Backing Jeb is the dumbest thing the GOP establishment can do

[they don't love you like i love you]

Let's see. A majority of primary voters are backing Donald Trump and Ben Carson. There's a tide if anti-establishment populism in the Republican party they're riding. Who's best to stem it?

A member of the Bush family.

ARE YOU F[INKS]ING STUPID?!

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

For once, I actually agree with you.

[The Other Castro]

BRTD made a good political post, this primary season truly is crazy.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

It's a freaking brouhaha that's what it is. But beside Kasich, the establishment can't really rally around a non-Jeb candidate. Christie has many... MANY flaws and Walker literally has imploded.

[Maxwell]

It's a freaking brouhaha that's what it is. But beside Kasich, the establishment can't really rally around a non-Jeb candidate. Christie has many... MANY flaws and Walker literally has imploded.

What about Marco Rubio?

[The Mikado]

Yeah, Jeb Bush is colossally overrated. I suspect that the Establishment will realize this at some point, maybe if Bush is still polling like this at the end of September. It'll be Rubio time.

[°Leprechaun]

Yes, Rubio or Carson could be the ones to watch if Bush doesn't catch on, but Trump could remain in the race until California unless someone emerges as the best alternative. Has he topped at around 25-30%? That's the question, because he may need to do better than that to get the nomination. If things don't change dramatically before the convention it is possible that nobody will have a majority of the delegates. It is way to soon to predict something like that because things will change as more and more candidates drop out early in 2016. I would hate to see a Bush-Clinton race. But if Trump runs as an independent he could still make it an interesting election. If he were to get any electoral votes at all (as an independent) it would be a very small number.

[Likely Voter]

Remember that Bush was plan B for the Establishment after Christie imploded. It really started behind the scenes about a year ago. They were panicked and Bush seemed like a safe bet. I think Kasich should have been more active in the 2014 invisible primary. But in December Bush said he was in (unofficially) and the money started flowing.

The plan was to replicate GW Bush's shock and awe money machine and scare away serious rivals.that didnt work. Then came the summer of the outsiders combined with lackluster Bush.

Now I suspect many Establishment types are looking for plan C. I think it will be Kasich. If he beats Jeb in NH his checkbook (or that of his super PAC) will become infinite.

[Mehmentum]

Rubio would be the ideal establishment candidate, he'd be more likely than Bush or Kasich to unify the party, he isn't as gaffe prone as Walker and Bush, and he polls well against Clinton so far.

His main problem is that he doesn't have a base state in the early primaries.  Walker does well in Iowa.  Bush and Kasich are strongest in New Hampshire.  Rubio isn't strong in any of the early states. He really needs to invest in one state, or else he'll lose them all.

[ViaActiva]

I agree totally, I've never understood Jeb Bush's appeal. An incredibly awkward, uncomfortable and uninspiring man tied down by all the baggage of the Bush Presidency and big donors. Rubio is a far better candidate for the GOP establishment, people are calling for change and Clinton would be very vulnerable against a fresh face.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Bush is the ultimate insider; he has IOUs to call in from folks that can at least shake the money tree.

In truth, I see Jeb Bush as having positioned himself as Trump's ultimate opponent, shoving the other candidates into the background.  TRUMP'S narrative is Trump v. Bush for the nomination, and by doing this, attacking Trump sort of implies supporting Bush.  None of these other establishment guys have been able to benefit from Trump's attacks on Jeb; not Kasich, not Christie, not really Rubio.

Trump's attacking Bush makes Bush look more experienced than the rest of the field.  Perhaps Trump intended this to happen, but whether he intended this or not, he's formulated a Bush/Trump showdown, where the rest of the candidates appear to be mere spectators.  Think about that.  Jeb's not run a great campaign, but he is who he is, and being who he is, coupled with assists from Trump, have elevated him to the status of the Establishment's Man.

As for Carson and Fiorina:  I don't really see their poll numbers as real.  Carson has his admirers, but he's hurt by Trump's sucking up the oxygen, and Fiorina has neither the assets of Trump (not being fired), or Bush (a history of winning elections and governing).  Carson, also, seems overmatched in debate; he's not a political creature, and I can see him being "out of ammunition" in a debate question a la Admiral Stockdale.

[bobloblaw]

Let's see. A majority of primary voters are backing Donald Trump and Ben Carson. There's a tide if anti-establishment populism in the Republican party they're riding. Who's best to stem it?

A member of the Bush family.

ARE YOU F[INKS]ING STUPID?!

Yes, the GOPe is F-ing stupid.

[Figueira]

It's a freaking brouhaha that's what it is. But beside Kasich, the establishment can't really rally around a non-Jeb candidate. Christie has many... MANY flaws and Walker literally has imploded.

