother where scum RINOs and the republicans will lose if they put him on the ballot. I would even bet they lose by more then Mitt Romney did. Bush name has bad connotation.

 

[Cola76]

His name dooms him alone. Both his father and his brother where scum RINOs and the republicans will lose if they put him on the ballot. I would even bet they lose by more then Mitt Romney did. Bush name has bad connotation.

RINOs or just Republicans working within a functioning system?

 

[Super Bee]

I for one cant wait to get my Jeb 2016 yard sign. . . .

 

[kickbacked]

I heard that Clinton voted for George w. Something about when they look back in history they can say the Clinton Presidency was surrounded by Bush.

 

[Expat]

Conservative leaders gang up to block Jeb Bush, say he opposes Reaganism | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[mrjarrell]

His record disagrees with what the "conservative" "leaders" contend. What have they done lately?

 

[Cola76]

Conservative leaders gang up to block Jeb Bush, say he opposes Reaganism | WashingtonExaminer.com

The term "conservative" used in the article is short for "radical conservative". Jeb Bush is plenty conservative and is someone who has a shot at winning a national election. Walker, Pence, Paul, and Cruz would get destroyed in the general election. If conservatives want to get someone in the White House they need someone who can pull independents and even a percentage of moderate democrats. Even if you are a radical conservative, it is just smart to get someone who leans your way rather than serving up another election to democrats.

 

[88GT]

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

 

[mrjarrell]

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

LOL. Just looking at all sides of the coming debacle. Jeb is a decent conservative candidate. I have no doubt he's going to be savaged by the rank file, but he has a very "Reaganesque" record, (actually he out-Reaganed Reagan in Florida). I do think he may well be the republicans best shot at beating a Hillary or a prospective unknown dem dark horse.

 

[Super Bee]

The term "conservative" used in the article is short for "radical conservative". Jeb Bush is plenty conservative and is someone who has a shot at winning a national election. Walker, Pence, Paul, and Cruz would get destroyed in the general election. If conservatives want to get someone in the White House they need someone who can pull independents and even a percentage of moderate democrats. Even if you are a radical conservative, it is just smart to get someone who leans your way rather than serving up another election to democrats.

I could not disagree more. . A Walker, Paul, Cruz, Daniels are the ones we need in there. We send out Christie, Jeb, Mitt or some other big government progressive Republican we lose.

But we have 2 years to debate this. For now we should only be deciding on one thing. . . pie or cake.

 

[Expat]

The term "conservative" used in the article is short for "radical conservative". Jeb Bush is plenty conservative and is someone who has a shot at winning a national election. Walker, Pence, Paul, and Cruz would get destroyed in the general election. If conservatives want to get someone in the White House they need someone who can pull independents and even a percentage of moderate democrats. Even if you are a radical conservative, it is just smart to get someone who leans your way rather than serving up another election to democrats.

Going with mainstream moderate Republicans has been working so well for us.

 

[88GT]

LOL. Just looking at all sides of the coming debacle. Jeb is a decent conservative candidate. I have no doubt he's going to be savaged by the rank file, but he has a very "Reaganesque" record, (actually he out-Reaganed Reagan in Florida). I do think he may well be the republicans best shot at beating a Hillary or a prospective unknown dem dark horse.

Never happen, for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is that the Republicans do not choose the Republican candidate.

If I could make just one change to election laws, it would be a requirement that the party slates it's own candidates and fronts its choice, not the choice of the unvested. Barring that, I would accept a quasi-European style where all the candidates, even multiple candidates from the same party meet in the general. If there is no majority winner, then a run-off between the top two vote-getters. Actually, after writing that out, I think I would prefer the latter choice first, and settle for the closed party slating option as a back-up.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

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

May I direct your attention to the following:

Admittedly, there are his heresies on Common Core and immigration....

He does support 2 of MJ's positions that tend to perturb many conservatives and constitutionalists.

 

[Cola76]

Never happen, for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is that the Republicans do not choose the Republican candidate.

If I could make just one change to election laws, it would be a requirement that the party slates it's own candidates and fronts its choice, not the choice of the unvested. Barring that, I would accept a quasi-European style where all the candidates, even multiple candidates from the same party meet in the general. If there is no majority winner, then a run-off between the top two vote-getters. Actually, after writing that out, I think I would prefer the latter choice first, and settle for the closed party slating option as a back-up.

Really the problem is the party system. Our system was not designed to function with established parties. It was designed to elect individuals based on their own merits and not the merits of an organization that backs them. I agree with you that a run-off system would be better, but unfortunately that is not the reality we live in.

 

[88GT]

Really the problem is the party system. Our system was not designed to function with established parties. It was designed to elect individuals based on their own merits and not the merits of an organization that backs them. I agree with you that a run-off system would be better, but unfortunately that is not the reality we live in.

Sort of . We've had parties since the first federal election. It's not having parties that causes problems. It's the way the elections are structured around the parties.

 

[Cola76]

Sort of . We've had parties since the first federal election. It's not having parties that causes problems. It's the way the elections are structured around the parties.

The original parties were not official parties, but two different political philosophies. Naturally, people who share a philosophy will group together. So I suppose I agree that the problem is when the elections are structured around them. I still don't understand how states got roped into funding primary elections that are events dealing with non-governmental institutions.

 

[88GT]

The original parties were not official parties, but two different political philosophies. Naturally, people who share a philosophy will group together. So I suppose I agree that the problem is when the elections are structured around them. I still don't understand how states got roped into funding primary elections that are events dealing with non-governmental institutions.

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.

 

[mrjarrell]

May I direct your attention to the following:

He does support 2 of MJ's positions that tend to perturb many conservatives and constitutionalists.

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.