What about Marco Rubio?

I agree. I think Rubio is ultimately the one who will win this.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Rubio would be the ideal establishment candidate, he'd be more likely than Bush or Kasich to unify the party, he isn't as gaffe prone as Walker and Bush, and he polls well against Clinton so far.

His main problem is that he doesn't have a base state in the early primaries.  Walker does well in Iowa.  Bush and Kasich are strongest in New Hampshire.  Rubio isn't strong in any of the early states. He really needs to invest in one state, or else he'll lose them all.

If Trump sweeps Iowa and NH Rubio will be the anti-Trump candidate to rally behind.

[dudeabides]

Bush is the ultimate insider; he has IOUs to call in from folks that can at least shake the money tree.

In truth, I see Jeb Bush as having positioned himself as Trump's ultimate opponent, shoving the other candidates into the background.  TRUMP'S narrative is Trump v. Bush for the nomination, and by doing this, attacking Trump sort of implies supporting Bush.  None of these other establishment guys have been able to benefit from Trump's attacks on Jeb; not Kasich, not Christie, not really Rubio.

Trump's attacking Bush makes Bush look more experienced than the rest of the field.  Perhaps Trump intended this to happen, but whether he intended this or not, he's formulated a Bush/Trump showdown, where the rest of the candidates appear to be mere spectators.  Think about that.  Jeb's not run a great campaign, but he is who he is, and being who he is, coupled with assists from Trump, have elevated him to the status of the Establishment's Man.

As for Carson and Fiorina:  I don't really see their poll numbers as real.  Carson has his admirers, but he's hurt by Trump's sucking up the oxygen, and Fiorina has neither the assets of Trump (not being fired), or Bush (a history of winning elections and governing).  Carson, also, seems overmatched in debate; he's not a political creature, and I can see him being "out of ammunition" in a debate question a la Admiral Stockdale.

For starters, the media has done a complete disservice to the American people in this cycle by portraying Trump as far right and Bush as a moderate just because Bush takes a moderate position on immigration policy and Common Core. As Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee increased taxes several times and pardoned multiple criminals. In the U.S. Senate, Rick Santorum voted for steel bailouts, against e-verify, against right to work, and to raise the debt ceiling. Ted Cruz has talked a great deal about conservative values, he's accomplished nothing. Scott Walker initially opposed right to work, supports corporate welfare for ethanol, and supported a position to the left of Bush's on immigration reform in the last decade. Bobby Jindal supported Common Core before he didn't. Ben Carson is weak on the second amendment. Yet, these candidates are all considered far right of Jeb Bush. Now, to be fair, Jindal, Cruz, and Carson are right of Bush, Huckabee and Santorum are not if you actually look at the record. Walker is slightly to Bush's right, but not by much.

Secondly, I think Governor Bush offers a great contrast with Donald Trump. Should Governor Bush be nominated for President in 2016, he will be the most conservative GOP nominee for President since 1984. He has a proven track record of getting things done, he has experience in both the private sector and in government, and he has a clear vision for the future. Donald Trump has no track record in government, he has no executive governmental experience, his private sector record is mixed at best, and he only offers anger.

Finally, let's look at the folks who could potentially get the backing of the establishment. Marco Rubio actually makes sense. He's conservative on 95% of the issues but not extreme, he is articulate, he comes from a swing state, he has broad appeal, and he has a strong grasp of the issues. So he's an option. You then have Chris Christie, who is very much an establishment figure having been very successful at raising money for GOP gubernatorial candidates in 2014. He is a great orator, he dominates debates, and people like his personality. But his record as Governor is one of excessive corporate welfare, 9 credit downgrades, cutting deals with liberals on judicial appointments, a pension crisis, and throwing money at expensive failing schools. Then, there is John Kasich. He spent 18 years in Washington D.C. and has been Governor of Ohio since 2011, it would make sense for the establishment to back him. But nominating someone who had 19 of his 22 cabinet positions going to middle aged white men in a party trying to appeal to hispanics and women is crazy, and nominating someone who believes that expanding medicaid under Obamacare is justified because "St. Peter doesn't ask how many government programs one cuts" and who believes "Roe V. Wade is the law of the land" would be ridiculous in a pro-life party that preaches fiscal conservatism. You then have Jeb Bush, who is related to the last two Republican Presidents, who checks off most conservatives checklist on issues except for on two issues, who has a solid record to run on, and who has appeal to those who supported President Obama in 2008 and 2012.

[The Mikado]

Rubio would be the ideal establishment candidate, he'd be more likely than Bush or Kasich to unify the party, he isn't as gaffe prone as Walker and Bush, and he polls well against Clinton so far.

His main problem is that he doesn't have a base state in the early primaries.  Walker does well in Iowa.  Bush and Kasich are strongest in New Hampshire.  Rubio isn't strong in any of the early states. He really needs to invest in one state, or else he'll lose them all.

If Trump sweeps Iowa and NH Rubio will be the anti-Trump candidate to rally behind.

Where does Rubio make his move? Nevada? No one cares about Nevada compared to the other three early contests. (Granted, if IA, NH, and SC go Trump and Rubio wins NV, that makes him the go to guy by default)

[/]

[Maxwell]

Rubio would be the ideal establishment candidate, he'd be more likely than Bush or Kasich to unify the party, he isn't as gaffe prone as Walker and Bush, and he polls well against Clinton so far.

His main problem is that he doesn't have a base state in the early primaries.  Walker does well in Iowa.  Bush and Kasich are strongest in New Hampshire.  Rubio isn't strong in any of the early states. He really needs to invest in one state, or else he'll lose them all.

If Trump sweeps Iowa and NH Rubio will be the anti-Trump candidate to rally behind.

Where does Rubio make his move? Nevada? No one cares about Nevada compared to the other three early contests. (Granted, if IA, NH, and SC go Trump and Rubio wins NV, that makes him the go to guy by default)

I say South Carolina is where Rubio could make his move. South Carolina has a strong political establishment, but is fairly conservative. McCain won there in 2008, but Gingrich won it in 2012. I believe Rubio could bridge the gap between the two and win there. I think Iowa is D.O.A. for Rubio, and while I think Rubio could manage a good showing in New Hampshire, I don't think he could win the state because he doesn't have especially good ties there and he's not an amazing retail politician.

[7,052,770]

Should Governor Bush be nominated for President in 2016, he will be the most conservative GOP nominee for President since 1984.

What?? If you're going to attack the conservative credentials of other Republicans, you MUST attack Reagan's too? The guy legalized abortion in California pre-Roe v. Wade (the first state to ever do this), gave illegal immigrants amnesty, opposed gay discrimination in schools in the 1970s (!!!), legalized no-fault divorce in California, was a union leader, ran up huge deficits, set tax rates to the mid-30s when they could have been lower, made peace with our great enemy the USSR, etc., etc.

Let me repeat that he it was his signature that turned America from a 100%-elective abortion illegal country to a country that allowed it in its largest state. Let me repeat that it was his signature that gave amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Would a Republican with that record even be allowed on the stage in 2013? Doubtful, and if he were, you and every other Republican would be howling about his lack of conservative credentials.

[dudeabides]

Should Governor Bush be nominated for President in 2016, he will be the most conservative GOP nominee for President since 1984.

What?? If you're going to attack the conservative credentials of other Republicans, you MUST attack Reagan's too? The guy legalized abortion in California pre-Roe v. Wade (the first state to ever do this), gave illegal immigrants amnesty, opposed gay discrimination in schools in the 1970s (!!!), legalized no-fault divorce in California, was a union leader, ran up huge deficits, set tax rates to the mid-30s when they could have been lower, made peace with our great enemy the USSR, etc., etc.

Let me repeat that he it was his signature that turned America from a 100%-elective abortion illegal country to a country that allowed it in its largest state. Let me repeat that it was his signature that gave amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Would a Republican with that record even be allowed on the stage in 2013? Doubtful, and if he were, you and every other Republican would be howling about his lack of conservative credentials.

So you are arguing that Governor Bush is the most conservative nominee since Goldwater?

[The Mikado]

Should Governor Bush be nominated for President in 2016, he will be the most conservative GOP nominee for President since 1984.

What?? If you're going to attack the conservative credentials of other Republicans, you MUST attack Reagan's too? The guy legalized abortion in California pre-Roe v. Wade (the first state to ever do this), gave illegal immigrants amnesty, opposed gay discrimination in schools in the 1970s (!!!), legalized no-fault divorce in California, was a union leader, ran up huge deficits, set tax rates to the mid-30s when they could have been lower, made peace with our great enemy the USSR, etc., etc.

Let me repeat that he it was his signature that turned America from a 100%-elective abortion illegal country to a country that allowed it in its largest state. Let me repeat that it was his signature that gave amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Would a Republican with that record even be allowed on the stage in 2013? Doubtful, and if he were, you and every other Republican would be howling about his lack of conservative credentials.

So you are arguing that Governor Bush is the most conservative nominee since Goldwater?

Are you arguing that Jeb Bush is significantly to the right of his brother?

[dudeabides]

Should Governor Bush be nominated for President in 2016, he will be the most conservative GOP nominee for President since 1984.

What?? If you're going to attack the conservative credentials of other Republicans, you MUST attack Reagan's too? The guy legalized abortion in California pre-Roe v. Wade (the first state to ever do this), gave illegal immigrants amnesty, opposed gay discrimination in schools in the 1970s (!!!), legalized no-fault divorce in California, was a union leader, ran up huge deficits, set tax rates to the mid-30s when they could have been lower, made peace with our great enemy the USSR, etc., etc.

Let me repeat that he it was his signature that turned America from a 100%-elective abortion illegal country to a country that allowed it in its largest state. Let me repeat that it was his signature that gave amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Would a Republican with that record even be allowed on the stage in 2013? Doubtful, and if he were, you and every other Republican would be howling about his lack of conservative credentials.

So you are arguing that Governor Bush is the most conservative nominee since Goldwater?

Are you arguing that Jeb Bush is significantly to the right of his brother?

I am. Look at the record. Jeb Bush vetoed $2 billion in spending with a Republican legislature and Florida's reserves increased by $8 billion; George W. Bush never used his veto pen until his sixth year in office with a Democratic congress and we added $5 trillion to the national debt under his watch. While Jeb Bush privatized and shrunk the size of government, George W. Bush increased the size of government. Jeb reformed a major entitlement program to save money, George W. Bush signed the largest expansion of medicare in the history of the program. Jeb's position on immigration and education are criticized by some on the right today, but he is to the right of his brother on both these issues. Jeb Bush actually vetoed rail funding, George W. Bush signed the largest highway bill in history into law.

[7,052,770]

Should Governor Bush be nominated for President in 2016, he will be the most conservative GOP nominee for President since 1984.

What?? If you're going to attack the conservative credentials of other Republicans, you MUST attack Reagan's too? The guy legalized abortion in California pre-Roe v. Wade (the first state to ever do this), gave illegal immigrants amnesty, opposed gay discrimination in schools in the 1970s (!!!), legalized no-fault divorce in California, was a union leader, ran up huge deficits, set tax rates to the mid-30s when they could have been lower, made peace with our great enemy the USSR, etc., etc.

Let me repeat that he it was his signature that turned America from a 100%-elective abortion illegal country to a country that allowed it in its largest state. Let me repeat that it was his signature that gave amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Would a Republican with that record even be allowed on the stage in 2013? Doubtful, and if he were, you and every other Republican would be howling about his lack of conservative credentials.

So you are arguing that Governor Bush is the most conservative nominee since Goldwater?

It would take a lot more analysis to determine whether that's true. All I'm arguing is that Reagan wasn't conservative by today's standards, even though (in probably the greatest irony in all of modern politics) the more conservative a Republican is, the more he claims to emulate Reagan.

Also, you're definitely jumping the gun by anointing Bush the nominee already.

[Blair]

Well despite his bluster Dudeabides is among the small majority who thinks that GWB was a better President than Obama

[dudeabides]

Should Governor Bush be nominated for President in 2016, he will be the most conservative GOP nominee for President since 1984.

What?? If you're going to attack the conservative credentials of other Republicans, you MUST attack Reagan's too? The guy legalized abortion in California pre-Roe v. Wade (the first state to ever do this), gave illegal immigrants amnesty, opposed gay discrimination in schools in the 1970s (!!!), legalized no-fault divorce in California, was a union leader, ran up huge deficits, set tax rates to the mid-30s when they could have been lower, made peace with our great enemy the USSR, etc., etc.

Let me repeat that he it was his signature that turned America from a 100%-elective abortion illegal country to a country that allowed it in its largest state. Let me repeat that it was his signature that gave amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Would a Republican with that record even be allowed on the stage in 2013? Doubtful, and if he were, you and every other Republican would be howling about his lack of conservative credentials.

So you are arguing that Governor Bush is the most conservative nominee since Goldwater?

It would take a lot more analysis to determine whether that's true. All I'm arguing is that Reagan wasn't conservative by today's standards, even though (in probably the greatest irony in all of modern politics) the more conservative a Republican is, the more he claims to emulate Reagan.

Also, you're definitely jumping the gun by anointing Bush the nominee already.

I do believe he will be the nominee, but I can't say he's a strong front-runner because at this time, he is slipping in the polls much like John McCain did in the summer of 2007. I have admitted it is possible he isn't the nominee, but I give him the advantage.

Well despite his bluster Dudeabides is among the small majority who thinks that GWB was a better President than Obama

I'm not one who uses polls to determine where I stand on issues, but since you bring up polls...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/452129/obama-less-competent-than-george-bush-say-plurality-americans

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/243858-george-w-bush-tops-obama-on-favorability-in-new-poll